higher education commission pakistan · 2016-10-06 · study report - overall assessment of the...
TRANSCRIPT
Higher Education Commission Pakistan Khalid Mahmood, PhD
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
i
Final report
Study #1
Overall assessment of the higher education sector
Higher Education Commission (HEC)
H-9, Islamabad
Khalid Mahmood, PhD
June 29, 2016
(Version1.1)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
ii
Acronyms/abbreviations
AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir
BIC Business Incubation Center
C PEC China Pakistan Economic Corridor
DAI Degree Awarding Institutions
DG Director General
DQE Directorate of Quality Enhancement
FGD focus group discussion
GB Gilgit-Baltistan
GDP gross domestic product
GER gross enrollment ratio
GOP Government of Pakistan
HEC Higher Education Commission
HEIs higher education institutions
IPEMC Inter Provincial Education Minister's Conference
KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MTDF midterm development frame work
NEP National Education Policy
NER net enrollment ratio
NQF National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan
OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ORIC Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization
PCEPT Professional Competency Enhancement Program for Teachers
PERN Pakistan Education and Research Network
QA Quality Assurance
QEC Quality Enhancement Cell
QS Quacquarelli Symonds
R&D Research and Development
SBIR Small Business Innovation Research
STR Student Teacher Ratio
SWOC Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Challenges
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
iii
TESP Tertiary Education Support Project
TORs terms of reference
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background/Introduction
The Government of Pakistan (GOP) has set a clear vision for the future of the country’s system
of higher education as a tool for human resources development to further economic growth in a
rapidly changing world. Vision 2025 aims to modernize the existing programme contents of higher
education towards more professionally-oriented skills to better meet labour market needs and to
build the country’s capacity. In order to meet the requirements of the Vision 2025, major
improvements are required in the country’s rapidly expanding higher education system.
Since its establishment in 2002, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has undertaken a
systematic process of implementing five-year plans for higher education reform. These plans are
outlined in the HEC Medium Term Development Frameworks (MTDFs). In its MTDF-II, which
ended in 2015, HEC had made significant efforts to address the three key challenges of (a) quality
assurance (b) increased access and (c) relevance of the higher education sector to national
needs. This study presents the actual levels achieved in comparison to the targets which were
set out in MTDF-II.
As envisaged both in the National Vision 2025 and the 11th Five-Year Plan of Planning
Commission of Pakistan, in order to bring Pakistan’s economy’s transition to take off stage, HEC
has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the higher education. However, in
view of making the right strategic move towards this goal, it is imperative to have a candid analysis
of the higher education sector. This study, in comparison to targets set in MTDF-II, presents: (i)
stock of the current situation of higher education sector in Pakistan, (ii) current status, recent
trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths and (iii) the potential to become a driving
force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country.
The purpose of this study was not to assess the implementation process of MTDF-II. Rather, it
sought to inform the achievements of the MTDF-II vis-à-vis physical targets set in the framework.
Methodology
Along with administrative data and information gathered from the officials of HEC and its MIS
department, Planning Commission of Pakistan, HEIs management and faculty; primary data were
also collected through survey questionnaires for faculty and students, and through interviews,
consultations and FGDs with HEC staff and universities’ students, staff and faculty. In this way,
the study used a mixed method design (qualitative and quantitative) to collect data from students,
faculty and management through a survey and partly through participatory approach in order to
explore the existing situation of the sector.
Key Findings
A recent literature review of the impact of tertiary education on low-and lower-middle income
countries found that tertiary education may provide greater impact on economic growth than the
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
v
lower tiers of education. It also suggests that tertiary education provides a range of broader
measurable benefits. These relate to the quality of health, gender equality and democracy, among
others. Focusing more directly on economic growth, there is a global increasing demand for a
workforce with “new-economy skills”, including high level analytical and interpersonal skills and
routine cognitive skills. These are required by growing industries and can best be supplied by
higher education. Pakistan can greatly benefit from the new-economy skills, especially, since it
intends to reap the benefits of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (C PEC) in the coming years.
More generally, university graduates are more likely to find stable employment in the formal
sectors and to earn higher incomes than non-graduates who are more likely to be unemployed
and poor.
The HEC, with its prime focus on quality of higher education and its equitable access, has been
strenuously struggling to promote higher education in the country. Offices of Research, Innovation
and Commercialization (ORICs) as well as Business Incubation Centres (BICs)in universities
have been set up in universities to encourage and commercialize relevant research.
Improvements in the quality of academic standards and research were at the top of the agenda
of HEC MDTF-II. Considerable efforts have been made to improve quality in the last five years.
Six Pakistani universities are now ranked among the top 800 World Universities (QS World
Universities Rankings 2015-2016). Since 2014, Pakistani universities have maintained their Asian
ranking with ten universities ranked in the top 300 universities in Asia (QS University Rankings
2015-2016). The percentage of faculty with PhD degrees is now almost 28 percent (27.53 percent,
n= 9935). Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) are ‘taking ownership’ of quality at the universities
and report on a regular basis to the Quality Assurance (QA) Division at the HEC. Recent data
indicate that men and to a lesser extent women faculty members of Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) perceive that on some indicators, including meeting educational needs of the students of
various programmes, the quality of education had ‘somewhat improved’ in recent years. On other
indicators, such as clear policies that support collaborative work, they report no /slight
improvement. The students, both men and women, agree that programme support and quality in
the HEIs had improved.
