Rethinking Pakistan's higher education model

The Supreme Court has issued a verdict to halt the appointment of PhDs and faculty to administrative positions, including registrar, controller of examinations, directors of the quality enhancement cell, and the office of research, innovation, and commercialisation. These positions are primarily concerned with administrative tasks, secretarial duties, record-keeping, and communication with stakeholders and the general public.

The engagement of faculty in such services derails their role in social and economic development and fundraising activities. This is a global practice in universities where faculty avoid engaging in such secretarial activities and prefer to utilise their time in research, teaching, consultancy, and advisory services. The appointments of senior faculty to such administrative and secretarial positions during the last 3 decades in Pakistani universities were a consequence of internal politics for getting promotions and financial benefits. But why was this order not imposed in private sector universities? The fundraising through advisory and consultancy services is more required in private sector universities because they do not have public funding. Otherwise, their financial burden will be transferred ultimately to the students.

The engagement of faculty in such administrative and record-keeping services contributed to the bureaucratisation of senior faculty and initiated the auditing and compliance regime in universities, which suppressed honest teaching and research activities. In this new scenario, research becomes a marketing tool in private sector universities to attract students for revenue enhancement, while public sector universities are totally dependent on government funding, which is uncertain in the current fiscal constraints of federal and provincial governments.

How to generate finances for a university? In the presence of funding from the government, this was not a main concern of the governance and management of the public sector universities. The main concern of their internal politics was how to spend this money. The vested interests and internal politics in academic institutions are mainly responsible for the misutilisation of taxpayers’ money. The use of taxpayers’ money in the name of quality improvement was routed through the Higher Education Commission (HEC).

A major portion of those funds was used to provide financial benefits to the university teachers. The rapid promotions in the higher salary scales, attractive salaries of faculty appointed under the tenure track system, rebates in income tax, huge funding for travelling and accommodation for participating in international seminars and conferences, fee for publications, and the honorarium, accommodation, and travelling cost of the international speakers in the conferences organised by Pakistani universities are included in those expenditures that have been incurred in the name of reforms in higher education.

Certainly, additional fiscal resources are created to finance these heavy expenses. To get some grants from international sources, borrowing from domestic and international sources, an increase in GST and other taxes, and a reduction or withdrawal of subsidies on some goods and services are major sources that created fiscal space to finance the incremental expenses on higher education. The additional debt burden and accelerated inflation are the natural consequences of this strategy.

A steep growth in the number of universities in the private sector and HEC incentives created an inflated demand for PhDs. To get benefits from this demand pressure, the middle and low-ranked foreign universities have launched their accelerated MS and PhD programmes and liberalised their admission policies. A fairly large part of their revenue was generated through HEC-funded admissions of Pakistani students.

It is interesting that in the early 2000s (before the formation of HEC), it was predicted by The Economist, London, and other leading think tanks that universities in Europe would not be able to finance their operations due to financial constraints. HEC spent large funds to incur the expenditures of thousands of Pakistani students in foreign universities. The travelling, accommodation, boarding, stipend in cash, tuition, and other fees are included in those expenditures. A senior educationist in 2005 had indicated the drastic consequences of this policy, which have now been proved ultimately. He had mentioned that students were being sent abroad for PhD training (albeit largely to second-rate institutions). Now, all of those Pakistani degree holders from average universities in Europe, China, Japan, and Malaysia are serving as teachers in Pakistan.

What is the output of those PhDs who have been funded by the national exchequer and taxpayers’ money during the last two decades? Their contribution in industry is negligible. There is no mechanism to check their contribution in academia and to improve the quality of higher education. In support of its achievement, the HEC highlights the growth in the number of universities in the private sector, the number of PhDs in Pakistan, and the number of publications in academic journals. Establishing the ‘Quality Enhancement Cell’ and ‘Office of Research, Innovation and Commercialisation’ in every university, provision of anti-plagiarism software and a digital library, verification of the quality of PhD research by two foreign examiners, and the publication of one research article in a ‘W-category’ journal, and centralised repositories of PhD dissertations are those steps which are proudly mentioned by HEC.

