5 lessons from China's higher education strategy for India

The second lesson is concentration. China concentrated its resources on select universities and disciplines through Project 211, Project 985 and later its Double First-Class programme. Project 985 began with only nine universities and later expanded to 39, with the explicit aim of competing with Harvard, MIT, Oxford and Tokyo. Between 2009 and 2013, Project 985 universities received roughly 70% of national research funding while enrolling fewer than 5% of Chinese university students.

This is strategically important. India's problem is underfunding, which is also thinly spread. This leads to breadth without depth. India appears in the global top five in roughly 50 of 74 critical technologies tracked by ASPI, but leads in none. While the country needs a broad education system, it also needs a few globally competitive institutions in AI, semiconductors, biotech, materials science, energy storage, agriculture and climate technology.

The third lesson is performance-linked autonomy. Funding is tied to outcomes, periodic review and the possibility of demotion. The Double First-Class programme introduced competition in a system where elite status had become a permanent entitlement. Indian universities also need autonomy from routine bureaucratic control. But autonomy must come with accountability for learning outcomes, research quality, governance and employability.

The fourth lesson is alignment with national priorities. Chinese elite universities were linked to industrial clusters and technology missions. This fed into strength in critical technologies.

The fifth lesson is curriculum agility. In 2025, China's ministry of education launched an action plan for adjusting academic disciplines and majors during 2025-27. It calls for new disciplines in frontier technologies, reform of programmes with weak demand or declining quality, stronger interdisciplinary integration, incorporation of AI tools into educational content, teacher capacity-building and closer industry-university collaboration. A separate ministry meeting emphasized AI literacy, specialized AI tracks and the use of AI in curriculum design and teaching. Indian universities are moving at the pace of committees, approvals and outdated syllabi. In an age of AI, biotech, robotics, climate risk and geopolitical supply-chain shifts, courses must change continually.

China's centralized system has serious limitations: academic freedom constraints, research-integrity concerns and regional inequality. But India can learn from its strategic clarity. What should it do? First, secure exam integrity; without trust, the pyramid collapses. Second, implement examination reform urgently. Third, identify 50-100 universities and disciplines for deep, long-horizon investment. Fourth, give them autonomy in hiring, curriculum, collaboration and research partnerships. Fifth, connect universities to local economies strengthening decentralization. Sixth, make AI, data and interdisciplinary problem-solving part of every serious degree.

China's example shows transformation is possible when policy is strategic, patient and serious.