Digital Education News | Expert Analysis and Commentary - Edinbox Editorial

I had an opportunity to interact with Sir Mark Tully, and each conversation reinforced why he remained one of the most morally anchored voices in journalism. During one such interaction in Goa in 2019, Tully spoke candidly about India’s declining position on the global press freedom index and what he saw as the troubling silence of the Prime Minister when atrocities are committed in the country. 

He argued that when such incidents occur, the Prime Minister must speak out decisively, adding that silence distorts political debate and shifts public attention from governance failures to manufactured sensations. Tully was particularly critical of the lack of serious discussion on administrative reforms, noting that there is little public accountability for how government programmes are implemented on the ground. He stressed that governments must be prepared to face journalistic scrutiny, describing criticism by the press as invaluable to democracy, and warned that attempts to control the media are dangerous, calling the steady decline in India’s press freedom ranking deeply alarming.

Reflecting on governance, Tully observed that despite visible policy initiatives, administrative functioning remains pervaded by a lingering colonial mindset. He cited examples from rural India, where welfare schemes are often misdirected, such as Below Poverty Line cards being issued to those who least need them, while genuine beneficiaries are ignored, and complaints to block-level officials are routinely dismissed or met with hostility. For Tully, rural India remained central to understanding the country’s real governance challenges, as corruption, nepotism, and systemic failures are most visible at the grassroots. He repeatedly emphasised that journalism must venture beyond urban narratives to document these realities.

Recounting the personal risks he faced as a reporter, Tully shared an incident from his early career while covering riots in Faisalabad, where he returned to a burning site to file his story, was briefly detained, and overheard Indian journalists discussing his situation before they helped secure his release, allowing him to complete the report. The episode, like much of his career, underscored his belief that truthful reporting often demands courage, persistence, and an unwavering commitment to bearing witness.

Early Life

Mark Tully, the legendary BBC journalist often described as the “voice of India”, has passed away, leaving behind a body of work that shaped how the world listened to, argued with, and understood India for more than four decades. For generations of listeners, his measured baritone on the BBC World Service was not merely reporting India—it was interpreting its contradictions with empathy, scepticism, and rare moral clarity.

Born in Kolkata in 1935, the same year the Government of India Act set in motion the final phase of British withdrawal, Tully’s life mirrored the arc of the country he would one day chronicle. Son of a senior colonial-era business executive, he grew up insulated by the privileges and prejudices of the fading Raj. A childhood incident—being slapped by his nanny for learning to count in Hindi—became emblematic of the distance colonial society enforced between itself and India. Tully later referred to himself, half-ironically, as a “relic of the Raj,” fully aware of the contradiction he embodied.

Yet history has a way of reclaiming its own. When Tully returned to India in the early 1960s as Assistant Representative at the BBC’s New Delhi bureau, he encountered a nation that no longer belonged to the empire but to uncertainty, ambition, and democratic churn. Carving a space for the BBC in an airwave landscape dominated by Akashvani and Radio Ceylon was no small task. What distinguished Tully was not speed or sensationalism, but patience—listening longer, asking harder questions, and refusing to simplify India for foreign consumption.

Under his stewardship, the BBC reported on India’s most defining moments: the 1965 and 1971 wars, the birth of Bangladesh, the Emergency of 1975, Punjab’s insurgency, and Operation Blue Star. His journalism was not detached; it was deeply contextual, often uncomfortable, and fiercely independent. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when most agencies fled, Tully and colleague Satish Jacob reconstructed the conflict from Delhi airport interviews—an exercise in journalistic ingenuity that later revealed the shadowy movements of Murtaza Bhutto.

Legends followed him. During the Emergency, an alleged broadcast nearly landed him in jail on Indira Gandhi’s orders—until I K Gujral discovered the report was fiction. For 22 years as BBC’s India Bureau Chief, Tully became an institution unto himself. After radio, he turned to documentaries and books, most notably India’s Unending Journey, continuing his lifelong interrogation of power, faith, and democracy.

Knighted in 2002 and awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2005, Sir Mark Tully remained a familiar presence at the Press Club of India—curious, accessible, and always listening. He arrived as an outsider. He stayed long enough to become indispensable. And in doing so, Mark Tully did what few correspondents ever manage: he stopped reporting India from a distance and began speaking with it.

India’s higher education has carried a quiet contradiction for decades.We promised mass access and global competitiveness in the same breath, but we continued to run universities on a timetable-and-classroom logic designed for a smaller, more uniform learner population.

The UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of Undergraduate Degree and Postgraduate Degree) Regulations, 2025 effectively updates that operating system—without shouting—by shifting the sector from rigid, single-track journeys to stackable, flexible,credit-based learning lives.Placed alongside the National Credit Framework ecosystem and theemerging practice of blended learning and multi-assessment, the 2025 direction is not incremental reform. It is a new design philosophy: higher education as a portfolio of capabilities, not a single linear credential. The young learner today does not want only “a degree”; they want a credible pathway to a job, a career pivot, an enterprise, a second skill stack,and—most importantly—a sense that learning can keep pace with life.What follows is a pro-student, pro-placements, pro-entrepreneurship reading of the five major “game changers” now made possible at scale: two admissions a year; open choice of discipline; dual degrees including online pathways; up to 50% credits as skills/vocation/apprenticeship; and a decisive movement toward continuous, authentic assessment beyond written exams. These are not five separate reforms. They are five parts of one larger shift: the university becoming a platform where learning, work, and capability development meet.