According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16, under ‘higher
education’ Pakistan is ranked at 124th out of 140 countries. This position has not improved since
2013. On the contrary, in the United Nation Human Development Index (HDI), Pakistan went
down from 147 last year to 148 this year.
The higher education sector expanded rapidly after the early 2001-2002 and has been increasing
exponentially ever since. Between 2010 and 2015, Pakistan has experienced a 78 percent
increase in the number of universities/ Degree Awarding Institutions (DAI), both public and private.
And during the same period, there has been a 174 percent increase in student enrollment,
including a large proportion of women. Students surveyed, both women and men, stated that they
were satisfied (mean scores=3.6 on scale of 5) with the ‘programme organization’ in their
institutions as well as with the availability of ‘learning resources’ to support their learning. Faculty
members considered that ‘fair’ amount of resources are available in their institutions (mean
score=3.2 on scale of 5) for both, men and women respondents.
HEC introduced and standardized a large number of curricula to respond to the skill-based needs
of developing Pakistan. It also supported research pertaining to the socio-economic needs of the
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
vi
region in the vicinity of the university through supporting and expanding on the establishment of
BICs. HEC also introduced Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants to support relevant
research at the university which are to be partnered with the industry. However, only 25 percent
of the surveyed faculty members reported that they had ‘substantial’ grants for conducting
research.
For fiscal year 2015, the total budget allocation for higher education stood at PKR 73 billion, an
increase of more than 70 percent over 2011 in nominal terms. However, this nominal increase
reduces to only half that amount when inflation is factored in. Of the total federal spending on
higher education from 2011 to 2015, 65 percent corresponds to the recurrent budgets. During the
same period, development budgets were limited to 35 percent.
Key Recommendations
Pakistan Vision 2025 envisages an increase in higher education enrolment from the current (7
percent) to the full 12 percent of the youth population aged between 17-23 years. A very
substantial increase in financial input will be required to achieve this ambitious objective which,
while lessening the gap between Pakistan’s and other Asian countries’ levels of enrolment, aims
to increase and actualize Pakistan’s potential for development. The vision states ambitious
agenda for higher education: a) increase in public expenditure on higher education from 0.2% of
GDP to 1.4% of GDP, b) expansion in higher education enrolment from 1.5 million to 5 million, c)
increase in the number of PhDs in the country from 7000 to 15000, d) double the number of
degree awarding institutions from 156 to 300 by 2025, e) establishment of a university campus in
each district, and f) strengthening of online programmes to provide greater access to higher
education.
HEC’s incredible role in governing and regulating higher education institutions of Pakistan is a
reality. Launching of start-up grants for young PhDs, travel grants for participation in international
conferences and national research support program are few outstanding examples set forth by
HEC. Despite of quarter to 200 universities/HEIs are working under the guidelines of HEC, efforts
to identify and formulate priority research areas are left at the disposal of universities. In order to
accomplish goals set in Pakistan Vision 2025, HEC needs to disseminate priority guidelines for
the universities, with a clear framework regarding allocation of budget in discipline or subject wise
research.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
vii
Table of Contents Acronyms/abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................. x
1.0 INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION (HEC) ................................................................................................... 2
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 OVERVIEW OF MTDF-II ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION .............................................................................................. 5
1.4.1 PAKISTAN VISION 2025 ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2 ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (2013-18) ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4.3 CHINA-PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (C PEC).............................................................................................. 7
1.5 EDUCATION SYSTEM PREVAILING IN THE COUNTRY ............................................................................................... 7
1.5.1 EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS IN PAKISTAN .......................................................................................................... 7
1.5.2 ACADEMIC SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN ................................................................ 9
1.5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN ........................................................ 9
1.5.4 FEDERAL VS PROVINCIAL HECS ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 STUDENTS INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 FACULTY INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3 RELIABILITY TEST OF THE INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 SWOC ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR ...................................................................................... 13
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II (FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY
ASSURANCE, AND EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE) ................................................................... 14
3.1.2 QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES, AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES TO DELIVER THESE PROGRAMMES AND STUDENTS
SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.3 UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY JOB
SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY
OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION ..................................................................... 28
3.1.5 DISCIPLINE WISE NEED ASSESSMENT OF PHD FACULTY IN PAKISTANI UNIVERSITIES .............................................. 31
3.2 ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II ............................................... 31
3.2.2 ENROLLMENT TREND IN PAKISTAN ................................................................................................................... 33
3.2.3 OUTPUTS OF UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN ................................................................................................. 34
3.3 RELEVANCE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR TO NATIONAL NEEDS ................................................................ 36
3.3.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II ............................................... 36
3.3.2 RESEARCH CULTURE IN UNIVERSITIES/HEIS ..................................................................................................... 37
3.3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTERS (BICS) ............................................................................ 40
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
viii
3.3.4 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR THE HEC SCHOLARS RETURNING FROM ABROAD .................................... 40
3.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................ 40
3.4.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II ............................................... 40
3.4.2 FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TO UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN ............................................................................. 41
3.4.3 ANALYSIS OF MTDF II (2 0 1 1 – 15) SPENDING PATTERN ................................................................................ 41
3.4.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF MTDF 2010-2015 AND PROJECTIONS TO 2016-2020 .................................................. 44
3.5 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES/ CONSTRAINTS (SWOC) ANALYSIS OF THE HE
SECTOR 44
3.5.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF HIGHER EDUCATION .................................................................................... 45
3.5.2 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF UNIVERSITIES ............................................................................................. 45
4.0 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................................ 46
4.1 INCREASED EQUITABLE ACCESS ...................................................................................................................... 46
4.2 IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 46
4.3 CAPTURING NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS ................................................................................................................ 47
4.4 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS ......................................................................................... 48
4.5 STRENGTHEN RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................... 49
4.6 DEVELOP AND STANDARDIZE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN ALL UNIVERSITIES .......... 49
