30/12/2022
Undergraduate Education and its Reform:
The Pakistan Case
S. Zulfiqar Gilani
Abstract:
The quality of undergraduate education being provided by universities and colleges in Pakistan has been poor. Therefore, on the recommendation of the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education, starting 2002 the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan implemented its reform. However, the outcomes of the reform were contrary to expectations. A more considered reform process was initiated in 2018, which also seems to be headed for failure. Reasons for the failure of the first effort, and anticipated failure of the second effort are explored.
Introduction:
There have been numerous education policies in Pakistan since 1947, but they are not too relevant to the issue at hand as they deal with the whole gamut of education. However, in 2000 the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan (TF) was established which was specifically focussed on higher education. The World Bank and UNESCO report on 'Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise' triggered the process that led to the establishment of the TF, and often served as a guide to its deliberations.
The TF issued its report in 2002, and one of its major recommendations was the reform of undergraduate education. Consequent to another recommendation of the TF, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) was established, which undertook the reform of undergraduate education. (For details on the HEC, see the sister document, “Examining the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan”, which has important overlaps with this one).
I was actively involved in the reform process, and this document is a record of a practitioner’s observations and experiences in that journey. The observations are evidence-based but not referenced. However, the approach is analytic, pragmatic, and common sense. Also, because of intellectual and emotional investment in the reform effort, the personal touch is unavoidable.
I have been associated in various capacities with higher education in Pakistan, the US, UK, and Canada. My relevant experience includes service as a faculty in a Pakistani university, as the Vice Chancellor (VC) of a public sector university, Member of the TF and subsequently the Steering Committee, Rector of a private sector university, and working as a consultant in the HEC. However, the greater portion of the narrative is informed by my observations, experiences, and learnings during my stint at the HEC of three years and about eight months (December 2018-July 2022).
The need to reform and improve undergraduate education in Pakistan is considered axiomatic, so, it is not part of the argument. Another truism is that the ultimate purpose of undergraduate education reform is to provide the student-learner a better-quality and competence-based education of international standards.
Contextualising Undergraduate Education:
To give a sense of the complex challenges of undergraduate education reform in Pakistan, the context is briefly overviewed. Please note that the descriptions are of undergraduate education being provided in public sector universities and colleges and may not always hold for similar institutions in the private sector.
Pakistan inherited its education and higher education system from the British. Regarding higher education, the defining characteristics of the British legacy were low and inequitable access, inattention to developing the academic skills and competencies of students, and bureaucratic centralisation. Broadly speaking, these trends continued in Pakistan post 1947. Access has improved but remains inequitable, academic quality in public universities and colleges has remained stagnant or worsened, and the centralising thrust has increased over time. It will take us too far afield to describe the multiple factors contributing to the centralising thrust but suffice it to say that universities and colleges in Pakistan have evolved and exist and operate in the wider cultural context of hierarchic authoritarianism, which is ubiquitous and discernible at all levels, societal, institutional, and individual.
The HEC formulates policy and regulates undergraduate education in Pakistan, which is provided by universities and degree awarding institutions as well as affiliated colleges. A detailed analysis of the factors contributing to the poor quality of undergraduate education being provided in public universities requires separate treatment. But broadly speaking, the key problem areas include their governance structures and autonomy, leadership, management and administration, faculty, research, and finances and financial accountability. In my experience, the underlying weakness of public universities is the dearth of leadership, faculty, and personnel of management and administration with adequate competencies, work ethic, and personal attributes and integrity.
Undergraduate student enrolment is much higher in colleges than universities. However, due to inherent academic and administrative distortions, the quality of undergraduate education being provided by colleges is poorer than universities. Most colleges provide education that is the equivalent of years 11 and 12 (last 2 years of high school), as well as years 13 and 14 (First 2 years of undergraduate education), while some also provide years 15 and 16 (last two years of undergraduate education), and in some cases even years 17-18 (master’s education of 1 or 2 years). So, in most cases the same college faculty are teaching two years of high school, first two or all four years of undergraduate, and the required years of anything higher, with the same poor infrastructure and academic resources and teachers.