The Second Intake Revolution: Ending the “Lost Year” Penalty Two admissions a year—July/August and January/February—may look like a calendar adjustment, but it is, in reality, an equity reform. India has a large pool of “near entrants”: students who are qualified and motivated, yet miss admission windows because of a medical crisis at home, a financial disruption, a delayed result, a migration, or a caregiving obligation. In the old system, missing one deadline often meant losing one full year, and the “lost year” frequently became a lost Learner.Biannual admissions convert that leakage into enrolment. They also change the psychology of aspiration. A student who misses an intake no longer feels “I failed” but “I will enter in the next cycle.” In several contexts, universities have already begun aligning processes with this logic; Gujarat University’s reported second-phase admissions and the idea of direct entry into the second semester signal how institutions can operationalise the principle.The deeper opportunity is even more consequential. Two intakes normalize work-integrated entry. A learner can spend six months in an apprenticeship, a skilling term, or a structured internship, and still enter the degree pathway in January without losing academic rhythm. When the university begins to recognise that learning happens in seasons—sometimes in classrooms, sometimes in workplaces—it becomes far more attractive to first-generation learners and working learners who cannot afford “education without earnings.”Discipline Is No Longer Destiny: Freedom to Choose, with Bridge-to-Choice UGC 2025 takes a bold position that Indian education has needed for a long time: the subjects you studied in Class 12 should not imprison your future. If a learner clears the relevant entrance examination, they can enter an undergraduate discipline irrespective of their school subject combination, with the institution empowered to provide bridge courses to address gaps. The same spirit extends to postgraduate entry as well: learners can move across domains, provided they meet entrance requirements and complete any necessary foundational support.This is pro-student, but it is also pro-economy. The job market is reorganising around skill clusters, not traditional departments. It is increasingly normal for careers to sit at intersections: data plus domain knowledge; design plus business; psychology plus HR analytics; law plus technology; sustainability plus finance; communication plus digital strategy. In such a world, forcing learners to stay “within lane” is not academic purity; it is employability sabotage.
There is also a deeply Indian reason this matters. Many learners discover their real interests late, often after exposure to the world of work or after encountering the right mentor. A student who chose science in school under family pressure may genuinely belong to media and communication; a commerce student may find their calling in product design or public policy. The new flexibility makes the university a place where such discovery is possible without social penalty.The institution-level implementation cue is clear: build a flexible major–minor architecture and a meaningful common core. A learner should be able to hold a primary identity—say, engineering or commerce—while building a formal secondary identity through a minor,a certificate, or a cross-faculty sequence. A common core that includes design thinking, financial literacy, and AI ethics is no longer “nice to have”; it is baseline competence for citizenship and work.The bridge-course mindset will decide whether this reform becomes liberating or merely procedural. If bridge courses become remedial and stigmatizing, the reform will underperform. If bridge courses are designed as launchpads—short, studio-like foundational modules that build confidence through applied learning—discipline mobility will become a genuine democratizer.

Dual Degrees: The Portfolio Learner Becomes Legitimate UGC 2025 formally recognises the possibility of pursuing two UG programmes simultaneously and two PG programmes simultaneously,within the flexibility frameworks notified by the Commission. This sits comfortably with the earlier logic that allowed two programmes across modes—one physical and one ODL/online, or even two ODL/online—subject to recognition, overlap rules, and compliance.At its best, dual-degree design solves a real market problem. Graduates frequently emerge with either domain knowledge without contemporary skills, or skills without domain anchoring. Dual learning allows breadth without abandoning depth. It also legitimises the “hybrid professional,” increasingly the most employable person in the room: the BA/BCom learner with data foundations; the BSc learner with UI/UX and product thinking; the engineer with entrepreneurship and management; the humanities learner with digital media and analytics.

Consider a realistic student in Kolkata or Raipur: enrolled in a conventional undergraduate programme, but also pursuing an online pathway in data analysis, digital marketing, or product design from a recognised provider. In three years, that learner’s transcript becomes a portfolio: one part disciplinary training, one part employability stack,and one part demonstrated work. The university stops producing “graduates,” and starts producing “profiles.” The foreign online degree possibility adds a further layer of opportunity: global exposure, benchmarking, and network effects. But it must be handled with adult caution. Recognition and regulatory alignment matter, and learners must be protected from non-recognised or non-transferable traps. The safest, most student-friendly pathway is not to discourage international online learning, but to build advising and due diligence so students choose credible, recognised options and understand how these credentials will be valued by employers and Institutions.

In other words, dual degrees can democratise global learning, but only if the university becomes a guide, not a bystander.

When 50% Credits Can Be Skills: The Degree Learns to Work One of the most transformative possibilities in UGC 2025 is the explicit permission to structure learning such that while a learner secures a minimum 50% of total credits in the discipline to earn a major, the remaining 50% may come from skill courses, apprenticeships, and multidisciplinary subjects. The regulations also emphasise integrating vocational education, training and skilling, and internships within UG/PG structures. This is not cosmetic. It dismantles an old hierarchy where skills were treated as “extra,” and signals a new reality: a degree is not only knowledge; it is capability. Once skills and work-based learning carry real credit weight, higher education becomes attractive to those who were previously ambivalent about universities—working learners who need flexibility, first-generation learners who demand employability value, and families who cannot afford years of education without visible Outcomes. This is precisely where the National Credit Framework logic becomes operational. If up to half the learning can be creditised across academic,vocational, skills, and experiential domains—recorded through appropriate credit banks and mapped to outcomes—then education and training stop competing. They begin to blend. The employability engine is simple but often missed: skills must be embedded inside the curriculum, not treated as a weekend add-on. When skills training, interdisciplinarity, organic learning, and multi-assessment work together, graduates become demonstrable problem-solvers rather than transcript-holders. A student who has completed a credit-bearing apprenticeship in a local industry cluster, a stackable micro-credential aligned to hiring needs, and a capstone that solves a real problem is not merely “qualified.” They are employable with evidence.