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX 1. TORS ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendix 2. Physical targets of MDTF-II ....................................................................................................... 54
1. Faculty Development ........................................................................................................................................... 54
2. Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................... 54
3. Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship ....................................................................................................... 54
4. Improving Equitable Access ................................................................................................................................ 54
5. Excellence In Leadership, Governance And Management .................................................................................. 55
6. Financial Management and Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 55
Appendix 3. Organizational Chart of Provincial Higher Education Departments ........................................... 56
Provincial Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa .............................................................................. 56
Provincial Higher Education Department Punjab .................................................................................................... 56
Provincial Education Department, Balochistan ........................................................................................................ 57
Appendix 4. Number of respondents by university ........................................................................................ 58
Appendix 5. Reliability tests of faculty and student questionnaire ................................................................. 59
Appendix 6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges/ Constraints (SWOC) Analysis of Higher Education Sector ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix 7. ANOVAfor quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ................ 63
Appendix 8. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ............... 64
Appendix 9. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university ....... 65
Appendix 10. Universities’ programmes support and quality as perceived by the students ............................ 66
Appendix 11. Universities’ programmes support and quality, and climate as perceived by the faculty ........... 69
Appendix 12. ANOVA for faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory ............................................................................. 73
Appendix 13. Creating an effective university research function and culture .................................................. 74
A. JUMP STARTING: IMPORTING THE NECESSARY RESOURCES ................................................................................ 74
B. CONCENTRATING: ISOLATING AND INSULATING EXISTING RESOURCES ................................................................. 75
C. RATIONALIZING: CONSOLIDATING EXISTING RESOURCES .................................................................................... 75
Appendix 14. The University as a Learning organization: How universities can create and mine their own data in order to monitor themselves and plan, develop, control or adapt their teaching, programmes and research functions. 77
ADAPTATION REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 78
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
ix
List of Tables Table 1.1. Programmes by levels and Credit Hours requirement ................................................................................... 8
Table 2.1. Framework of the study design. .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2.2. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by gender ........................................................ 12
Table 2.3. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by region. ........................................................ 12
Table 2.4. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by university category. .................................... 12
Table 3.1. Faculty Development- PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response. ........................................................ 15
Table 3.2. PhD and non-PhD full time faculty by region during 2014-15. ..................................................................... 15
Table 3.3 Quality Assurance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response ............................................................. 16
Table 3.4. Excellence in Leadership and Governance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response ...................... 17
Table 3.5. Quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ................................................... 19
Table 3.6. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction ............................... 19
Table 3.7. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by gender .............. 20
Table 3.8. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory ..................................... 21
Table 3.9. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory ............. 22
Table 3.10. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university .................... 22
Table 3.11. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3.12. Proportion of teaching workload by gender ............................................................................................... 24
Table 3.13. University management climate by gender ............................................................................................... 26
Table 3.14. University academic climate by gender ..................................................................................................... 27
Table 3.15. Faculty members job satisfaction (academic) by gender........................................................................... 27
Table 3.16. Faculty members job satisfaction (compensation) by gender .................................................................... 28
Table 3.17. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by gender ................................................................................... 29
Table 3.18. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university ........................................................................................ 29
Table 3.19. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university ................................................................... 30
Table 3.20. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 3.21. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory .................................................................................. 31
Table 3.22. Distribution of public and private sector universities/DAI by region ........................................................... 33
Table 3.23. Enrollment at universities/DAI + constituent colleges by area and sector during 2012-13 to 2014-2015 .. 34
Table 3.24. Enrollment by Level of Degree during year 2013-14 and 2014-15 ............................................................ 34
Table 3.25. Number of PhD produced (provisional) by Pakistani universities by discipline by the end of 2014 ........... 35
Table 3.26. Recurring and developmental spending by year ....................................................................................... 41
Table 3.27. Per Student Federal Grants ...................................................................................................................... 42
Table 3.28. Federal recurring grants for universities, national programs and HEC Secretariat .................................... 43
Table 3.29. Comparative analysis Actual allocation of MTDF 2010-2015 and projections to 2016-2020 ..................... 44
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
x
List of Figures Fig 3.1: Number of universities in global ranking (701+ Score) .................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.2 Faculty members’ services to the department/institution............................................................................. 24
Figure 3.3 Faculty involvement in developmental activities .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.4 Faculty members’ level of awareness about HEC policies .......................................................................... 25
Figure 3.5 Whether the university have its research policy .......................................................................................... 26
Fig 3.6: Trend of increase in number of Public and Private sector universities and DAI .............................................. 32
Fig 3.7: Enrollment at University (Campus + Constituent Colleges) 2001 to 2015. ...................................................... 33
Fig 3.8: Number of PhD s Produced by Pakistani Universities 1947 to 2013 ............................................................... 35
Fig 3.9: Funds provided by the HEC to the public sector universities for non-development and development expenditure 2001-2015 ................................................................................................................................................ 41
Fig 3.10: Spending on Higher Education as GDP % by year ............................................................................ 42
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT This introduction provides background on higher education reforms in Pakistan and the
rationale for the current study.