Colleges are academically affiliated with one or the other public sector university, must adopt the affiliating university’s curriculum, and have their students examined by the university, which awards the degrees. However, most affiliating universities do not have clear and coherent academic criteria for affiliation, nor any system of monitoring the quality of education being provided in their affiliated colleges. In my experience, even the vague academic criteria for affiliation are used primarily as a fig-leaf, and affiliation is mostly based on completion of a poorly drafted checklist. Most affiliations are granted to serve vested financial interests, often of university insiders or their relatives and friends. So, universities and entrepreneurs often collude to establish colleges and reap financial benefits of the business of higher education, and never mind academic considerations.
The final twist is that financially and administratively colleges are under a designated department of the respective provincial government, while academically they are in the purview of the affiliating university. In this arrangement college faculty and management must be Janus-faced, looking to the university for academic matters and a provincial government department for financial and administrative matters, and understandably the latter (pragmatic) considerations overshadow the former (academic): This is an undesirable model not conducive to providing quality higher education in colleges.
An important overarching problem is the way studies are organised in Pakistan. Students start being streamed in the eighth grade, and the firewalls between subject areas progressively get stronger through high school, college, and university education. Regarding undergraduate education, until 2002, the duration for a bachelor’s degree in the Arts and Sciences was two years after grade 12 or high school. In the light of the TF recommendation, starting 2002, the undergraduate degree required four years after high school: Undergraduate degrees in different professional fields vary from three to five years. Regardless, before and after the durational change in undergraduate studies, students study courses primarily of their specialism, with Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies the only non-specialism courses. In a word, undergraduate studies are over-specialised with a single-subject focus, allowing no exposure to other areas of study.
The narrowness of undergraduate studies is compounded by the processes of even subject-focussed course/s and curricular development. In that regard, the HEC continued with the model of its predecessor, the University Grants Commission (UGC), of developing curricula, but with greater intrusive power. The HEC develops curricula for each subject area through bureaucrat/s-identified committees: And without getting into reasons for that, their products are quite shoddy. The approved curriculum is then sent to universities. In theory the HEC curricula are advisory, and the university has autonomy to adopt, revise, or throw them out. However, the adoption of the HEC-provided curricula is over-determined as it (the HEC) has representation in the Academic Council and the highest executive body of the university, be it called the Syndicate, Senate, or Board of Governors, and as well it controls the purse strings of public sector universities. Therefore, in most cases the HEC-conveyed curricula are rubber-stamped by the university academic bodies and given pseudo-legitimisation.
The above curriculum development model has had two important consequences. One, as readymade curricula are made available by the HEC, it fosters (intellectual) laziness in the faculty. With the HEC taking over this fundamental academic responsibility, there is no motivation of the faculty to develop the skills of course and curriculum design and development. In fact, the opposite is true as change would entail extra work, including reading new material and preparing new lessons, to which the faculty is understandably averse.
Thus, a majority of faculty is teaching courses in the design and development of which they have had minimal or no inputs, so knowledge and understanding of curriculum and course contents is at best a hit or miss affair. The benchmark responsibility of the faculty is to deliver lectures, but that has negligible accountability, never mind the quality of pedagogy and student learning, for which there is no accountability. Then there is also the problem that a majority of faculty has poor teaching skills. Therefore, parroting and dictation of notes or text materials are utilised by a large majority of faculty. In a word, poorly developed courses are taught poorly, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion: No, or incidental student-learning.
Reforming Undergraduate Education:
The Task Force on the Improvement of Higher Education (TF) set the ball rolling for reform of undergraduate education in Pakistan. The TF recommended that the duration of an undergraduate degree be increased from 14 to 16 years, and as well general education included in the Baccalaureate programmes. The report concluded that introducing general education would entail the creation of a core curriculum, which would prevent the premature narrow focussing in disciplines and motivate students to become familiar with a core body of knowledge.