This shift also energises entrepreneurship. A skill minor in product Management or digital commerce can feed directly into venture building.

A vocational-credit sequence in sustainability auditing can become a service enterprise. A design-and-business blend can produce founders

who understand both creation and markets. When credits legitimise skill-building, the university begins to generate not only job seekers but

job creators.

Exams Make Way for Evidence: Continuous, Authentic, and Not Only Written

UGC 2025 decisively broadens evaluation beyond written examinations.It expands the units of evaluation to include seminars, presentations,class performance, fieldwork, and similar demonstrations, with weightage determined transparently by academic bodies. It mandates continuous evaluation alongside semester or year-end examinations and asks institutions to prioritise formative assessment.

The most important implication is cultural: assessment begins to shift from testing memory to validating capability. Many people fear that continuous and non-written assessment “lowers standards.” In reality, it often raises standards because it makes learning harder to fake. A written exam can be gamed; a portfolio of work, a live project, a lab demonstration, a reflective log of problem-solving, and a capstone cannot be replicated without real engagement. Multi-assessment, as an institutional practice, reduces the high-stakes pressure of single-shot exams and makes evaluation more inclusive for diverse learners. It also creates richer employability signals. Employers do not hire marks; they hire evidence of capability. When assessment includes performance-based tasks, inquiry-driven assignments,collaborative work, and reflective documentation, the transcript becomes a story of what the learner can actually do. Indian universities already offer hints of how this can work. Delhi University’s UGCF entrepreneurship track, for instance, speaks the language of venture building—idea validation, market research, prototype or MVP development—essentially treating entrepreneurship as assessable learning rather than as extracurricular theatre. That is exactly the shift India needs: assessment as proof of creation, not proof of recall.

A well-designed system will make e-portfolios and capstones mainstream. The e-portfolio becomes the learner’s public ledger: curated projects, fieldwork, presentations, prototypes, writing samples, and reflections. It is simultaneously an assessment tool and a placement asset. Done properly, it becomes the learner’s most powerful negotiation instrument in the job market.

The Missing Link: Blended Learning and a Project Ecology that Protects Equity

None of these reforms scale unless universities can deliver learning through a blended, flexible architecture. Blended learning is not a superficial “tech addition.” It is the cohesive integration of face-to-face and online modes through curriculum redesign—moving passive content delivery into flexible spaces and using in-person time for active,participative learning.

But India’s equity constraint is real. The digital divide is not a slogan; it is a structural barrier. If blended learning is designed around data-heavy, synchronous video models suited to high-resource environments,it will exclude precisely those learners higher education must include.This is why an “asynchronous-first” design philosophy matters. When content is accessible on low bandwidth, mobile-first platforms; when learning resources can be downloaded and revisited; when engagement is designed through thoughtful discussion prompts and periodic high-impact in-person sessions—then blended learning becomes a tool of inclusion rather than exclusion.

A strong blended model also builds a project ecology. It frees campus time for studios, collaboration, fieldwork, and project-based learning. It encourages interdisciplinarity because real projects rarely respect departmental boundaries. It makes room for apprenticeships and internships because learning can be planned around work cycles. In short, blended learning is not merely a delivery mode; it is the infrastructure of flexibility.

The New Campus Engine: When Placements and Entrepreneurship Share One Wheel

UGC 2025 gives the policy space, but universities must build the institutional machinery. A key shift is to stop treating placement as a seasonal activity and begin treating it as a year-round academic engine. That means building a robust Collaboration and Placement Centre with a dual mandate: placements and entrepreneurship. In a developing economy, employability and enterprise creation are not separate missions; they are two sides of the same economic development coin. This is where industry engagement becomes more than MoUs and guest lectures. Partnerships must mature into structured pipelines: internship quotas, live projects, co-developed modules, mentorship, and recruitment alignment. When industry advisory boards inform curricula, when projects are sourced from real industry pain points, and when evaluation is built around authentic outcomes, placements stop being a last-semester scramble. They become the natural consequence of the learning model. India has already seen how institutional ecosystems can shape entrepreneurial outcomes. Incubation and innovation models associated with leading institutions—such as structured entrepreneurship and incubation ecosystems—show that when mentorship, networks, and real problem solving are institutionalised, venture creation rises. UGC 2025, through credit flexibility and authentic assessment, makes it possible to embed those ecosystems into mainstream degrees, not only into elite Islands. A More Humane, More Useful University UGC 2025 should be understood as a shift from degree delivery to capability development—multiple entry points, multiple pacing options, and multiple ways to prove competence. It is pro-student because it respects life realities. It is pro-placements because it legitimises skills, portfolios, apprenticeships, and industry-facing outcomes. It is pro- entrepreneurship because it makes projects and venture-building assessable within formal education.