In Pakistan, higher education (tertiary education) is generally recognized as education
beyond 12 years of schooling. Pakistan’s Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER)(tertiary education) is
currently reaching 9 percent, enrollments in higher education and is steadily increasing. At
present, the Government of Pakistan (GOP) is planning to raise the GER(tertiary education) to 15
percent by 2020. This is still comparatively lower than the GER in many other South Asian
countries. Similarly, the number and qualification of the academic staff that are the
backbone of teaching-learning and research, have also been improved. Over the last 10
years, the number of faculty has increased by 26 percent. Still, Pakistan’s higher education
sector performs less than most on the basic requirements. Compared to others in the
Efficiency Enhancers and Innovation/Sophistication factors in higher education and
training, its rank is 129th out of 133 (GOP, 2103, p. 76). It is envisaged that GER(tertiary
education) needs to be increased to 40 percent
and that quality needs to be improved to an
even greater extent in the coming years.
Furthermore, all the higher education
institutions (HEIs) in the country cannot be
realistically expected to become engaged in
research. A substantial number of them
nevertheless must become engaged in
effective research activities since not only it is
their legal mandate to do so but it is widely
recognized that research from the academia
has the potential to be one of the main
producers of the new knowledge and a strong
driver of development1.
It is well known that the socio-economic
development of any society mainly depends on
the extent and the quality of the knowledge
produced, disseminated and made available
for use to its members. It has become clear
from the recent analysis by experts that what
truly separates developed from the less-developed countries is not just a gap in resources
or output but a gap in knowledge. In fact the pace at which developing countries grow is
largely a function of the pace at which they close that gap (Stiglitz & Greenwald, 2014). In
an apparent acknowledgment of this fact, Pakistan Vision 2025 aims for a substantial
expansion in availability at all levels of education as well as for the improvement of the
quality of education. In this regard, increased public expenditure on education is projected
to reach 4.0 percent2 of the GDP by 2018.
Given the relationship between social and economic development and higher education,
the continued and further development of higher education in Pakistan must be seen as an
1 See Appendix 13 for suggestions as to how this may be realized. 2 It is for all level of education including higher education.
Implementation status of National Education
Policy 2009 is to be completed before June
2015 and Ministry of Federal Education and
Professional Training is in process of
implementing “New Education Policy 2016”
this year after completing the consultation
and review process. The government is set
to upgrade and review the last education
policy which was made in 2006 by the end
of this year and implement it from January
2016. The new policy will be uniformly
implemented in all provinces including Azad
Jammu Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The
National Education Policy was placed under
the 3rd Inter Provincial Education Minister's
Conference (IPEMC) which approved
formation of NEP 2009 Review Committee
to suggest changes in the policy in view of
18th Amendment scenario and global
modern trends in the education sector.
Source: Ministry of Federal Education &
Professional Training
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
2
urgent challenge. In order to bring Pakistan’s economic transition to the take-off stage, as
envisaged both in Pakistan Vision 2025 and the 11th five-year development plan of the
country, HEC has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the country’s
higher education sector.
1.1 THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION (HEC)
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) is an autonomous apex body responsible for
allocating public funds from the federal government to universities and DAIs and accrediting
their degree programs, in Pakistan. Colleges are funded and regulated by provincial
governments, but follow the curriculum of the HEC funded universities/DAIs with which they
are affiliated.
Since its establishment in 2002, the HEC has undertaken a systematic process of
implementing five-year plans for higher education reforms. These plans are outlined in the
HEC Medium Term Development Frameworks (MTDFs). Because so far Pakistan's record
on the education front has not been impressive due to a number of factors and because
the future requires greater dynamism and coherence in national policies at both the macro
and micro levels, the HEC, wishing to make the right strategic move towards attaining
strategic goals in the higher education sector, sought to imperatively obtain a candid
analysis of the higher education sector of Pakistan. To provide this analysis, a study has
been undertaken, the results of which are presented in the current report.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The major purpose of the study as indicated in the ToRs (see Appendix 1), is to:
i. take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan,
ii. evaluate the current status, recent trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses
and strengths; and
iii. assess the potential of the universities to become a driving force in boosting the
knowledge economy in relation to the growing and changing needs of the
country.
The study critically evaluated the current higher education sector, its present trends and
provided an assessment of the past performance with a view to guiding the future course
of action. The performance of the sector has been compared with the targets and the
achievements of the last MTDF of the HEC.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF MTDF-II
The MTDF-II was a five-year plan (2011-2015), issued in early 2011 by the HEC. It
identified the major issues faced by the higher education subsector – recognized as one of
the engines of economic development, and offered a long-term vision and an ambitious
strategy, which the HEC has begun to implement. While the MTDF is clearly targeting
universities/ DAIs, in line with the HEC mandate, colleges also were mentioned
occasionally in the document.