In the meantime, about two months after taking over as Vice Chancellor (VC) of the UoP in December 2000, I established the Open Forum for Educational Reform (OFFER). Regarding reform of the undergraduate curriculum, OFFER recommendations mirrored the ultimate TF recommendation, included increasing the duration of the undergraduate degree from 14 to 16 years, and introducing general education. During my subsequent tenures as Rector Foundation University, Islamabad, and Director Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET), work on detailing reform of the undergraduate curriculum continued.
Soon after its establishment in September 2002, the HEC directed universities to implement the TF recommendation by moving to a four-year undergraduate degree, and as well transitioning from the annual to the semester system of examinations. Subsequently the HEC took steps to implement the recommendation of including general education in the undergraduate curriculum. This was done in 2008 through the formulation of an undated two-page document titled: “Standardized Format/Scheme of Studies for Four-Year Integrated Curricula for Bachelor Degree in Basic, Social, Natural and Applied Sciences” (hereon FYIC).
However, the HEC-introduced reform of undergraduate education seemed to have the opposite of the intended effect. That is, undergraduate education, especially in public universities and colleges, deteriorated rather than improved. To address the matter, in late December 2018 I was engaged by the HEC to revamp the undergraduate curriculum.
Probing HEC Reform of Undergraduate Education:
For purposes of clarity, the TF recommendation can be divided into two parts: One, increase of duration of the undergraduate degree from 14 to 16 years. Two, the inclusion of general education in undergraduate studies, without which the increase in duration is academically meaningless.
The HEC first implemented part one (increase of duration of undergraduate studies). The initial notification/s, which I as the Vice Chancellor UoP also received in late 2002, indicated that the HEC was treating that as the key component of the TF recommendation. Implementation of part two of the recommendation (inclusion of general education in undergraduate studies), which is the essence, was an afterthought and implemented six years later.
The broad purposes of including general education in undergraduate studies were given in the TF report, the most important being the provision of broad-based education, which would reduce the narrowness. However, the HEC failed to grasp the academic significance and implications of introducing general education. Instead, the recommendation was interpreted literally, and to comply with part two of the recommendation, the HEC started mandating courses that were labelled ‘general education’. These so-called general education courses were anything but, and in fact were courses of other specialisms that were to be taught in addition to the disciplinary courses. Further, there was no discernible logic by which a particular set of the so-called general education courses were mandated for a specialism. Apparently, identification of the so-called general education courses for a specialism was done by committees, on which the less said the better. Clearly the HEC was following the letter of the TF recommendation with no understanding of its spirit or purpose.
The deeper problem was that there was no realisation that to meet the purpose of part two of the TF recommendation and move the undergraduate curriculum along the lines of liberal education would require the restructuring of undergraduate curricula. As this crucial aspect was not even recognised, let alone worked on, the implemented reform was could not serve the envisaged purposes of the TF recommendation.
Further, the FYIC was developed without any meaningful consultation with academics or other professionals. So, despite requests in early 2019, the concerned Division of the HEC could not provide a single document that could shed light on the process by which the FYIC came into being, as reportedly none could be found. Still further, the FYIC was not grounded in the contextual realities of the higher education sector in the country, especially of public sector colleges and universities.
Nevertheless, universities complied by transitioning from the annual to the semester system and added the curricula of the existing two-year BA/BSc curricula (taught mostly in affiliated colleges) with the existing two-year MA/MSc curricula (taught mostly in universities) to end up with a four-year programme of undergraduate studies. Starting 2008, universities patched onto the specialisms the so-called general education courses which the HEC kept mandating.
Most public sector universities toed the line without question. Nevertheless, problems kept emerging, to address which the HEC issued notifications and/or directives or gave verbal instructions. But such piecemeal firefighting could not rectify foundational flaws, and everyone kept muddling about.