However, those achievements are not reflected in the trends of economic development, technological advancement, or quality of research. The intention of policymakers may not be bad, but the effectiveness of policies is in question. The ultimate output in terms of socioeconomic development requires proper utilisation of the funds.

The extraordinary growth in the number of publications by the faculty of Pakistani universities does not reflect scientific development, technological advancement, or economic growth. The stereotype research in a huge volume of publications is a high-cost activity for getting promotion and financial benefits. A huge outflow of foreign exchange in the name of publication fees (including article submission fee, article processing charges, page charges, reprint fee, fast-track peer review fee, language editing charges, gold option – open access fee), conference participation fee, and membership fee was recorded during the last 2 decades. Usually, these activities are financed by the HEC, and the ultimate sufferers of such expenditures are taxpayers or students of the universities.

Whether funding comes from national exchequers or personal savings, the outflow of foreign exchange is an integral part of such expository and superficial research activities. The purpose of encouraging such activities is to achieve a higher ranking in quality indicators by different rating agencies. Such higher rankings require a higher number of publications, participation in international conferences, documentary evidence, and a record of engagement with industry.

The proper record-keeping of the number of meetings of the board and committees, and their compositions, ritual practices of the different departments, number of publications in ‘W-category journals’ categorised by the HEC, number of PhD produced, and number of research projects completed (mostly funded by the HEC), are the milestones and benchmarks of the higher ranking.

Unfortunately, economic development, industrial productivity, inventions, innovations, discoveries, development of ideology, improvement in the political system or governance, social values, poverty alleviation, creating employment opportunities, and societal development are not included in the core objectives of universities.

In the contemporary world, the power of technologically advanced countries lies in their universities, which are included in the list of the world’s top universities. No doubt, outstanding research is a major criterion for selection of the faculty in the world’s top universities, but the quality of their research is determined by the results and usefulness of their research, not the number of publications or citations. The solid undergraduate teaching programmes in those universities are the byproduct of the research capabilities of their faculty. The selection of students is another factor in the quality of education in the world’s top universities. The centralised testing system in the USA tests the analytical ability, quantitative skills, language comprehension, and subject knowledge. The system classifies individuals into best and mediocre categories. The system scrutinises the best minds at every stage.

The financing of fees and other expenditures for university education is determined after receiving the offer letter, and several options for financing are available, including bank loans, asset securitisation, financial guarantees by prospective employers, stipends, and scholarships. The best faculty and best students in the top universities produce the best leaders, scientists, researchers, policymakers, and statesmen. To achieve the desirable goal in higher education, the policymakers and governing bodies of the universities will have to strictly follow those international norms and standards, and have to stop the political influences, lobbying, and nepotism in the affairs of universities.

Unfortunately, the lobbying and unionism under the cover of ‘Academic autonomy’ played a major part in the deterioration of higher education in Pakistan, and influenced the HEC. The autonomy of universities has become a favourite slogan of the teachers, staff, and students. Several examples of misuse of academic autonomy have been published in the national media. Unfortunately, this autonomy has been used to change and interpret the rules and regulations according to the wishes of powerful university ‘Bosses’. There are thousands of examples where rules and regulations have been changed to give benefits to favoured people. Frequent changes in the criteria for appointment of faculty, selection of students, determination of position holders, acceptance of research papers, and the members of selection boards are too common in the name of academic autonomy. This type of intellectual corruption does not have any association with the political system or civil bureaucracy in the country. It is purely because of vested interests, nepotism, and favouritism. Unfortunately, sometimes it may be linked with ethnic or sectarian bias.