The following have been identified as the key issues in the HEC MTDF-II:
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
3
1. Lack of both national and local “ownership” of higher education;
2. Poor university-industry interaction;
3. Poor university-community relations;
4. Low quality and consequent low employability of college and “private” graduates;
5. Lack of well qualified research faculty;
6. Lack of capacity for ensuring continuous faculty and staff development;
7. Low enrollment in the higher education sector;
8. Poor governance of the university system and poor governance within universities;
9. Inadequate support of needy meritorious students through student loans or other grants;
10. Low fund generation and low user charge recovery by universities
HEC is supporting initiatives aimed at enhancing collaboration between academia and
industry, with a particular focus on the development of locally relevant education and
research and development programmes in the academic institutions. To achieve these
strategic aims and objectives (institutions focusing on building economies, leadership and
communities), the MTDF-II was organized around six pillars of institutional development:
a) faculty development, b) quality assurance, c) research, innovation and
entrepreneurship, d) improving equitable access, e) excellence in leadership and
governance, f) financial management and sustainability. A separate section of the plan
was set out, for each of these pillars which covers:
The Aim in full: that is to say, the high-level strategic outcome towards which HEC
is working throughout and beyond the life of this plan.
An Introduction, providing a commentary outlining the strategic context and
challenges faced.
The strategic Objectives that HEC seeks to achieve within the plan period.
The Major Programs that HEC intends to implement as a means to achieving the
stated objectives.
Key Performance Indicators by which HEC plans to demonstrate, in measurable
terms, progress towards attaining the set aim and objectives.
This structure is in line with the various kinds of logical frameworks in use throughout the
world. It allows both the further definition of precise activities and projects to implement a
MTDF, as well as the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework to
follow up the progress made in achieving the targets. In addition, the MTDF provided a
mission statement for the HEC. This mission is to “facilitate HEI to serve as Engines of
Growth for the Socio-Economic Development of Pakistan”. MTDF-II also stated the HEC
vision as follows:
Institutions of Higher Learning must play a leadership role in this transition
through the production of skilled, innovative and enterprising knowledge
workers. They must support research, especially on issues of direct relevance
to the socio-economic development of the country and build the economy by
pioneering the commercialization of innovative ideas, products and processes
resulting from the research work. Community building and development is yet
another mantle today’s Institutions of higher learning wear; working to apply
their knowledge and research to the issues of the local and regional industrial
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
4
and social community, which also, in turn, guides them in prioritizing their work.
In the MTDF, the HEC sees itself setting the rules and criteria, and
evaluating the HEIs, while also promoting them.
Often treated as one component of access and/ or quality objectives, it is not by accident
that “Faculty Development” is presented in the MTDF-II as the first pillar. Faculty
development programmes are especially important in adapting faculty members to their
changing roles in initiating and setting the directions for curricular changes, improving
qualifications, and meeting other professional needs. This pillar is a logical response to
improving faculty staff across the board and largely contributes to fixing the existing low
quality of higher education. Programmes to train the new as well as existing faculty, to re-
hire the retired faculty, and to recruit from abroad – are all seen as sensible measures.
The Tenure Track Process Statutes has been expanded and all new appointments at the
Assistant Professor Level for faculty members holding terminal qualifications are suggested
on the tenure track system. All graduating PhD scholars, along with those holding terminal
qualifications, from local and foreign scholarship programs are planned to provide the
opportunity of joining the tenure track system – as stated in MTDF-II.
The second pillar of MTDF-II, “Quality Assurance”, deals with one of the major and most
successful tasks embarked on by the HEC. Indeed, ‘quality’ has remained at the top of the
HEC agenda for transforming the higher education system in Pakistan. To bring about the
uniformity and standardization of curricula and to ensure its quality and relevance, revision
of curricula is conducted on a three year cycle, in collaboration with universities and
industry. In line with the HEC Ordinance, according to which the HEC mandate is to “cause
evaluation of the performance of institutions”, MTDF-II also insists on further refinement of
criteria (and compliance with them). It also underscores the importance of informing the
public, thus, responding to the concern regarding transparency of the market.
The third pillar of the MTDF-II, “Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship”, encourages
activities that can bring the academia and industry closer. Enabling and nurturing truly
excellent research, remains the cornerstone of HEC policy. Research, however, does not
occur in a vacuum, and there are numerous factors that need to exist for research activities
to take root. Efforts have been made to build a bridge between the university and industry
through incubators, business, agriculture and technology parks and the introduction of
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants. HEC pursues the achievement of the
three pronged strategic focus of a) universities building communities, b) universities
building economies, and c) universities building leadership. These require academic
programmes and research and innovation in all areas of knowledge. To reach these goals,
the MDTF encourages the establishment of Offices of Research, Innovation and
Commercialisation (ORIC) within a university, with the responsibility for building research
capacity in the university, managing research contracts, protecting intellectual property and
commercializing university research products.
“Improving Equitable Access” is the fourth pillar of MDTF-II. It is justified given the level
of enrollments at the time of MDTF-II development. Strangely enough, it comes in the form
of a programme. This is somewhat problematic given the absence of a solid accompanying
population and enrollment projection model. In reference to the objectives set out in the
National Education Policy 2009, the increment steps suggested a raise in the enrolment in
higher education sector from 5.1 percent to 10 percent by 2015 (see MTDF II, the
complementary measures to increase equitable access). In fact, increasing equitable
access, that is, increasing the gross enrollment rate of both men and women students,
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
5
seems overly-ambitious given both the existing capacity and financial constraints. These
complementary measures include both, the supply-side measures — physical elements,
distance education — and demand-side ones, including alleviating financial barriers to
students from low-income families.