In summary, without thinking through the academic implications of their decisions, the HEC started implementing the durational increase of undergraduate studies in 2002 and the FYIC in 2008. At both junctures the HEC simply ordered universities to implement the reform, without consultation or concern for the universities’ understanding of the objectives and purposes of the reform, or their ground realities.
Unsurprisingly, the overall impact of the reform on improving the quality of undergraduate education was minimal, if any; with indications that the quality of undergraduate education being provided in public sector universities and colleges in fact deteriorated after the reform.
Revamping the Undergraduate Curriculum:
Come December 2018, the reformed undergraduate education had been in place for about 16 years but had not resulted in any improvement in the knowledge, skills, and competencies of our graduates. This was evidenced by feedback from multiple sources, but especially the market. Therefore, revamping the undergraduate curriculum was necessary and long overdue.
Very soon after joining the HEC I examined the FYIC and realised that it was flawed in its very foundation. Given the wanting FYIC, it was not surprising that the quality of undergraduate education had not improved, which violated student rights as they were spending money, time, and effort to receive a worthless undergraduate education and degree.
The fundamental realisation was that to improve undergraduate education, one must start from scratch. Recognising the importance and complexity of undergraduate curricular reform, the Postsecondary Education Reform Unit (PERU) was established in January 2020, which I headed. Its goals and responsibilities included formulation of a framework of undergraduate education, as well as providing training, guidance, and facilitation of universities and colleges in its adoption and implementation. Starting early 2020, the PERU goals and activities of undergraduate education reform were incorporated the World Bank ‘Higher Education Development Pakistan (HEDP)’, which provided support for the effort.
The first step in the revamping effort were consultations with stakeholders, which however predated PERU. From January to October 2019, twenty-one (21) consultations, workshops, and dialogues were organised and held across the four provinces of Pakistan, Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), all of which are documented. About 1000 stakeholders participated in these activities, including Vice Chancellors/Rectors/Heads of Higher Education Institutions, Deans, Registrars, University Faculty, College Principals, College Faculty, Office bearers of Professional Councils, and Officials of Provincial Higher Education Departments. The aim was to engage with and get inputs and buy-in of stakeholders in the revamping effort, which in turn could feed into the formulation of an undergraduate education policy.
Regarding quality of participation, the following is notable. Majority of questions and comments of university and college faculty were pertinent and useful. Also, many of the universities’ faculty offered to get involved in the exercise gratis, as they recognised that this was a necessary paradigm shift in undergraduate education to which they wanted to contribute. The weakest inputs were from most of the VCs or heads of universities, who despite requests, largely focussed on financial, administrative, and other tangential matters and seemed unable to focus on the academic aspects of the revamping effort.
Following were key features of the feedback from the events: The quality of undergraduate education in Pakistan needed considerable improvement and was long overdue; the presented framework for revamping was sound and appreciable; the inclusion of faculty of universities and colleges in the policy-making consultations was a first in HEC history; universities and colleges would require technical and financial support, as well as capacity building, to implement the revamped undergraduate curriculum; and fears that the revamped curriculum, though potentially highly beneficial, may be rolled back for political exigencies and/or with change in leadership at the HEC (The prescience of the last observation was not recognised until much later).
The revamping exercise also included focussed discussions from February 2019 to May 2020. This was a voluntary group of Islamabad-based academicians (joined at times by identified volunteers of the HEC), that frequently gathered to review feedback from consultations and provide inputs to the revamping effort, keeping in view international best practices and the Pakistani context.
Recognising that the revamping entailed a paradigm shift, from the very start my team kept wrestling with its likely implementation challenges and their possible redressal in the context of Pakistani higher education ecosphere. That matter was also on the front end of the focussed discussions and kept arising and was discussed during most consultations.
