Using Validation to Develop a University

Prestige and standards stand out from among the challenges facing universities in India. Stated thus, they appear troubling but abstract. Practically, they are of immediate concern to any institution. Graduates of a university lacking in prestige are likely to be disadvantaged in terms of employability. Rumours of poor performance in this respect will have an undesirable impact on the number and quality of applicants.

There is no single means of addressing these challenges or likelihood of achieving instant improvement. One approach, nevertheless, has yielded positive results. It is transferable, although arguably better suited to private universities where, with less regulation, there is more scope for innovation. It is the introduction of validated degrees.

This approach was adopted from the outset by the British University in Egypt (BUE), established in 2005. Despite its name BUE is Egyptian. Like India, Egypt has an historic connection with Britain, leading towards alignment with the globally-recognised brand that is British Higher Education. In addition to the UK’s high-status Russell Group, many post-1992 British universities have developed in strength, depth and reputation, characterising the kind of modern university BUE aspires to become.

What does validation mean for BUE? The final outcome is a dual award: one accredited by Egypt’s Supreme Council for Universities, the other conferred by the UK partner. Successful graduates thus receive two degree certificates for the same programme of study.

This differs from a franchise arrangement whereby one institution contracts with another to deliver the first institution’s programmes. A validated programme is developed and delivered by the validated partner, for example, BUE. The validating institution declares its satisfaction as to the equivalence with its own programme, in relation to curriculum and quality assurance, agreeing to confer its own award on this basis.  

Validation can therefore achieve the twin objectives of increasing prestige by allying with a British university and strengthening standards by thus conforming with the internationally respected UK Quality Assurance Agency and Office for Students norms.

Aspiring to UK-validated programmes is not pie in the sky. British universities are open to such agreements.  India is a priority country in the UK’s Internationalisation Education Strategy, 2021, which plans for recovery and growth in the British sector of education. The two Prime Ministers have signed the UK-India Roadmap which lays out a comprehensive policy direction of collaboration between the two countries including in education and research.

There are four specific respects in which validation pays dividends.

The UK university plays a role in enhancing prestige not merely by being part of UK Higher Education, respected per se, but also in protecting its own reputation against any potential risk that the partnership may engender. Additionally, validation can play a role in enhancing the validated institution’s place in university rankings. The UK partner will almost certainly prompt improvements in learning, teaching and assessment, as well as student support and feedback mechanisms. This could be expected to impact Student Satisfaction scores. Where  the agreement includes student and staff exchanges, scores in the category of Internationalisation may rise.

From an operational perspective, validation will impact standards in two key areas. First, the potential validating university performs due diligence, appraising the applicant institution’s assets and liabilities so as to verify its suitability and potential risk level as a partner. Moreover, each programme proposed for validation offers a rationale, programme structure, developed curriculum, and learning, teaching and assessment strategy. In other words, it sets out the viability, unique nature, and strategic positioning of the programme. A resources statement is also submitted to include the staff, physical space, materials etc necessary for the full lifespan of the programme, from registration to graduation. The aim is to harmonise the requirements of the three key approving organisations: the local accreditor, the UK partner, and the institution’s internal bodies. Thus the validation process acts as a stimulus to enhance the standard of academic offerings. They are further elevated by the requirement for all modules (or courses) to align with the norms and standards of the UK university.

As important are the demands of Quality Assurance and Enhancement. This embraces regulations and their application, examinations and results, as well as student records. It also includes policies and processes related to approval of new and revised programmes, regular monitoring and review of the performance of programmes, and “closing the loop” to ensure that issues arising from such reviews are actioned.

BUE originally located this in an office entitled Quality and Validation reporting to the Registrar. As the university expanded, a Senior Assistant Registrar was allocated to each Faculty. This investment in staffing reflects the cardinal importance of maintaining quality standards. No British university will countenance or sustain a validating relationship without a demonstrable commitment to quality assurance.

The UK university appoints an external examiner whose role it is to verify the equivalence of standards to UK norms. S/he pre-approves assessments and examinations, and reviews samples of assessed work. S/he attends examination boards, with a representative of the validating university, and signs off on the final results. This is perhaps the clearest sign of concern for standards.

At BUE, each programme prepares an Annual Programme Review in which the programme team responds to challenges identified by both internal and external partners. The final report is submitted to the UK partner, along with an Action Plan. Implementation of the Plan is monitored by both partners, via appropriate internal mechanisms. This Annual Academic Quality and Enhancement Cycle is of direct benefit to standards and institutional reputation.

There are four caveats. First, in selecting a partner, consideration should be given to subject as well as overall rankings. Second, pre-established Quality Assurance processes will facilitate audit rather than micromanagement. Third, the institution should avoid having too many programmes validated by a single university. Fourth, it is important to retain one’s sovereign status while seeking to satisfy validators. This requires significant diplomatic skills – but that is another subject.