The true “game changer” is not any single clause. It is the combined effect: a university that can admit more learners, let them build hybrid identities, let them earn skill credits meaningfully, and let them prove learning through authentic work. Done well, this is how India increases participation, reduces dropouts, improves graduate outcomes, and creates a generation that is not only educated, but employable, entrepreneurial, and future-ready.

An astounding feature of India's higher education is that it ranks among the biggest in the world, with a plethora of colleges, a few hundred universities, and an annual output of millions of graduates. Nevertheless, such a vast setup is confronted with a critical issue: why is it that not even one Indian university, despite its magnitude, finds a regular place among the worlds top, ranked institutions?

That question is, in fact, more poignant if we actually recall that this same land was a world centre of learning some two millennia ago. Universities like Nalanda and Takshashila were not only India’s pride but part of the world’s shared intellectual heritage. Today, it seems the roles have been reversed since Indian students have been going abroad for studies in increasing numbers, Indian universities have been continuously falling behind in global rankings.

At the heart of the problem, there is a university system in India that is not strong in research culture, that is not well funded, that lacks academic freedom and that is not globally oriented. It is quite true that India is a major contributor to the world's research papers, but their citation impact of these papers is much lower than that of leading countries. The main reasons are: very limited spreading of funds, no high tech facilities, very few opportunities, and overburdening of the teaching faculty. If researchers are not given sufficient time and resources, production of high, quality work is very unlikely.

Institutions such as the IITs churn out brilliant engineers, but if they fail to massively integrate disciplines like medicine, law, social sciences, and public policy, they won't be able to meet the global standards. At the same time, the top universities in the world are dependent on interdisciplinary ecosystems that incubate creativity and innovation. India's system, however, remains confined to silos.

Governance and autonomy issues are also major impediments. A large number of Indian universities are so deeply caught up in bureaucratic controls and policy limitations that they almost cannot make quick, autonomous decisions. Meanwhile, leading global universities attract top talent because of their flexibility and freedom.

Equally concerning is the near absence of foreign faculty on Indian campuses. Visa rules, salary caps, and the red tape of the bureaucracy are some of the things that prevent talented people from all over the world from coming to India. Consequently, Indian higher education institutions do not have the international mix that is one of the factors directly affecting the global rankings of universities.

Yet, there is still some small hope at the end of the tunnel. The rise of a handful of private universities, such as Ashoka, O.P. Jindal, and Amrita, show that Indian universities can really compete at the global level if they are given proper autonomy and the right facilities. A major aspect of their fast progression has been their freedom to form partnerships abroad.

In essence, the main question should not be why India is losing ground but what great leap it can take by 2047. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has set broad directions by focusing on multidisciplinary education, research, and granting more autonomy to institutions. However, policies by themselves do not suffice. India should take bold steps in making research a high priority, training professors, forming partnerships abroad, and structurally upgrading its universities.

If India successfully tackles the above challenge, then it will not only be an economic giant but also a world intellectual leader by 2047. On the other hand, if the slow pace continues, the rest of the world will advance, and India will keep questioning: why are our universities not among the best?st global academic legacy.

The long-running debate over India’s entrance examination system appears to be reaching a decisive turning point. The central government’s proposed SAT-based admission model is not just a move towards phasing out major national-level exams like NEET, JEE, and CUET—it is an attempt to reshape the entire education ecosystem under a new framework. If implemented, this could be considered the biggest reform in Indian higher education in decades.

The goal of this new system is pretty straightforward: to lessen student stress, limit the coaching culture dependency, and bring school education back to the main focus. This method is in line with the essence of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which has always highlighted school- based assessment and conceptual learning.

Will This Model Alleviate Student Burden?

Scheduling the SAT twice in the Class 11 proposal seems like a fair compromise. Besides one more chance to better their scores, students, when their Class 12 board results are combined, could see the admission process gradually becoming more integrated, transparent, and school centric.

In the past, the whole pressure of competitive examinations has been on after Class 12. By distributing this burden over two years, the new system could significantly reduce mental stress among students.

Can the Coaching Culture Really Be Curbed?

India's coaching industry has practically evolved into an education system parallel to the formal one. Kota and Hyderabad, Delhi, and Patna are cities that draw hundreds of thousands of students every year.

Higher stress, financial issues, and the steady stream of news about student suicides have regularly exposed the flaws of this system

Measures in the new framework like cutting down coaching hours, not allowing students under 16 years to attend, and school related exams can reduce the influence of coaching centres. Such a change would be welcomed by society and parents alike.

A Transformative Step for Rural and Marginalised Students

The biggest challenge in Indian education has always been equal opportunity. When coaching is expensive and access to big cities is limited, rural and economically weaker students are naturally left behind.

The new system could significantly narrow this gap. NCERT-based assessments, in-school preparation, and fair percentile-based allocation could make the admission process more inclusive.

Is Uniformity Across State Boards Possible?

This is perhaps the most critical challenge. India's state boards vary greatly in their syllabi, assessment patterns, and difficulty standards. In case the SAT syllabus is based on NCERT, state boards will need to overhaul their curricula to keep the students at the same level.

The change will be possible only if the states are empowered with a major role and given sufficient time to execute the plan.

What Do Experts Say?Many experts are of the opinion that this model can lighten the students' stress load, however, they also regard syllabus alignment as the biggest problem. They see it as a great chance for students from rural areas and tell teachers to start preparing for the change now.

