<![CDATA[This article examines the asymmetry between the uniformly formulated national MBKM policy blueprint and the actual conditions of regional universities, particularly regarding resource constraints. Bima Town serves as a clear example of how uniform regulations are challenging to implement due to limited industry partners, low lecturer preparedness, a weak evaluation system, and economic constraints on students. Using a descriptive-qualitative approach, the authors explore the experiences of three primary groups: campus leaders, MBKM supervisors, and student participants. Campus leaders enthusiastically welcomed MBKM despite facing structural limitations. Lecturers, as the spearhead of implementation, often had to improvise due to a lack of training and incentives. Students viewed MBKM as an opportunity to broaden their experiences. However, access was significantly affected by family economic conditions: students from wealthy families could participate in cross-regional programs. In contrast, those from less fortunate families could rely only on local programs. Despite these limitations, some campuses have created new forms of adaptation through community-based programs and village empowerment. Such adaptations demonstrate local capacity to reinterpret national policies to maintain their relevance. However, the evaluation mechanism, which remains mainly formal, reveals a significant gap in measuring the program's substantive success. Therefore, the implementation of MBKM in peripheral areas cannot simply be categorized as success or failure but rather as the result of negotiations between central government visions and real-world conditions.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