Unionism and several types of grouping influenced the HEC to relax the criteria to evaluate the academic and research work. A senior academician had boldly mentioned in 2005 that so-called ‘academicians’ and ‘scholars’ working in the public sector universities are helping themselves with locally awarded PhD degrees. For instance, HEC imposed the condition of NTS or GRE examination for admission in PhD programmes, but after the failure of the teachers in big public sector universities, this condition was waived by their academic councils. Similarly, a certain number of research publications recognised by the ISI Thomson (Web of Science) was a condition for selection and promotion of faculty, but this condition was also relaxed by the HEC by introducing ‘W’, ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’ categories of journals.

Democratisation of the curriculum committees emphasises the participation of all universities in the preparation of the national curriculum. Consequently, the majority of the curriculum committee members belong to junior faculty of the town universities or small academic entities, and this majority has ultimate authority to finalise the curriculum. The recent issues of the closure, spinoff, and isolation of some departments and centres from the public sector universities are one of the offshoots of such governing issues. The sustainability and economic feasibility of some departments and centres are assessed based on their expenditures and their economic and social output. A research centre in a large public sector university in Pakistan has the potential for great contribution to the economy and society if it is granted an autonomous status.

Another research centre in the same university has been spending huge public money on producing tiny outputs. If we divide its total budget by the number of graduates, the cost of its per MPhil student is more than Rs20 million. It is an indicator of how bureaucratic hurdles in large public sector universities create inefficiencies and wastage of resources. It was assessed by a senior educationist in 2006 that the main cause of the failure of HEC policies was that it had introduced reforms without reforming the governance of the universities, which gave rise to unprecedented corruption, mismanagement, and favouritism.

What policymakers and regulators should do

Certainly, regulatory changes are required to resolve these complicated and primary issues in the system of higher education. The policymakers and regulators should consider the following ideas:

The diversification of financial resources is always required for the sustainability of the universities. The income from research, innovations and advisory services, alumni endowments, enrollment fees, funding through public–private partnerships, and philanthropists’ contributions are the main sources of financing the universities.

However, in Pakistan, the major source of financing in the public sector universities is funding from the national exchequer, while fees from students are major source of funding for the private sector universities. Even the major part of research projects in the universities is not financed by the ultimate beneficiaries of academic research, including industrial organisations, commercial enterprises, and policy-making institutions.

Even industrial units and commercial enterprises don’t have awareness about the utilisation of such research activities. The research grants to Pakistani universities are paid by the HEC or other public sector entities, which are not sustainable sources. This culture discourages long-term planning, innovations, and knowledge creation. To finance the universities in the public sector and support students in private universities, industrialised countries use their receipts from social contributions. The social contribution as a percentage of revenue is 37% in the USA, 21% in the United Kingdom, and 17% in Israel. The world average is 37%. The other remaining revenues are collected through taxes on incomes, profits, wealth, goods and services, and international trade. The difference between social contribution and tax revenue is that their uses are constitutionally predetermined. The collection from social contributions cannot be utilised for general purposes. The ‘Iqra surcharge’, ‘Defence surcharge’, and ‘Cotton cess’ are its best examples in Pakistan in the past. Such social contributions can be introduced in the fiscal system of Pakistan to finance higher education.

In measuring socioeconomic and development indicators, higher education is always grouped with science and technology, industrial output, high-tech production, innovations, and research activities. It is not considered a part of literacy indicators. Literacy and higher education are considered two distinct parts of education. These have different types of indicators to measure their performance, inputs, and outputs.

The quantitative jump in the growth in the number of universities, PhDs, and publications in peer-reviewed journals at the cost of quality is dangerous. No doubt, higher education is a requirement. But this requirement may be fulfilled by the postgraduate colleges. A large network of postgraduate colleges is a right and low-cost option. After several years of successful functioning, those colleges can be granted the status of a university.

In governing the universities and financing them, it is important to consider the role of universities in reducing income inequalities and alleviating poverty. Historically, educational institutions, including universities, have been playing an important role in shifting households from middle and lower-middle-income groups to club class. Now, the universities have become the source of increasing income inequality, and dependency on fee-based revenue is the only cause of this change.

The article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Recorder or its owners.