The Undergraduate Education Policy 2020 (UEP):
The formulation of the UEP was informed by learnings from the various consultations, focussed discussions, examination of international best practices, and research. Further, as mentioned above, the contextual realities of the higher education landscape of Pakistan were an important consideration in its formulation. The goal being the formulation of a framework that was grounded in our contextual realities, that provided flexibility to universities in its implementation, and that would help raise the quality of undergraduate education and bring it in line with international standards.
The UEP was formulated, approved, and circulated to all stakeholders in August 2020, which was to be implemented by universities by Fall 2021.
Key Features of the UEP:
The UEP:
a) Provides an overall framework for the four-year Bachelor of Studies (BS) degree, the two-year Associate Degree (AD), and undergraduate degrees in professional fields.
b) Is student-centred
c) Aligns with international best practices.
d) Promotes competence-based learning, which includes knowledge, skills, professional behaviour, and interpersonal attributes.
e) Provides broad-based education in the earlier semesters through general education (Gen Ed) courses, with specialisation in later semesters.
Note: 11 model Gen Ed courses in five knowledge domains of Arts & Humanities, Expository Writing, Natural Sciences, Quantitative Reasoning, and Social Sciences were designed and developed by five teams (See the link provided below).
f) Provides flexibility to students to make an informed choice of a Major field of study in accordance with their interest and aptitude in a later semester, per university policy, after exposure to all domains of knowledge.
g) Ensures interdisciplinary knowledge by mandating Distribution courses in fields allied to their Major.
h) Introduces practical learning through Internships and Practical Learning Labs (PLLs) that are mandatory for all undergraduates.
i) Introduces student Academic Advisement.
j) Provides the option for a student to graduate with a single Major, or a Double Major, or a Major and a Minor, or a Major and two Minors.
k) Is a generic framework that provides flexibility to universities in its implementation.
The feedback of universities was quite positive, who indicated a desire for better understanding, and willingness to own, adopt, and implement the UEP. Nevertheless, the UEP was read and understood variously by different institutions and the overall impression was that the understanding was by and large somewhat poor. Universities were also quite concerned about implementation and desirous of administrative and financial support, as well as guidance and capacity building by the HEC. Tellingly, the poorest understanding and greatest resistance to ownership of the UEP was demonstrated by HEC personnel, especially some key members of the senior management.
Facilitating Implementation of the UEP:
To help universities implement the UEP, the following supports were provided.
Resources: Several resources were designed, developed, and provided by PERU. Namely, an Implementation Manual that provided clarifications on, and explanations of, the main provisions of the UEP, and as well a step-by-step walk-through of students from admissions to graduation; Guidelines for Academic Advisement and Orientation, Internships, and Practical Learning Labs; and 11 Model General Education (Gen Ed) courses and associated Teachers’ Manuals.
All the documents and resources are available online at:
https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/services/students/UEP/Pages/default.aspx
The HEC also started providing financial support and guidance for the establishment of administrative offices that could provide three new services that were mandated by the UEP, namely, Academic Advisement, Internships, and Practical Learning Labs (PLLs).
Capacity Building: The other key support exercise was the capacity building of faculty, management, and staff of colleges and universities. This was provided mostly through workshops to foster better understanding and buy-in and addressing challenges of implementation.
PERU designed and developed the capacity building programmes as well as a rollout plan. By the time of my leaving the HEC in August 2022, about 3000 college faculty and staff had undergone training in understanding and implementing the UEP. Plans were to eventually cover about 80% faculty and staff of public colleges where the UEP had been implemented.
Also, there was considerable demand from universities for provision of similar training, which was also designed, and a rollout plan developed. PERU was fully geared to start that training, but the HEC leaders dilly-dallied until the day of my departure. So, the fate of the envisaged training is unknown.
Implementation of the UEP:
The institutional stakeholders of implementation of the UEP include the HEC, the universities, and the colleges. However, the HEC is the pivotal stakeholder as its decisions and actions have ramifications for buy-in and implementation in universities and colleges. Unfortunately, serious problems were discernible in the understanding and buy-in of the policy, as well as in the approach to implementation by the pivotal stakeholder, the HEC.