Some educators feel the system could help end rote learning, but they also stress the importance of uniformity across state boards. In their view, this reform could improve mental health, offer financial relief, and enhance teaching quality.However, they also suggest pilot projects first to full, scale implementation.

Educators' optimistic responses notwithstanding, they also show that they are cautious about the challenges of execution.

The Bigger Picture

The main purpose of the new admission system is fundamentally good and it can bring about a number of benefits, such as student stress reduction, school education getting its due, and decreasing reliance on coaching institutes.

However, this change is far more than simply a matter of an examination, it demands a fundamental re-thinking of the way students are taught, how the teachers will be prepared, and the whole administrative machinery of education. The model will only be viable and sustainable if the government opts for the phased implementation, first through pilot projects, and later in partnership with the states.

The choice of 2027 as the deadline is certainly a bold move, however, it could very well be the beginning of a new era for the Indian education system.

When scientists first saw a Platypus in 1799, they named it a hoax. Duck bill on a beaver body with venomous spurs? Absurd. Yet this evolutionary odd ball has survived 110 million years - through asteroid strikes and ice ages that killed giants. Secret? Perfect niche mastery. It preys when it's blind, by just using electroreceptors, swims where predators can't follow and combines reptile-mammal characteristics no one else has. That’s exactly what a small university dominating global rankings is– a Platypus.

Your small university or tier-2/tier-3 college in Lucknow, Coimbatore or Jaipur has similar skepticism. Less funding than IITs. Smaller faculty pools. No global brand. But the Platypus Effect is the proof of small wins through ruthless specialisation.

Global Rankings Don't Reward Size, They Reward These 5 Metrics

QS World University Rankings 2025 (1,500+ institutions): 40% academic reputation 20% citations per faculty 20% faculty-student ratio. Times Higher Education 2025: Teaching quality 29.5%, weight heavily on research impact. NIRF India 2025: Teaching resources (30 points), Research Productivity (30 points), Graduate outcomes (20 points).

So, how do small universities climb the rankings in the world? The truth is that all three measure current output and not historical prestige or what your university has achieved earlier. NIRF 2025 data shocked everyone because 42 Universities crashed India's top 100, mostly from ranks 51-200. A jump in score of 3.99 = 40 rank position gained. Small universities are faster when they work on focusing exactly like a platypus would usually do.

Small Universities Must Become a Platypus

We all know about Phineas and Ferbs, and you are surely aware of how their pet platypus kept being their lucky charm, right? Perry was a detective in the show who was thought to be a quiet animal but did things no one expected. That’s exactly what these creatures did in the real world! 

Have you ever thought how could this species defy the law of nature and survive? Experts believed these creatures couldn’t last longer in this evolving world but Platypus Perry is a dopey looking pet that somehow outsmarts supervillains every day. Tier-2/3 colleges have Perry's agility advantage. You teach 80% of India's graduates in cities building real infrastructure and resources in defense, agriculture, manufacturing, not just Bengaluru’s IT unicorns.

UPES has climbed 250 QS positions owning energy engineering. Graphic Era University specialized in niches of hill states of tech. Madan Mohan Malaviya University (Gorakhpur) leaped NIRF bands by focused research. These aren't flukes, they're Platypus Effect Execution. 

How Can a University Improve its Ranking: 5-Steps to Take

Instead of accepting your fate of being an autonomous or local university and googling things like “how small can a university be,” start acting like a platypus and gradually become Perry the Platyus defying all the perceptions of growth, and achieve global recognition.  It is not an impossible task; you need to take just 5 fundamental steps:

1.  Pick Your Driver (Niche Dominance That Crushes Giants)

Forget about copying IIT curriculums. Search "university niche specialization success" - same story everywhere. Rural university? Own agri-biotech where there is no elite to bother? Industrial city? Rule advanced manufacturing. Tier-2 tech hub? Fintech, drones, cyber security.

UPES proves the math: Target 5 publications per department annually in your niche. Launch 1-2 research centers. Citations are on balloons within 18 months, pulling all the ranking metrics up. Giants spread thin across 50 disciplines. You go deep in 3-5 where you can actually win. This isn't theory, it's how small universities actually beat others in world rankings.

1. Smart Global Moves (International Clout Without Millions)

QS/THE international outlook = 10% of score. You beat lumbering giants here.

How? 

1. Email 10 professors worldwide doing adjacent niche work
2. Propose co-authored papers (they want Indian collaborators too)
3. Host 2-3 funded international PhDs in your research center
4. Your deal closes in 3 months. IITs take 2 years.

Result: International co-authorship metrics skyrocket across all systems

3. Faculty = Your Rocket Fuel (Research Productivity Blueprint)

NIRF data: Phd faculty share jumped 28% (2017) to 48% (2025) in climbing universities. Small unis make rockstars faster than tier 1 inherits them.

Execute:

• Biweekly journal clubs (acquaint students with research talk)
• Conference travel grants ($1K/each moves metrics)
• Writing groups + editing support (most papers die here)
• Publication bonuses (25K/paper works)
• HODs: Start by your top 3 researchers. One department's progress drives the institution.