“Excellence in Leadership and Governance” is the fifth pillar of the MTDF-II. It includes
20 objectives relevant for HEIs management. The list begins with the development of a
pool of university administrators. This is seen as a prerequisite for improving the current
unsatisfactory situation. The main emphasis of the objectives, however, is on training and
accountability as fundamental ingredients for making the HEIs more efficient and
responsible. It is noteworthy that no measure is being considered to improve the
relationship between institutions and the authorities under which they operate (HEC/
Provinces) and that there is no specific action aimed at more autonomy, keeping in view
the 18th amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan3.
The sixth pillar, “Financial Management and Sustainability” is of capital importance, as
financial resources and their effective management are a necessary—if insufficient—
condition to attain the goals and objectives pursued in the MTDF-II. Although the MTDF-II
strategy calls for very substantial increases in the resources allocated to the sector, a part
of which is to be drawn from non-governmental external sources, the MTDF is silent on
both the cost of the measures it recommends and on the means to finance these costs.
In short, the MTDF-II contains the necessary ingredients of a strategic framework to
strengthen higher education in Pakistan. Unfortunately, and perhaps understandably,
costing figures and cost benefit analyses are not provided. And given the probable budget
shortfalls, it would perhaps be a desirable feature of an implementation strategy to plan
with implementation priorities.
The physical targets set for each pillar under the framework are given in Appendix-2.
1.4 NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION
The following are the key documents and
sources which inform planning for higher
education in Pakistan:
1.4.1 PAKISTAN VISION 2025
Pakistan Vision 2025 indicates the necessity
of establishing new universities, in particular,
world class technology and engineering
institutes. It further considers that it is
necessary to improve the quality of existing
3 The 18th Constitutional Amendment was unanimously passed by the Parliament and notified in the Gazette of
Pakistan on 20th April, 2010. This amendment introduced changes to about 36 percent of the 1973 Constitution
of Pakistan: 102 out of 280 Articles of the Constitution were amended, inserted, added, substituted or deleted.
Education, which was on the concurrent list (a list of joint responsibilities of both federal and provincial
governments) of the constitution, before the amendment, has been abolished under the 18th amendment. Now
it has been devolved to provinces, and the respective provincial government is solely responsible for Education
sector within the province. After the amendment, the functions of the Federal Ministry of Education (along with
those of fifteen other ministries) have also been devolved to the provinces.
To achieve the objective of developing a
knowledge economy, we target a sizeable
increase in public expenditure on higher
education currently from 0.2% of GDP to
1.4% of GDP and significant expansion in
higher education enrolment currently from
1.5 million to 5 million
Source: Planning Commission of Pakistan-
Pakistan 2025
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
6
engineering and technology universities and to create capacities for carrying out quality
research. Targets to achieve the objective of developing a knowledge-economy, under
Vison 2025, are:
increase in public expenditure on higher education from 0.2 percent of GDP to 1.4
percent of GDP,
expansion in higher education enrolment from 1.5 million to 5 million,
increase in the number of PhD’s in the country from 7000 to 15000,
double the number of degree awarding institutions from 156 to 300 by 2025,
establishment of a university campus in each district, and
strengthening of online programmes to provide greater access to higher education.
1.4.2 ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (2013-18)
The objectives set in the11th Five Year Plan pertaining to higher education are:
provide equal access and opportunities for all
improve quality of education
reduce regional and gender disparity in human development and social indicators
provide a large pool of highly skilled human resources for reducing skill gaps in key
sectors and for employment abroad
set up measurable targets and performance indicators for monitoring of
improvement in governance and delivery of good quality education services, and
promote cultural harmony, mutual understanding, tolerance, social integration and
brotherhood.
In order to achieve these objectives, the following strategies have been suggested in the
plan:
Providing research-based education having institutional linkages with industry,
while ensuring relevance of curricula and educational practices aimed at meeting
market needs, and
Creating a set of skills and aptitudes enabling employability and productivity
simultaneously with character building
The plan also indicates that there will be increases in public expenditure4 on education to
four percent of the GDP by 2015, and five percent by 2018 with simultaneous enhancement
in planning, management and delivery capacity of the education administrators. So far the
target of spending 4 percent of GDP by 2015 has been missed out.
4 This increase is not only specific to higher education only, it is for all levels of education, i.e.
elementary, secondary, college and university levels.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
7
1.4.3 CHINA-PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (C PEC)
C PEC is a 3000 Kilometers long corridor consisting of highways, railways and pipelines
that will connect China’s Xinjiang province to the rest of the world through Pakistan’s
Gwadar port. The project has been divided into different phases. The first phase of the
project is the completion of Gwadar International Airport and the development of Gwadar
Sea Port. The Chinese companies will complete the first phase by the year 2017. Other
small projects in the Economic Corridor include the expansion of Karakoram Highway, this
is the road that connects China with Pakistan. A fiber-optic line will also be installed to
ensure better communication between the two countries.
