Every admissions cycle tells us much more than who got into where. It tells us what students and families are actually choosing, what they are willing to pay for, what they are walking away from, and how their definition of value is changing.
The 2026 cycle had more to say than most. New private universities, international campuses in India, interdisciplinary programmes and alternative models of higher education all arrived at once, handing students more choice than any cohort before them.
Episode 10 of Jetri Dialogs brought together four speakers, each reading the cycle from a different vantage point: Shashank Shwet on the market data; Sheetal Vora on counselling families through the decision; Ali Imran on the institutional admissions funnel; and Dr Vishal Talwar on building an international campus in India.
Key highlights: what the 2026 cycle reveals
Six patterns emerged from the conversation, each complicating a simple story about who chooses what, and why.
- Choice is expanding. The shortlist isn't.
Roughly 75 universities take in 65% of first-choice applications, and most students end up deciding between just two institutions. Only 27% cross state lines for undergraduate study at all. - Students are shopping for a feel, not just a name.
Flexibility, culture, clubs and interdisciplinary pathways now weigh as much as the degree itself. The "all-school" segment has roughly tripled in a year, from 8,000–10,000 students to 30,000–35,000. - Word of mouth is outperforming the prospectus.
Ashoka's applications grew 60% across 700 cities and 50 countries, nearly half from schools it never actively engaged with. Institutions can manage what they say about themselves, not what alumni and peers say instead. - Parents and students are buying different things.
Parents lead with employability and value for money. Students lead with flexibility, campus culture and peer group. Any pitch now has to hold both at once. - Studying abroad is stratifying, not shrinking.
Demand for top STEM programmes overseas remains resilient. The real decline sits in non-STEM and lower-ranked options, as cost and visa uncertainty push families to be more selective. - The postgraduate year has to earn its place.
In-house employer training and shorter courses are squeezing the traditional master's and MBA. Where postgraduate study survives, it's specialising and shortening rather than disappearing.
Watch the full conversation, or read on for the longer view.
More choice does not mean a less concentrated market
The Indian higher-education market is becoming more diverse without becoming proportionately less concentrated.
- Shwet highlighted that approximately 75 universities account for 65% of first-choice applications. At the median, students ultimately make their decision between only two institutions.
- Geography remains one of the strongest constraints on that choice. Only 27% of Indian students cross state borders for undergraduate education, and 50% of that movement is within the NCR. In Tamil Nadu, 91% remain within the state.
- But the numbers are only part of the story. Shwet also pointed to the continuing influence of family preferences. Even among more affluent households, where there is greater willingness to experiment with newer institutions, proximity can remain decisive.
This creates a market in which a university can have a compelling academic proposition and still be competing within a relatively narrow geographic and social catchment.
The implication is important: Indian higher education cannot yet be understood as a fully national market.
Students are evaluating the experience, not just the credential
If Shwet's data describes where students are choosing, Sheetal Vora's perspective helps explain what they are looking for when they get there.
- Students are increasingly asking about flexibility, diversity, clubs, campus culture, academic rigour and the experiences of existing students. They want to know what university will actually feel like, rather than evaluating an institution through its name or degree alone.
- Vora also sees growing interest in interdisciplinary pathways. Families are increasingly aware of new professional possibilities and are asking whether universities can support combinations across subjects rather than force students into a single academic track.
This is part of a broader shift in the definition of institutional value.
Shwet estimates that 30,000–35,000 students are now enrolled in “all-school” programmes that do not follow the conventional degree model, compared with approximately 8,000–10,000 last year. The number of institutions operating in this space has risen from around 15–18 to 65–70.
The segment remains small relative to the overall market, but its growth suggests that at least some families are prepared to consider alternatives when the proposition is sufficiently compelling.
The emerging question is therefore not simply which degree? It is what kind of education, experience and opportunities does the institution provide?
The information advantage has shifted towards students
One of the more consequential changes discussed was not a particular programme or institution, but the changing information environment around admissions.
Students can now speak directly to seniors, compare experiences online and investigate academic and campus life before making a decision. Families are hearing from networks beyond the university's own communication channels.
For Vora, this has raised the standard for how institutions communicate outcomes. Families increasingly want to see the full distribution of placement outcomes, not just the highest salaries or the top few students. They want to understand the middle 50%, the bottom quartile, internships, co-ops and actual industry engagement. The demand is therefore not simply for more information. It is for information that is representative enough to help families make a decision.
Ali Imran's experience at Ashoka illustrates what happens when institutional reputation increasingly travels through these independent networks. Ashoka's applications grew 60%, with applications coming from 700 cities and towns in India and 50 countries. Almost half came from schools the university had not actively engaged with.
For him, this points to the cumulative value of institutional equity and word of mouth. But the important point is that word of mouth cannot be managed in the same way as institutional communications.
Universities can control what they say about themselves. They cannot control what students, parents and alumni say about them. That makes authenticity an institutional asset rather than simply a communications strategy.
The parent and student are not always buying the same thing
The discussion also exposed a growing divergence between what parents and students prioritise.