4. Graduate Outcomes: Your Invisible Weapon

All rankings obsess over placements. Recruiters ask "Can they deliver Day 1?" not "IIT or tier-3?" Your local advantage dominates here. Map district-level hiring needs. Secure 5-10 employer pipelines for live projects and internships. Track alumni 3 years out, publish their success stories aggressively. Tier-2 placement rates hit 60-70% through relationships, boosting NIRF graduation outcomes (20 points) dramatically. 

5. Data Dashboard or Die

Assign two staff to track monthly NIRF score calculators, QS citation trajectories, 3-year alumni employment rates, and international paper pipelines. Calculate your exact NIRF/QS/THE scores today. Set department targets. Conduct quarterly reviews. Cambridge University of Kashmir's 2025 plan proves this math works.

Will Local Universities Get Rankings Even If Gen Z Skips Daily College?

Ranking disregards the number of students in the classroom - they are pursuing what students attain after getting their degrees. The 20 point graduation outcomes section of NIRF addresses median salary, PHD admissions, and employer response 3 years later. The QS employer reputation surveys also place one question to the hiring managers, which is whether they would re-hire their graduates again. Halls of lectures that are empty do not enroll.

Years ago physical attendance as a measure was killed. The Choice-Based Credit System created by NAAC already includes the exposure hours in the industry, online modules, and capstone projects as equals to the classroom time. Your student of mechanical engineering in Coimbatore who spends his mornings at a local plant of TVS and afternoons writing automation systems That is all academic credit according to the 2023 rules.

There is a latent advantage to the tier-3 colleges. Students are local residents who have to commute over short distances and are employed on part-time basis by local employers. The B.Tech final-year student who was working night shifts with the district pharma unit as he studied theory online? NAAC gives those hours of practice 3 times the credits on outcome-based learning.

Reorganize Gen Z reality

Introduction of "Work-Learn Degrees" that will have students attending partner companies 60 percent of the time, and campus 40 percent of the time. Local steel mills, garment factories, automobile parts, they must have good juniors at once. One semester of actual productive line work is equal to three years of textbook knowledge on the scores of employer perception.

District-level hiring maps beat national placement cells.. The graduate of your local civil engineering school doing the bridges on the state PWD has exponentially more NIRF weight on him than an attendee at a daily meeting. VCs: recruit one placement officer that will be familiar with all the owners of the factories within 50km. Publicize alumni wages on a per company basis, rather than percentage basis. Earnings information is more reputable than attendance certificates.

Gen Z skipping routine classes hands you outcome-based ranking dominance. Everyday college was no longer possible because employers began recruiting through GitHub profiles and LinkedIn projects. Construct the system that rewards them on what they actually accomplish. Rankings are after graduate success stories and not roll call sheets. 

What Deans, HODs, VCs of Local Universities Need To Do For Dominating Rankings?

HODs begin with the department meeting at 9 AM. Assign clear paper quotas by discipline - Computer Science gets five Scopus papers this year, Biotech wants to have four Q1 journals. Schedule weekly biweekly research huddles in which faculty share paper drafts and receive immediate feedback. Before lunch: One targeted email to a professor overseas who is working on related research. One department doing so generates institutional momentum. NIRF research scores jump 15-20 points if faculty are serious about it.

Deans declare money for research seed funding Monday afternoon. Launch dashboards for citations, international work and alumni placements by department. Faculty growth trumps new buildings for QS, THE and NIRF rankings. Recruiters hire graduates that deliver rather than campus architecture.

VCs dedicate 5% of the operating budget to research operations immediately. Personal one international partnership calls your position an opening door. Celebrate first publications through public assemblies and press releases. Visible ranking improvements come in 24 months through execution, not aspiration. NIRF 2025 showed 42 universities got into the top 100 through focused action.

Rankings are for doers, not dreamers. HODs create momentum. Deans are engine builders of research. VCs deliver results. Small universities move upward by acting Monday morning.

How to Apply for World Rankings (As Small/Local University) (Do This NOW)

Stop waiting for "prestige." Rankings reward action. Download QS Stars rating system (perfect for small universities) - they rate niche excellence even if you're unranked. Submit THE Impact Rankings (1,500+ small universities qualify)—your agri-tech center scores high. NIRF registration opens up in March - upload teaching metrics, research output, even starting from zero. ARWU (Shanghai Rankings) accepts research-focused submissions using publication records only.

Week 1 action: Assign two staff to calculate some existing NIRF/QS scores using the public methodology documents. 

Week 2: Sign up for QS Stars + THE Impact. 

Week 3: Launch niche research center 5 paper target 

Small universities witness between 20 - 40 jumps in positions Year 2 when they treat rankings as operations not dreams. And universities searching "how small universities apply QS rankings," same steps are to be followed everywhere.

Your River Is Waiting, Dive-in Or Let Others Rule It

Gladwell proved that underdogs win 64% with adapted strategy. NIRF 2025's fastest climbers? Tier-2/3 universities. Nazarbayev University gained World Recognition from the same focus. 2025 saw small universities jump when they were focused. 2026 is execution time.

The Platypus Effect isn't theory. It's biology. It's rankings math. It's UPES jumping 250 QS positions. It's 42 NIRF universities are in the top 100.

Leaders googling “how small universities dominate global rankings” are seeking for hope and you are now holding the playbook. So, stop apologizing for being small or local. Rule your river. Execute without mercy. Rankings will follow! 