Internal briefings and discussions revealed that the senior management of the HEC demonstrated poor understanding of the UEP and an unwillingness to own it. In fact, it’s very need kept being questioned, as in their view, regardless of the evidence, the existing model was fine or just needed some improvement. They seemed unable to rise above the personal and the political, which hampered their ability to critically read its substance on merit, let alone understand it. They also failed to comprehend that the UEP was a coherent whole, so, tinkering with any principal component could dilute or nullify the benefits of the whole. Further, the substance of the policy and concerns about its implementation were being mixed up, this despite the repeated flagging of the need to separate policy and Implementation, and taking a firm stand on the policy, but incorporating flexibility in its implementation.
Regarding implementation, there was good progress until March 2021, when the Chairman HEC was removed, after which the process started lurching due to misguided interference by the HEC senior management. During internal discussions it became evident that their approach was non-academic, bureaucratic, and of the groupthink variety. Their central concern was territorial in that who would take the lead implementation. They insisted that the Academic Division (Acad Division in HEC parlance) should lead the implementation, which was problematic on both substantive and pragmatic grounds. Substantively, there was no indication that the head of that Division understood the essence of the policy even minimally, so there was high risk of the UEP being mangled in its implementation. Pragmatically, PERU had been engaged in numerous activities to facilitate and support implementation of the UEP in public affiliated colleges, so handing the baton midstream to the weak Academic Division was neither prudent nor practical.
Most importantly, there was no cognisance of the underlying fact that universities are autonomous academic institutions, must own the policy, and in partnership with the HEC be in the driving seat of implementation. The HEC had developed the policy, and then on needed to partner with universities and provide support, facilitation, and guidance in its implementation, and at the end of the day, function as a regulator of standards.
In short, there were two contrasting approaches to implementation. On the one hand, the HEC had a solely bureaucratic-checklist approach, without any concern about substantive academic matters; unconcern for timelines; and appeasement of a coterie of VCs and external vested interests. On the other hand, the focus was on capacity building, and in partnership with universities, taking forward implementation of the UEP without compromising its (academic) fundamentals.
Below are some specific events that reveals that the HEC is the major stumbling block in meaningfully fruitful implementation of the UEP, which increases the risk that the benefits of the UEP will get diluted or lost in its implementation, and all the effort come to naught.
VCs Consultations: In June 2021, there was a virtual consultation with heads of universities (hereon VCs), in which it was agreed to form 10 technical committees of VCs to examine various aspects of the UEP. It was also agreed that the technical committees and all VCs will communicate their concerns and proposed solutions in writing. However, only 3 of the 10 committees, and 42 of the about 230 universities submitted written responses. While the reports of the three technical committees were partially useful, only a very few of the responses from universities indicated even a basic understanding of the UEP.
In July 2021, a second virtual consultation was held with the VCs, which largely covered old ground. The only tangible outcome was that on demand of the VCs, the deadline for implementation was extended to Fall 2022, but with the stipulation that universities that have started the process of implementation in Fall 2021 should continue with that. In October 2021, an in-person VCs Committee meeting was held in the mountain resort-town of Bhurban close to Murree. On balance the three consultations did not contribute anything positive, and in fact were counterproductive.
Summarising the proceedings of the three consultations, especially the last one in Bhurban, one notes that the HEC leadership adopted an appeasing and placatory stance. The initiative was ceded to a small group of VCs and the Chairman VCs Committee started moderating the session, though with the fig-leaf of the Executive Director HEC (on paper I was the moderator). The event was hijacked and turned into a political and grandstanding circus. The VCs were given full opportunity to air their concerns and grievances, while PERU was not given any opportunity to provide clarifications about how those could or would be addressed. Further, there was a failure of keeping separate the substance of the UEP and its implementation challenges. Finally, through its actions during the Bhurban consultation, the HEC became the adversary of its own policy.
