The Government of Nepal has tightened regulations on educational consultancies and foreign-affiliated colleges with a new framework that mandates comprehensive licensing, transparent fees, security deposits, and partnerships only with globally ranked universities. Indeed, regulations were necessary to bring much-needed accountability to this sector, where consultancies have exploited students through misleading marketing, fraudulent documentation, and broken promises of employment and migration. However, regulation alone cannot effectively deal with managerial, operations, innovation, relevancy, and structural crises within the higher education system in Nepal. The booming market for consultancies and colleges affiliated with foreign universities did not emerge in a vacuum. There are various academic failures and operational loopholes within Nepali universities as well.
Hence, restricting public relation activities of foreign universities without comprehensive transformation of the national university system, substantial industrial growth, and expansion of employment opportunities in Nepal is just a protectionist maneuver of the current government without socio-economic and geopolitical vision. Blaming foreign university-affiliated colleges and education consultancies for the crisis in higher education is a trivial and symptom-based response to this complex socio-economic and cultural issue without inward analysis, contextual sensitivities, and root-cause awareness.
Protectionism is not a substitute for reform
In this age of globalization and international business, foreign universities emphasize strategic planning, measurable performance indicators, institutional accountability, efficient governance, and responsiveness to changing educational markets. However, such managerial approaches have remained absent from the university system in Nepal. Likewise, our universities in Nepal have not made any substantive effort to attract internationally recognized scholars, distinguished researchers, or technology leaders through competitive recruitment and research environments. Protectionism cannot restore the confidence of students if the underlying quality gap, clumsy university-industry collaborations, bureaucratic hazards, hierarchical decision-making, self-referential research practices, and limited job opportunities after graduation remain unchanged.
Meanwhile, global higher education has transformed fundamentally. Foreign institutions have invested substantially in public relations and marketing, alumni networks, university-industry linkages, and student support services, while most Nepali universities continue to operate with minimal institutional ambition for global competition, public relations, knowledge, technology, innovation, scientific collaborations, strategic assets, and talent.
If the government requires foreign-affiliated colleges to partner only with universities ranked in the top 1,000 globally, shouldn't universities in Nepal have similar standards? When it comes to ranking, Tribhuvan University languishes in the 1501+ band of the Times Higher Education rankings, and other Nepali universities are even worse. If rankings are relevant for foreign universities, they should equally serve as a benchmark for domestic reform, not just as a tool to limit external competition. Just because Nepal has public universities doesn't mean the government should protect them from competition, and if a university cannot attract students on its own, let the market and consumers, not protectionist policies, determine its future.
Similarly, why does the government need to have a problem with Malaysian universities approved by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) in Nepal when it has no issue with receiving millions of dollars in remittance from migrant workers in Malaysia? Here, the government needs to ask why thousands of Nepali workers migrate to Malaysia for work. What if protectionism works both ways? Every year thousands of Nepali students and Malaysian students graduate from Malaysian universities with the same courses, evaluation approaches, conveners, and module facilitators. However, graduates in Malaysia enter into a dynamic economy, whereas our graduates, including those from Nepali universities, struggle to find relevant employment in Nepal.
Moreover, Nepali students compare universities through rankings, alumni experiences, scholarships, graduate employment, infrastructure facilities, research quality, and digital reputation. The basic flaw in the protectionist logic is that it misunderstands student motivation. As the professor of higher education at the University of Oxford, Simon Marginson argues, globalization has transformed higher education into an international marketplace where students compare institutions across national boundaries based on reputation, employability, research quality, and learning experience. Protectionism alone can’t transform universities in Nepal when there are missing links between education and employment.
Academic capitalism and global competition for students
Universities are no longer competing with each other only through academic programs. They also compete with each other through branding, student experience, research excellence, employability, international partnerships, alumni networks, and digital engagement. International student recruitment has become an integral component of institutional strategy. Foreign universities have adapted to this competitive environment by investing in marketing, educational fairs, social media outreach, alumni engagement, industry collaboration, and comprehensive student support services. Their recruitment strategies emphasize employability, internships, entrepreneurship, post-study work opportunities, patents, innovations, and global mobility alongside academic quality. In contrast, Nepali universities continue to operate as if students will automatically enroll simply because they exist.
Higher education scholars Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades, in their seminal work Academic Capitalism and the New Economy, argue that universities operate in global markets where they compete for students, grants, brand recognition, university-industry linkages, and multi-national partnerships. Within the realities of the 21st century, education functions both as a public good and as an internationally traded service. Similarly, the “student-as-consumer” model indicates that for their higher education decisions, Nepali students will make calculated investments asking practical questions such as “Will this degree result in employment?,” Will it offer returns on my time and money?” Foreign universities, through their consultancies, education agents, and partner colleges, have built their businesses around answering these questions, whereas universities in Nepal have not.
Here, it is important for stakeholders of higher education in Nepal to realize that students do not simply prefer foreign universities due to their advertisements, seminars, exhibitions, and public events; rather, they leave Nepal for their higher studies in foreign universities because they perceive better career prospects and learning and earning opportunities for their academic achievements. Hence, without comprehensive reform of the university system supported by vibrant economic growth in Nepal, the protectionist policies for higher education will not manufacture confidence in institutions that students no longer trust for their future.
(Gaurav Ojha is a writer, researcher, and educator)