Rankings ke piche mt bhago, kabil bano aur rankings apke piche bhagengi! (Rancho, 3 idiots)

Walk into any Indian university today and you can sense two strong currents in the air. One is excitement. Artificial intelligence, automation and new digital tools are expanding what students can build, design and publish—often in weeks, not years. The other is anxiety. Job markets are uncertain, business cycles are unpredictable, and many roles are being redesigned faster than degrees can update themselves.

In that tension sits the most urgent question for higher education: what is a university preparing a student for, really? If the answer is only “a job,” the institution is already behind the curve. But if the answer is “a life of value creation under uncertainty,” then the university’s core mandate changes. It must teach people how to innovate—not occasionally, not as a hobby, and not only in engineering and management, but across disciplines and across the entire functioning of

the university.

That is why the idea of an “innovation university” matters. It is not a new centre with a new logo. It is a campus-wide operating system—leadership, culture, incentives, assessment, resources and partnerships—designed to make new ideas routine and execution normal.

From “Entrepreneurial University” to “Engaged University”: An Indian Upgrade

Globally, innovation in universities is often framed through the lens of commercialization: patents, licensing and high-tech spin-offs. That “entrepreneurial university” model has value, but in much of India the deeper opportunity lies elsewhere. The more relevant shift is toward an “engaged university”—one that still participates in economic growth, but stays rooted in regional problem-solving, sustainability and community partnership.

This is not a philosophical preference; it is a pragmatic reading of India’s innovation terrain. Many of the country’s most urgent innovation needs are not only breakthroughs in labs, but solutions that work at scale in real conditions—affordable healthcare delivery, climate resilience, learning outcomes, safety, skilling, MSME productivity, and governance services that reach the last mile.

In such contexts, universities can act as protected “shelters” where students, faculty, communities and NGOs co-create frugal and inclusive innovations—solutions designed to be affordable, adaptable and accessible.

When a university internalises this mission, it stops behaving like a “people factory” and starts behaving like an anchor institution: a reliable idea generator with the ability to change outcomes beyond the campus walls.

Innovation Is Not an Event. It Is a System.

Many campuses already host hackathons, startup weekends and innovation festivals. They create noise, photographs and short-term energy. But without a system, the energy dissipates after the event. The document you shared makes the central point clearly: innovation succeeds when universities build mutually reinforcing enablers, not isolated activities.

That is the logic behind the 10Square Model, which frames innovation culture as ten interacting levers that together turn a campus into a “cradle of new ventures.” The lesson is not to chase ten separate projects, but to design a connected ecosystem where one reform amplifies the next.

The Model for Future Universities

The model explicitly warns against checklist thinking: the power lies in systemic interaction. Consider one practical example from the same framework. Leadership may publicly encourage risk-taking, but that message remains rhetorical if assessment continues to reward only memory and compliance. The moment a university changes evaluation to give credit for prototypes, pitches and documented learning from failure, the culture becomes real.

In innovation, what gets measured gets done. Leadership: The First Campus Innovation Tool Innovation dies first in fear—fear of being judged, fear of failing, fear of “wasting time” on something that will not be graded. Your document makes a direct link between positive, participative leadership and the psychological safety that allows students and faculty to pursue bold ideas.

This is where many Indian institutions can act immediately without waiting for new buildings or large budgets. Leadership can normalise experimentation by making it visible and safe—by celebrating attempts, rewarding learning, and treating failure as data rather than disgrace.

Universities that do this are not lowering standards; they are changing the standard from “perfect answers” to “credible problem-solving.” 

Admissions and Branding: Recruit Innovators, Not Only Toppers

Most universities market programmes. Innovation universities market problems worth solving. That is a subtle but decisive shift in admissions and public communication. Instead of presenting only infrastructure and placements, campuses can showcase real challenges sourced from local industry, civic bodies, hospitals, schools and NGOs—then show how student teams worked on them.

This approach also changes admissions logic. An innovation-oriented admissions track can recognise portfolios, projects, hackathon participation, creative work and community problem-solving evidence—not as “extra-curricular,” but as valid indicators of future value creation.

Scholarships become a strategic tool in this ecosystem. The document highlights a reality that Indian families understand deeply: the biggest barrier to pursuing entrepreneurship is often financial risk. Targeted entrepreneurship scholarships create a “runway” that de-risks early venture work, while also providing “smart capital” through networks, mentorship and credibility.

Curriculum: Make Innovation a Graduate Attribute, Not an Elective

Most institutions treat innovation as a course students may opt into if they have spare time. The innovation university treats it as a graduate attribute—something every student should practise, regardless of discipline.

The practical implication is straightforward. Every programme can be designed with a staged innovation pathway: early grounding in innovation methods, then discipline-based studios, then live problem labs, and finally a capstone project that produces something tangible—a prototype, a policy design, a service redesign, a validated venture idea, or an impact solution with measurable outcomes.

Interdisciplinary design is non-negotiable. Breakthrough ideas often emerge at intersections, and structured cross-major challenges create stronger ventures and more adaptable innovators. India already has institutional references for how this can scale. University-linked incubators such as IIT Bombay’s Society for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SINE) demonstrate what happens when research, mentoring and venture support sit close to the student

journey.

The point for other universities is not to copy an IIT model wholesale, but to replicate the principle: make pathways visible, support consistent, and outcomes count.