For me as a psychologist, the elephant in the room was the personal attributes and wanting understanding, integrity, and professional competence of some of the main actors in this drama, whether of the HEC or otherwise. However, examination of that is eschewed as it requires a separate (somewhat unflattering) thesis.
Navigating Implementation:
Notwithstanding the above, PERU continued taking forward implementation of the UEP along the lines agreed with the World Bank. The following summarises the steps towards that.
Faculty and Staff Capacity Building:
PERU undertook several capacity building activities to take forward implementation of the UEP in the Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) provinces (several administrative and pragmatic considerations resulted in the choice of these two of the four provinces of Pakistan). About 2000 faculty and staff of public colleges in the Baluchistan and KP provinces was provided a five-day virtual training in groups of approximately 250 each on the UEP, its implementation, and as well generic pedagogical skills.
Subsequently, an additional about 1000 faculty and staff of public colleges of KP was provided a one-day in-person training solely on the UEP and its implementation. The participants were from 150 public colleges and training was delivered in 19 groups of about 50+ each, who gathered in 19 host public universities of KP. An important element of this training was that at the end data was obtained on the learning achievement of participants, which indicated good to very good learning overall. (I was personally engaged for the initial about two hours in each of the above-mentioned activities).
The overall feedback from the capacity building activities of faculty and staff revealed that a large majority comprehended the essence and benefits of the UEP and were appreciative, many enthusiastic. However, some pointed to the fact that complications may arise because while the HED had implemented the UEP in all public colleges in the KP province, most of the affiliating universities that colleges followed academically, had not implemented it.
University Briefings cm Consultations:
Detailed briefings cm consultations on implementation of the UEP were held with the VCs and senior management with each of five of the above-mentioned host public universities (Hazara University, Mansehra; University of Haripur, Haripur; Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat; Swat University, Saidu Sharif; and Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar). Each of these lasted about three hours and was conducted by me.
Feedback from the briefings cm consultations with VCs and senior management of the five universities hearteningly revealed that four of the five universities had grasped the essence and objectives of the UEP, adopted it, and were at various stages of implementation. In my view, the critical variable in this was university leadership, especially the VCs. However, their main concern and confusion was due to the very mixed messages they were getting from the HEC over implementation, especially after the October 2021 Bhurban event.
As mentioned earlier, for capacity building of the remaining universities, PERU designed in-person Seminars, as well as a cascading roll-out of an Implementation Drive, which would cover all universities in the country, as well as those in Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK). However, the concern is that that will prove to be an exercise in futility, and most likely nothing further will come of it.
Establishment of Undergraduate Student Offices (USOs):
The implementation of the UEP would require universities to provide three entirely new administrative services to undergraduate students, including Academic Advisement, Internships, and Practical Learning Labs. PERU developed and disseminated guidelines to all universities for providing the three services under a single umbrella, namely the USO. During 2021, monies were disbursed to 16 public sector universities to establish USOs, and funding for their establishment in 90 additional public sector universities was approved. However, the Executive Director then handed over that project to old HEC hands and to my knowledge it is suffering the same fate as most of its other projects. That is, there was cherry-picking of universities which started receiving money, there were many loopholes in the reporting of expenditures by universities, and most importantly, the purpose of the USOs was lost in the shuffle. The purposeless expenditures added to pessimism, especially as the establishment of the USOs was an important implementation pillar of UEP.
Implementation Happens:
Despite the mishandling and creation of hurdles by the HEC, PERU pushed forward with implementation and there were encouraging silver-linings as the UEP had started being adopted and/or implemented in many institutions across Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) by the time I left the HEC.
Please note that ground realities inevitably vary across universities, so different universities started with implementing different components of the UEP, and implementation of even the part/s began at different times. This was anticipated, as implementation is a progressive process, and full implementation is completed over time and along different timelines.
The following matrices give summary implementation data.