“There is no way the (Pakistan) government could achieve these targets unless all sections
of the society play their defined roles and the contribution of academicians and researchers
is of paramount importance5.” To ensure the transfer of technology the universities must
enhance their linkage with industry, and provide hands-on experience to students and
researchers by exposing them to currently on-going projects. “The growth and expansion
of higher education require a serious look, suggesting long term planning by the
universities, especially vis-à-vis C PEC 6.”
1.5 EDUCATION SYSTEM PREVAILING IN THE COUNTRY
The 18th Constitutional Amendment has devolved education to the provinces and Article
25A of the Constitution of Pakistan obligates the state to provide free and compulsory
education for children aged between five to sixteen years. Resultantly, several challenges
have surfaced such as absence of necessary laws, lack of coordination with the provinces,
absence of reporting instruments and improvement in governance of education. NEP 1979,
defined 3 levels: elementary (8 years schooling-grade 1 to 8), secondary (12 years
schooling-grade 9-12) and tertiary education (starts after 12 years of schooling) in the
country. However, for classification of schools and administrative reasons, the secondary
education has been split into 2 levels i.e. a) secondary grades 9-10 and, b) higher
secondary grades 11-12.
1.5.1 EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS IN PAKISTAN
HEC has developed and published a draft National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan
(NQF) 2015 for education qualifications7. The framework describes the levels of
achievements, and features of higher education qualification. It covers academic
qualification, from level five to level eight. The NQF has eight levels that are based on the
generic nomenclature used for qualifications in the country. Table 1.1 provides levels and
programmes titles offered in the Pakistan, as given in NQF 2015.
5 Ahsan Iqbal, Minister for Planning Development and Reform, GoP, Speech on 18 June 2015. 6 Dr. Fazal Ahmad Khalid, vice chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Lahore 7 HEC has given a caution while using the NQF. “A qualification must be assigned to one of the eight levels,
the framework does not describe qualifications of the same level as being equal and qualifications at the same level are not interchangeable, however, they are at comparable in terms of knowledge, skills or competence required to be demonstrably completed”.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
8
Table 1.1. Programmes by levels and Credit Hours requirement
Level title Years of
schooling Award Type Award Example Semesters/ Credit Hours
Higher Education
Levels
21
20
19
Doctoral PhD
18 Credit Hours course work and dissertation evaluated by at least two PhD experts from technologically /academically advance countries in addition to one local expert and doctoral committee members
18 17
Masters MA/M.Phil./MS/MBA, M.Sc. (Eng.), M.E, M. Tec
Minimum 30 Credit Hours with or without thesis
16 15
Bachelor (Hons)
BS, B.E, B.Arch., BSc (Eng.), BSc (Agri), MA/MSc (16 year), LLB, B.Com (Hons), MBBA, DVM, EDs Pharm D
8-10 semester/124-140 Credit Hours
14 13
Associate Degree Ordinary Bachelor
BA/BSc (Pass), ADE, Associate Degrees etc
4-6 semester/50+ Credit Hours
Higher Secondary Education
12 11
Higher Secondary School Certificate (HSSC)
F.A, F.Sc. ICS, I.Com, DBA, D.Com, DAE etc. and also A Levels
Higher secondary Education
10 9
Secondary School Certificate (SSC)
Matric, O Levels
Basic / Elementary Education
Middle (3 Years)
Primary (1-5 Years) Pre-Primary (1-2 Years)
(Source: adapted from HEC National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015, p.6)
As mentioned earlier, higher education in Pakistan, is generally recognized as education
beyond 12 years of schooling, which generally corresponds to the age bracket of 17 to 23
years.
Universities are broadly categorized as general and professional universities in Pakistan.
Professional universities are usually providing academic program in one discipline like
engineering, agriculture, education and medical. While general universities offer a variety
of programmes ranging from liberal arts to information technology. University of the Punjab
is the oldest (established in 1882) and largest university comprising of 5 campuses, 13
faculties, 10 constituents colleges, 73 Departments, Centers, Institutes and 602 affiliated
colleges (University of the Punjab, 2014). This highlights the variety and diversity of the
programs offered by general universities. Different categories of universities have been
devised by HEC for ranking purpose: Agriculture/ veterinary, Health sciences, Engineering,
Business/ IT, Art/Design and Genera.
Apart from institutes and departments of the universities/DAIs, a large number of affiliated
colleges and institutes are also catering the need of higher education throughout the
country. The degrees are awarded to the graduating students of these affiliated colleges
and institutes by the affiliating university. Universities are responsible for conducting
examination and maintaining standers of curriculum, teaching and other services of these
affiliating colleges/institutions. A phenomenon of sub campuses has erupted in the system.
Now many universities have established sub campuses in different locations of the country.
These sub campuses offer fewer or same academic programs as of parent University but
of equal standard and recognition. Sub campuses also follow the same fee structure and
rules as of the main campus.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
9
1.5.2 ACADEMIC SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN
The HEC Pakistan is an independent, autonomous, and constitutionally established
institution of primary funding, overseeing, regulating, and accrediting the higher
education efforts in the country through the above-mentioned institutions. It has three sub-
offices, one each in Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar.
