By Philip G. Altbach

After decades of being largely closed to international higher-education partnerships, India is trying to open its doors to outside colleges and universities. A proposed law, which has been approved by the country's cabinet and is likely to be voted on by its parliament soon, is supposed to usher in a new era of cooperation. But the proposal as it is currently devised will very likely fall short of its goals.

The potential new law is seen as a way to help India solve some of its serious higher-education problems. India is having trouble serving its growing population of young people and rapidly expanding middle class. Its higher-education system is the world's third largest, with more than 13 million students, but only educates around 12 percent of the student-age population. By comparison China educates about 27 percent of that group.

India also faces a serious quality problem; only a small portion of its colleges and universities meet international standards. Major higher-education institutions, like the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Institutes of Management, and perhaps 100 undergraduate colleges are above par. The rest of India's 480 public universities and more than 25,000 undergraduate colleges are, by international standards, mediocre at best.

Those problems are a result of decades of neglect and lack of funds. But the government is trying to fix the system. Kapil Sibal, the minister of human-resource development, has been shaking up the higher-education establishment for some time, and his proposal to open Indian colleges and universities to international partnerships is the boldest move yet.

The minister seems to have several goals in permitting foreign universities to enter the Indian market. The outside institutions are expected to help the country deal with its crush of students and provide new ideas about higher-education management, curriculum, teaching methods, and research. He also probably hopes that foreign institutions will make significant monetary investments in India and that top-class American and European universities will add prestige to India's postsecondary system.

All of those expectations are dubious. Here are three challenges an open-door policy would face:

Access to education. While foreign transplants elsewhere in the world have provided some additional access to education for young people, they have not significantly increased the number of students attending college. Most branch campuses are small and limited in scope and field. In Malaysia, the Persian Gulf, and Vietnam where foreign branch campuses have been active, student access has only modestly increased thanks to international efforts.

Academic innovation. Few branch campuses bring much in the way of academic innovation. They usually specialize in fields that have a ready clientele, such as business studies, technology, and hospitality management, and rely on tried-and-true management practices, curriculum, and teaching methods. In addition, the branches frequently have little autonomy from their home university and are tightly controlled from abroad. While some of the ideas brought to India may be useful, not much innovation should be expected.

Financial investment. Foreign institutions would offer some financial benefit to India, in part because the proposed law requires a minimum commitment of $11-million to the joint project—an entry fee, if you will. But the total amount brought into India is unlikely to be very large. History shows that outside universities seldom spend significant amounts of money on their overseas branches; major investments often come from the host countries, as is the case in the oil-rich Gulf states.

Perhaps the biggest assumption by Mr. Sibal and other Indian officials is that a new open-door policy will attract a significant amount of foreign interest. But joint projects in India may not appeal to colleges and universities, especially prestigious ones, for several reasons. (The Georgia Institute of Technology may be the exception because it is apparently considering a major investment in Hyderabad.) Some of the likely problems are:

Continuing rules and restrictions. India's proposed open-door policy comes with a variety of conditions and limitations that may well deter many foreign institutions from getting involved. In many ways, if the legislation is approved, the door is only half-open.

For example, aside from the potentially onerous $11-million entry fee, foreign institutions are restricted from making any profit on an Indian branch. It is also not clear how Indian authorities will evaluate a foreign institution before giving it permission to set up a branch campus or whether foreign branches will be subject to India's highly complicated and controversial affirmative-action rules. Those rules in many cases stipulate that half of enrollment spots go to disadvantaged populations. If non-Indian institutions are required to admit large numbers of students from poor families who can't afford campus fees and often require costly remedial preparation, creating financially stable branches may be close to impossible.

State control. A further complication may be the role of state governments. Indian education is a joint responsibility of the central and state governments, and many of the states have vastly different approaches to higher education and to foreign involvement. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in the south have been quite interested in international projects. But states such as West Bengal, which has a Communist government, is likely to resist outsiders.

Bureaucracy. Foreign institutions will need to deal with India's often impenetrable and sometimes corrupt bureaucracy. For example, recent reports have said that some Indian institutions were granted a coveted "deemed" university status after questionable practices between the applicants and government officials. In short, many unanswered questions remain concerning just how outside institutions will be admitted to India and how they will be regulated.

India's higher-education needs are significant. The system needs an overhaul. Fresh thinking from abroad might help. Yet the open-door policy that has been proposed leaves too many questions unanswered to be effective.

Once foreign institutions realize the challenges of the Indian environment, they are unlikely to get involved in the country in a big way. Some colleges may test the waters, but many others will be deterred by the conditions required by Indian authorities and the uncertainties of the situation. While the new proposal seeks to end India's arms-length treatment of partnerships, branch campuses, and other kinds of cross-border programs, the country's higher-education system will most likely continue to present obstacles and challenges to the country's students as well as to outside institutions.

Philip G. Altbach is director of the Center for International Higher Education, at Boston College.