Universities that have Adopted and/or Implemented the UEP
PROVINCE PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL
Islamabad Capital Territory 4 1 5
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) 6 0 6
Punjab 3 2 5
Sindh 3 1 4
Azad Jammu Kashmir 1 0 1
Grand Total: 21
Colleges where the UEP has been Implemented
KP:
The UEP has been implemented via notification in all public sector affiliated colleges of KP.
Punjab:
The UEP has been implemented in all public sector affiliated colleges of:
1) Bahauddin Zakaria University (BZU), Multan.
2) Bahawalpur Islamia University, Bahawalpur.
The process of implementation of the UEP in public sector affiliated colleges of the Punjab University, Lahore, has started and is progressing.
Sindh:
The UEP has been implemented in all public sector affiliated colleges of Karachi University, Karachi.
Only time will tell whether there is improvement in the quality of graduates of institutions that have implemented the UEP. However, given the way in which the HEC functions, there isn’t much room for optimism.
Conclusion:
The report of the Task Force on Improving Higher Education (TF) included recommendations for the reform of undergraduate education, which the HEC implemented the recommendations in two phases. However, the overall HEC approach was bureaucratic and unthought through both in conceptualising and implementing the reform. In fact, undergraduate education was a low priority for the HEC, which followed the letter of the TF recommendations but missed its essence. Consequently, the reforms did not improve the quality of undergraduate education in public institutions and may have worsened it.
The Undergraduate Education Policy 2020 (UEP) was finalised after extensive research and consultations with multiple stakeholders, was contextually relevant, and aligned with international best practices. Except for within the HEC, it had wide acceptance amongst other stakeholders. Understanding and acceptance of the policy by the HEC senior management was not achieved due to personalisation, politicisation, and intellectual poverty. Further, the HEC approach to implementation was either ill-informed or adversarial. Although the vote is out, due to mishandling by the HEC, the reform of undergraduate education seems headed for failure in terms of achieving the broader objective.
As things stand today, students attending public colleges and universities, which is the big majority, will continue to spend money, time, and effort to get largely worthless undergraduate education and degrees that ill-prepares them for the challenges of life. This has troubling ramifications for the country, as in today’s world progress is not possible without the availability of a cohort of knowledgeable, skilful, competent, and ethical individuals. Internationally undergraduate education fosters the production of the bulk of such a cohort, but not in Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan’s performance on most development indicators remains poor, and cannot improve unless the quality of undergraduate education improves.
Notwithstanding the failure of the HEC and our public institutions of higher education, some institutions in the private sector are producing well-qualified graduates. However, the proportion of such competent graduates is rather small.
To reiterate, on the one hand, in today’s world progress is not possible without an adequate number of well-educated and competent graduates. On the other, most institutions of higher education in Pakistan are failing to produce such graduates. So, for Pakistan to progress, improvement in the quality of undergraduate education is essential.
The underlying lesson from the two (one failed and the other headed to failure) attempts at reforming and improving undergraduate education is that this is a complex and highly challenging task. The biggest challenge is that reform must be taken forward by individuals, most of whom are themselves products of the largely dysfunctional higher education system of Pakistan, somewhat of a Catch-22.
Nevertheless, if the goal is improvement in undergraduate education, then at the very least the whole gamut of education, and within that higher and undergraduate education, must be revisited. Perhaps this is idealistic, but I end with the quote “---what is necessary is never unwise, never futile, never worthless – even if it is as hard to accomplish as hitting a bullet with another bullet fired from a handgun while riding a runaway horse (Yanis Varoufakis, 2022).
Acknowledgement: Thanks are due to Drs. Shafiq-ur-Rehman, Shaheen Sardar, Khalid Nadvi, and Shuja Ahmed for sharing their thoughts on earlier drafts of this document.
Undergraduate Education in Pakistan is going through a major paradigm shift with the implementation of the latest policy (UEP 2020). The policy aims to raise the quality of undergraduate education to international standards so that graduate can succeed in...
