Higher Education in Transition: When Universities Are Forced to Change
The train from Jakarta dropped me at Yogyakarta’s Tugu Station at 8.10pm, after a journey of about six hours and ten minutes. Travelling between cities in Java is now easy, and state railway operator PT KAI is an example of a reliable public service: its timetable can be trusted and its trains arrive on time. When friends from abroad ask what makes me proud to be Indonesian, the dependable railway is always part of my answer.
From the station, a ride-hailing taxi took me to a hotel in the north of the city. I always stay there because it still has green space, and it is also where I used to practise swimming when I was at school. Yogyakarta has changed. Its growing density is apparent as soon as you leave the station. The student city is never quiet, as young people from Sabang to Merauke come here to continue their education.
This time, I came to give a seminar on digitalisation in higher education. The topic is widely discussed, particularly in education, with an enticing promise: everything will be faster, more effective and more efficient. But, like Yogyakarta, our campuses are changing too, and not all of those changes are welcome.
Over the past few weeks, I have visited several public and private universities and heard the same concerns, from rectorate offices to student canteens. This article summarises the three challenges I heard most often, and suggests a direction I believe universities should take.
First challenge: declining demand
Many private universities, particularly small and medium-sized institutions, are seeing fewer new students. Some leaders have been forced to combine classes, close courses with low enrolment or postpone development plans.
There are several reasons: demographic change, weakening household purchasing power and a growing range of career options. Young people can see for themselves that it is possible to build a future through short courses, certifications or independent study while working. A degree remains valuable, but it now has to prove its worth.
Second challenge: confusing admissions routes
Public universities face a different problem. There are numerous admissions routes, from achievement-based assessment and written exams to independent and special-entry schemes. The intention is positive: to make room for a diverse range of candidates. But for parents and students, particularly those from regional areas, navigating the schedules, requirements and costs can be confusing.
Questions about fairness have also emerged: as independent admissions grow, will places remain open to those with the greatest potential, or will the system favour those most able to pay? Transparent and simple admissions are not merely an administrative matter; they are essential to public trust.
Third challenge: the proliferation of satellite campuses
Satellite campuses are becoming increasingly common, whether through distance-learning classes, regional branches or partnerships with local governments and industry. Their benefits are clear: higher education is available closer to where young people live, so they do not have to move away and incur high living costs.
Even so, the risks must be acknowledged. Are the lecturers, laboratories, libraries and academic environment at a branch comparable to those at the main campus? Or is expansion driven more by the need to enrol additional students than by a commitment to quality? Expansion without quality assurance merely shifts the problem from empty seats at the centre to thin provision on the periphery.
These three challenges are interconnected. As demand falls, universities are tempted to open new admissions routes and branches to maintain revenue. The more entry routes and branches there are, the harder it becomes to safeguard quality and institutional identity. This cycle will only be broken when students are regarded as partners whose trust must be earned through meaningful learning, rather than as a source of income.
The way forward: flexibility, collaboration and relevance
In my view, the answer lies in changing the role of universities: from institutions that wait for students to arrive to ecosystems that serve lifelong learning needs. This is where digitalisation is useful—not as an end in itself, but as a means. Three steps are urgent.
First, make learning flexible. Today’s students come from varied backgrounds: recent secondary-school graduates, workers seeking to build their skills and business owners learning while running their companies. Universities need to offer hybrid classes, recognition of credits for work experience and certifications, modules that can be taken in stages, and easier movement between study programmes. Rigid curricula will lose out to learning that can be accessed at any time.
Second, foster collaboration. No university has expertise in everything. Sharing lecturers, facilities and resources between public and private institutions makes more sense than competing to open the same courses. Partnerships with industry and local government must also move beyond signing memoranda of understanding to practical work, such as applied research, meaningful internships and genuine involvement by practitioners in teaching.
Third, make knowledge practical and relevant. This is not a call to abandon theory: a sound academic foundation enables graduates to adapt as technology and the labour market change. But students are entitled to see how their coursework relates to real-world problems.
Courses should therefore be reviewed regularly, with input from students and alumni, who are best placed to know what is useful and what is mere formality. Having the courage to close or update a study programme is a sign of a healthy university.
Digitalisation can support all three steps, but it brings challenges of its own. Putting lecture materials on an online platform or moving administration to an app does not automatically improve the quality of learning.
Without prepared lecturers, adequate connectivity in regional areas and attention to unequal access, technology could widen the gap between large urban universities and smaller institutions on the periphery. Digitalisation should be measured by its impact on students’ learning experience, not by the number of systems installed.
The government, as regulator, also has a role. Quality assurance must be enforced consistently, including at satellite campuses, while admissions and funding rules should be simplified. At the same time, regulation must leave room for universities that want to innovate. Businesses, too, should not simply wait for job-ready graduates; involvement in defining skills from the outset will produce graduates better suited to industry needs.
There is no single formula for every university. Large research institutions, vocational colleges and small private universities have different strengths and pressures. But one lesson applies to all: institutions that recognise change early and respond honestly will survive, while those that delay will fall behind. Today’s crisis can become an opportunity for reform if university leaders, regulators and industry work as partners rather than competitors.
On my way home from the seminar, I thought of the train I had travelled on. It is trusted because it consistently keeps its promises. Universities, too, must build that kind of trust: by being clear about their goals, honest about quality and willing to adapt.
That kind of trust cannot be bought; it can only be built through consistency year after year. Success should not be measured by the number of seats filled or the grandeur of buildings, but by graduates’ ability to address the country’s challenges.