Vora sees parents asking increasingly direct questions about employability and whether a degree will retain value in a changing labour market. Students, meanwhile, are often more focused on flexibility, diversity, campus experience, peer groups, clubs and academic choice.
This distinction is consequential for universities because both groups influence the final decision.
A university may therefore need to satisfy two different definitions of value at once: the parent's question of “What will this degree do for my child?” and the student's question of “What kind of education and life will I have here?”
The institutions that can connect those two propositions are likely to have an advantage.
Studying abroad is not declining uniformly
The conversation around overseas education was similarly more nuanced than the headline narrative suggests.
Vora noted that the top end of the market remains resilient, particularly for STEM programmes at leading global universities. The more significant decline is among non-STEM applicants and students considering lower-ranked international institutions.
That suggests not a rejection of studying abroad, but a more selective assessment of its value.
Cost, visa uncertainty and post-study work opportunities now feature more prominently in the decision. Students and families are asking whether the additional financial and geographic investment is justified by the institution, programme and eventual outcomes.
Dr Talwar argued that some of these pressures may initially be temporary. But repeated disruption can change behaviour.
If visa uncertainty, cost pressures or other barriers persist for several years, they can begin to condition how an entire cohort thinks about international education.
At the same time, international branch campuses in India are creating a new category of choice. Students who previously faced a relatively binary decision between studying in India and leaving the country can now consider an international university experience while remaining in India.
The competitive set is therefore expanding—not simply contracting.
Postgraduate education is facing a more fundamental question
The pressure on value is not confined to undergraduate education.
Vora sees some families increasingly treating the undergraduate degree as a possible endpoint. Students are asking whether another two years of education provides enough value compared with gaining work experience or developing more targeted skills.
The MBA remains an exception in many conversations, but traditional postgraduate education is being questioned. Shwet takes the strongest position, arguing that the conventional master's and MBA model is losing relevance as employers increasingly provide training themselves and students seek shorter, more targeted forms of learning.
Talwar offers a different interpretation: postgraduate education may be changing form rather than disappearing.
A four-year undergraduate degree creates room for one-year master's programmes that allow students to specialise without committing to another two years. Ashoka has already introduced three such programmes—in economics and data, biology and data, and biology and health sciences.
For Imran, however, the important test is not whether a one-year programme sounds attractive. It is whether it produces outcomes that justify the choice.
The question for postgraduate education is increasingly straightforward: what does the additional year actually add?
Institutions are being judged on the gap between promise and reality
This may be the most important institutional lesson from the discussion.
Vora's call for greater transparency reflects a wider change in how families assess universities. Marketing claims increasingly have to survive comparison with independent student experiences and peer networks.
Imran's experience at Ashoka points to the other side of that equation: institutional reputation is accumulated over years through the experiences of students and families.
For him, the university's task is not to insert itself into every conversation happening about it. It is to build an institution that generates positive conversations without needing to control them.
That is particularly relevant in an environment shaped by AI-generated content and increasingly sophisticated digital research. When institutional messaging is abundant, authenticity becomes harder to manufacture and easier to test.
For newer institutions, this creates a different challenge. Without decades of accumulated equity, they have to demonstrate their proposition through the actual student experience and outcomes.
The academic model itself is becoming part of the value proposition
The discussion also pointed towards a structural change in undergraduate education: students increasingly want the freedom to move across disciplines.
Examples discussed included students combining computer science and AI with economics, music or liberal arts, and programmes that allow students to build combinations around emerging areas of interest.
This reflects a wider shift towards interdisciplinary education and credit mobility.
But flexibility alone is not enough. Universities still need to demonstrate why a particular combination matters, what capabilities it develops and how those capabilities translate into further study or employment.
That is where curriculum design becomes part of institutional differentiation.
The institution is no longer selling only a degree. It is increasingly selling a portfolio of possible futures.
What the 2026 cycle reveals
The 2026 admissions cycle does not establish that Indian students are abandoning conventional degrees, that overseas education is in structural decline, or that new universities are replacing established institutions.
The picture is more complicated.
Choice is expanding, but preference remains concentrated. Geography continues to matter. Families are more willing to experiment in some segments. International education is being evaluated more selectively. Postgraduate education is being questioned. Interdisciplinary flexibility is becoming more valuable. And institutional claims are being tested against a much larger body of information available to students.
More importantly, the four perspectives in the Jetri Dialogs discussion show that these changes are not uniform.
The decline in one segment of overseas education can coexist with strong demand for leading STEM universities. Greater openness to new institutions can coexist with strong preference for a small number of established universities. Interest in alternative education can coexist with continued demand for conventional degrees.
The deeper change may therefore be the basis on which students make their choices. Reputation remains important. So does employability. But students and families are increasingly evaluating the entire proposition: the academic model, flexibility, campus experience, cost, geography, peer experience, opportunities and the credibility of the outcomes being promised.
For institutions, the lesson is not simply to communicate better. It is to understand what students are actually choosing—and build an educational proposition that can withstand scrutiny once the admissions cycle is over.