Pedagogy: Shift from “Coverage” to “Creation”

Innovation cannot be taught only through lectures. It is learned through building—by stepping into messy problems, listening to users, testing ideas, and iterating quickly. Your document uses a powerful phrase for this: “organic learning.” It describes a shift away from lecture-hall transmission toward experiential discovery, where students engage directly with complex, unstructured real-world problems and learn the foundational entrepreneurial act of identifying and understanding a problem worth solving.

This is particularly relevant for Indian campuses because it aligns naturally with the country’s real needs. A municipal ward, a district hospital, a government school cluster, an MSME association, a farmer collective, a tourism cluster, a women’s self-help group—each can

become a learning partner.

In such settings, students learn to operate under constraints, build frugal prototypes, and measure what actually changes. The broader claim in the document is that such learning environments stimulate autonomy, intrinsic motivation and diverse perspectives, which are key conditions for creativity. In other words, the pedagogy is not “practical training” in a narrow sense; it is a direct route to innovation capacity.

Evaluation: If You Grade Only Exams, You Will Get Only Exams

Assessment is where the university’s true priorities become visible. If exams dominate, innovation becomes extracurricular—even if the institution runs events and builds centres. Your document’s “Multi Assessment” approach argues for assessment methods that can capture dynamic skills like creativity, risk-taking and practical problem-solving, which traditional exams and essays measure poorly.

It recommends authentic assessment through realistic tasks such as investor pitches, marketing plans, working prototypes, portfolios, public demonstrations, and structured peer and self-assessment. The deeper point is cultural: when venture creation itself earns academic

credit, students understand that innovation is not a side hustle. It is legitimate academic work.

For Indian universities, this is one of the most direct levers to pull because it does not require permission from the future. It requires courage in the present: to redesign rubrics and to trust documented learning and real outcomes.

The Innovation Policy Tailwind Is Already Here

Indian higher education does not have to invent a policy justification for this shift. The National Innovation and Startup Policy 2019 is explicit about the gap: “innovation is still not the epicenter of education,” and HEIs must enable a cultural and attitudinal shift so that innovation and startup culture becomes a primary fulcrum of higher education.

Similarly, the Ministry of Education’s Institution’s Innovation Councils (IIC) framework spells out what many campuses need operationally: conduct innovation and entrepreneurship activities, identify and reward innovations, organise interactions with entrepreneurs and investors, and create mentor pools for student innovators.

In other words, universities that move now are not acting “outside the system.” They are acting in alignment with the direction the system is already encouraging.

Technology and the Digital Campus: The “Central Nervous System” of Innovation

The innovation university is not only about new courses. It is also about the infrastructure of collaboration. Your document describes technology integration as the “central nervous system” of a scalable ecosystem—enabling virtual incubators, collaboration tools and modern venture development. This matters because innovation is team sport. Students need shared workspaces, version control for ideas, rapid feedback loops, access to digital resources, and platforms that connect them to mentors and industry. When digital systems are absent or fragmented, innovation becomes slow and elite. When they are available, innovation becomes routine and inclusive.

Campus Operations as a Living Lab: Innovation That Starts at Home

A university that wants an innovation culture cannot run its own operations like a bureaucracy. The campus itself can become a living lab—especially through sustainability and service redesign.

The document points to green infrastructure as a pathway to turn campuses into living laboratories—renewables, circular waste systems, biodiversity and measurable resource efficiency—while inspiring eco-preneurship. It also suggests “innovation operations projects” where student teams improve energy, water, waste, transport, queue systems, library usage, alumni engagement and grievance redressal, with improvements measured and iterated.

This is a powerful cultural signal. When students see their university practising innovation in its own daily functioning, they stop treating innovation as theatre and start treating it as normal work.

Linking Learners to Economy and Society: The Innovation Corridor

The engaged university’s ambition is to connect learning with the economy and society in sustained ways. The document describes this as building an “innovation corridor” through problem-solving internships, MSME clinics run by faculty-student teams, co-created projects with NGOs and government departments, and pipelines that connect prototypes to incubators, investors and markets.

India’s strongest campus ecosystems show what happens when this corridor becomes an institutional habit. IIT Madras, for instance, announced in December 2025 that its incubation cell had incubated 511 startups, crossing the 500 milestone with a combined valuation of over ₹53,000 crore and more than 11,000 direct jobs, illustrating the economic impact of sustained support structures. At IIT Bombay, SINE launched an incubator-linked deep-tech VC fund in December 2025, explicitly designed to provide early-stage risk capital to deep-tech startups emerging from academic and research institutions.

These examples are not meant to intimidate non-IIT campuses. They are meant to clarify the mechanism: consistent mentoring, structured pathways, supportive policy, and credible financing options turn student ambition into durable outcomes.

A Final Word: The Campus Must Change Before the World Forces It To

The heart of the argument in your document is simple and hard to ignore: innovation is not a festival. It is a habit. And habits are built through what a campus rewards daily—what it teaches, how it evaluates, how it mentors, how it funds risk, and how it connects students to real problems in society.

India’s universities can either remain reactive, updating courses after industries have already moved on, or they can become the country’s most reliable “future factory,” where every learner learns to build, test, rethink and deliver value. The institutions that make this shift will not only improve placements. They will produce citizens and professionals who can design solutions under uncertainty, create enterprises and services, strengthen communities, and make the economy more resilient. In a time when change is constant and certainty is rare, that may be the

most practical definition of education itself.

The author is the Chief Mentor of Edinbox and works as a Director with the Techno India group of Kolkata, along with being the Principal Adviser of the Kolkata based university of the group.