New Delhi: After earning a master’s degree in education from a prestigious university in Maharashtra, a 28-year-old Dalit student successfully passed the entrance examination for Harvard University in the United States. The first-generation learner secured admission to the master’s program in education policy and analysis.
However, his future now appears uncertain due to recent revisions in Maharashtra government’s eligibility criteria for its overseas scholarship scheme. Applicants from Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Scheduled Caste (SC) categories must now demonstrate a consistent academic performance of 75% or higher from grade 10 through their latest qualification, which could be an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. Previously, the requirement was set at 60%.
In addition, the state has introduced an income cap of Rs 8 lakh for SCs — a measure not mandated by central law. Students argue that identifying a ‘creamy layer’ within SCs is “unconstitutional”.
In contrast, central and other state governments offering scholarships for education abroad typically require a minimum of 55% to 60% in the latest degree programmes. Students assert that these new criteria pose significant barriers.
Impact on Academic Careers
Hailing from a farming family, he achieved 71% in BA economics from a renowned college in Pune in 2017.
In March 2024, after receiving an admission offer from Harvard, he confirmed his acceptance on April 15 by submitting a payment of USD 250 (Rs 20,890). Currently attending online classes since June, he anticipates physical sessions starting in August 2024, pending fee submission facilitated by a university sponsor. He urgently requires a scholarship award letter from Maharashtra for continued studies at Harvard.
“I am concerned that I may not be able to continue if the 75% graduation requirement remains in place. It could disqualify me from the opportunity. I am uncertain whether Harvard would defer my offer,” he stated.
The revised eligibility criteria for scholarships for studying abroad have dimmed the hopes of many students from marginalized communities.
A 25-year-old first-generation learner from the SC community in Latur, who completed chemical engineering with 74.44% from DY Patil College of Engineering and Technology, Kolhapur in 2022, received an unconditional admission offer from Australia’s The University of Sydney for a master’s course in engineering.
He expressed disappointment, stating, “Missing the required 75% graduation marks by just 0.56% means losing out on a scholarship and my dream university. This sudden change limits opportunities for students like me, potentially reducing diversity and talent in international studies.”
A 27-year-old first-generation learner from a lower middle-class family in Mumbai, who graduated with 72% from Siddharth College of Commerce and Economics in 2017, received an admission offer for M.Sc. in banking and international finance from the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
She expressed concern, saying, “Affording tuition and accommodation in the United Kingdom is beyond my means. The 75% criterion threatens to derail my dream of studying abroad. I urge the Maharashtra government to reconsider this policy so aspirants like me can pursue their dreams.”
A 22-year-old electronic engineering graduate from Nanded, who completed his degree from Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering Nagpur in 2023 with a score of 73.6%, received multiple admission offers from foreign universities.
He lamented, “Despite securing offers from top-ranked universities, the new 75% graduation marks requirement jeopardizes my study abroad aspirations. With no financial support available from my farming family, I cannot afford international tuition fees. This change in eligibility criteria is deeply disappointing.”
These individuals illustrate the potential impact of stringent graduation criteria on access to international education opportunities, urging policymakers to reconsider for the sake of inclusivity and diversity in global education.
They asked if the foreign university deems them eligible, why impose a cap based on percentages? “The government should refrain from imposing new eligibility criteria,” they argued.