Curriculum Flexibility and Accelerating Human Development at a Global Level

A question has long hung over the discourse on Indonesian higher education, but is rarely addressed seriously: Are universities truly capable of being spaces for holistic self-development? Or have we merely been constructing magnificent buildings where a stagnant process of knowledge reproduction unfolds, far removed from the pulse of creativity the nation actually needs?

This question is not mere rhetoric. The World Bank, in its Indonesia Human Capital Review (2020), noted that the quality of Indonesia’s human capital significantly lags behind other ASEAN countries. Indonesia’s Human Capital Index (HCI) score is just 0.54, far below more advanced neighbours and even below developing countries at a comparable level. A child born in Indonesia today will only achieve slightly more than half of their future productive potential if the education and health systems do not undergo meaningful improvement. That figure is not ordinary statistics, but a reflection of the deep chasm between potential and realisation that we have allowed to gape open.

Herein lies the urgent relevance of the Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) approach to be discussed, not merely as an academic jargon, but as a framework with real implications for the pace of human development. William Spady, in Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers (1994), asserts that OBE places students’ concrete achievements as the starting point for curriculum design, not the other way around. The focus is not on what is taught, but on what graduates can truly do after completing their education. In the Indonesian context, this approach finds an opportune moment because the regulations of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology are now moving in a direction increasingly aligned with the spirit of OBE.

The latest chapter in Indonesian higher education regulation is marked by Permendiktisaintek Number 39 of 2025 on Higher Education Quality Assurance, which officially replaces Permendikbudristek Number 53 of 2023. As noted by the SEVIMA analytical team (2025), this change is not merely an administrative overhaul, but a fundamental philosophical shift from an orientation of meeting national standards towards achieving quality aligned with global standards. The core of this latest regulation lies in the emphasis that higher education institutions should not only adhere to the National Higher Education Standards (SN Dikti), but also surpass them. This regulation explicitly encourages curriculum flexibility, wider use of technology, and recognition of learning experiences outside the classroom as an integral part of higher education quality.

Furthermore, micro-credentials and Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) now have full legality as part of academically recognised learning outcomes. This means work experience, professional training, and non-formal learning can be equated as flexible academic credits, a breakthrough with no strong precedent in the history of Indonesian higher education regulation.

However, regulatory flexibility alone is insufficient if the bureaucratic culture within universities still operates under old logic. The most fundamental problem lies precisely in how institutions define the boundaries of the ‘learning space’ itself. Up to now, many Indonesian universities still treat learning narrowly, as if knowledge is only legitimate when it originates from face-to-face meetings in a classroom, is printed in semester credit units, and legitimised by the signature of a lecturer. In reality, self-development is universal and recognises no boundaries set by institutional walls. John Dewey in Democracy and Education (1916) once asserted that education is not preparation for life, but life itself. If a university cannot animate the spirit of exploration and creation outside class schedules, the university is failing to perform its most basic fundamental function.

A number of visionary universities in Indonesia have already moved beyond rhetoric, and their actions are worthy of being concrete references. One of the most significant pioneers is a university that officially converted seven categories of off-campus activities into academic credits (SKS), effective from early 2024. The seven categories cover competitions, entrepreneurship, community empowerment, independent study or research, social and humanitarian projects, organisation and leadership, as well as sports and arts, each weighted at one to two SKS. This policy explicitly aims to reconcile the academic world with student activism, which has long operated separately.

Another university has taken a similar path but with a more systematic design. Its study programmes are required to grant students the right to take SKS outside their study programme within the university for one semester, equivalent to 20 SKS, while also opening opportunities for up to two semesters to conduct learning activities outside the university in the form of external programmes up to 40 SKS. The developed curriculum rests on four fundamental principles, namely Aligned, Adaptive, Flexible, and Sustainable, and explicitly places Recognition of Prior Learning as part of the credit transfer scheme. Elsewhere, several faculties at various universities are designing a credit conversion system for students serving as student organisation functionaries. The underlying idea is simple yet important: student organisations are legitimate platforms for self-development.