HEC serves many purposes such as, faculty development, HEC infrastructure
advancement, curriculum review, indigenous and foreign scholarships, conference travel
supports, improvement of university and industry research cooperation and flourishing of
latest technology parks. HEC is segregated into departments to run its business
professionally, these include;
Human Resource Development Division,
Academic Division,
Learning and Innovation Division,
Service Division,
Finance Division and
Quality Assurance Division.
These divisions, academically oversee the academic quality of the programmes offered by
and in some cases, managerial aspects of the universities across the country, as per
manmade given to HEC in its ordinance.
1.5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN
After, the 18th Constitutional Amendment, every province is responsible for managing
education at all levels including tertiary/higher education in the province. Two provinces i.e.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab have separate administrative departments with tile:
Higher Education Department. Whereas in other two provinces i.e. Boluchistan and Sindh
higher education is dealt with by the same administrative departments which are dealing
with school education. Province-wise complete administrative hierarchy of higher education
is given as Appendix 3. Two provinces i.e. Punjab and Sindh have gone a step forward and
have established Provincial Higher Education Commission through their respective
legislation body i.e. Provincial Assembly.
1.5.4 FEDERAL VS PROVINCIAL HECS
As mentioned above, during the last few years the provincial governments of Sindh and
Punjab established their respective provincial higher education commissions, i.e., Sindh
HEC and Punjab HEC. Such provincial bodies are yet to be formed, if any, by the
governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
As the situation unfolded, the need was felt to define the roles of all the three HECs. In this
regard, The Federal Government constituted a committee, headed by Minister for Planning
and Reforms. The committee has held three meetings so far and has yet to finalize its
recommendations. The provinces argue that under the 18th Amendment to the constitution,
education has been made a provincial subject and it is the right of provinces to set up their
own bodies. Nonetheless, HEC officials argue that the Supreme Court, in its 2011
judgment, made it clear that “the status of HEC shall remain intact unless it is changed
through new legislation.”
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
10
2.0 METHODOLOGY It was proposed in ToRs, ‘mostly administrative data and information gathered from officials
of HEC, Planning Commission, HEIs management and faculty,’ would be used for the
study. In keeping with these constraints the study is mostly based on secondary sources
of data. However, primary data, where required, were also collected.
In keeping with the ToRs and the inception meetings with HEC officials, the study used a
mixed method design (qualitative and quantitative) to collect data from students, faculty
and management through a survey and partly through participatory approach in order to
explore the existing situation of the sector. Table 2.1 briefly presents the methodology, the
data sources, the research instruments and respondents8.
Table 2.1. Framework of the study design.
8 It is a modified plan in the light of the project limitations regarding provision of resources required for data
collection and finalization of the study findings. The consultant was informed about it when he asked for required resources that were already conveyed to the project through the study’s inception report.
Key Aspect Methodology and Sources of Data Data Collection instruments/
methods
Respondents
1. Take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan
1.1 Based on the targets set in HEC MTDF-II for the provision of resources, a snapshot of the current situation in the HEIs was taken. For this purpose, data were mainly extracted from the related reports/documentation.
Desk review TESP and other related HEC staff
1.2 Survey instruments were developed to elicit perception of the HEIs students, faculty and staff, about (a) the available resources, and (b) vis-à-vis outputs of HEIs. The instruments were administered electronically in the selected universities by using Google Form.
Desk review
Survey instruments
TESP and other related HEC staff
Faculty, staff, management of selected HEI
2. Evaluate what the current status, recent trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths are
2.1 Using the HEC MTDF II targets as a base, a performance analysis of HEIs were conducted. The data were mainly taken from the already available reports/ HEC Statistical Information Unit.
2.2 SWOC analysis was carried out for the selected HEIs to identify their weaknesses and strengths.
Desk review
Format for obtaining data from HEC
Consultative workshops
DG Statistical Information Unit of HEC
Faculty, staff, management of selected HEI
3. Assess the potential to become a driving force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country
3.1 In light of Vision 2025, 11th five year plan, and C PEC, requirements/ responsibilities of HEIs were identified to meet human resource requirements for boosting knowledge economy of Pakistan.
Desk review
Planning Commission of Pakistan
3.2 In the light of a comparative analysis of collected data, gaps with respect to resources available to the universities and their functions were listed.
Consultative workshop
TESP and other related HEC staff including team working on MTDF III
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
11
2.1 SAMPLE
A total of 10 universities (see Appendix 4) were included in the sample of the study to
collect primary data through an electronic survey. Gender balance and geographical
coverage were ensured in the selection of the sample. It was planned to obtain data from
100 students and 20 faculty members from each of the sampled university. In this way total
1000 students and 200 faculty members were included in the study for survey.
2.2 INSTRUMENTS
Two instruments, one for faculty and management, the other for students, were developed
to collect primary data from the selected universities.
2.2.1 STUDENTS INSTRUMENT
Apart from demographic information, the instrument contains 50 questions that cover the
following aspects pertaining to students in HEIs: a) programme clarity and flexibility; b)
learning and teaching; c) assessment; d) student support; e) programme organization; f)
learning resources; and g) general satisfaction. The instrument enquires about these
aspects on a five point Likert-type rating scale.
2.2.2 FACULTY INSTRUMENT
The instrument for faculty contains more than 100 questions, both closed and open- ended.
They elicit faculty views on the following aspects: a) faculty workload, b) awareness of
existing policies, c) university climate, d) faculty job satisfaction, e) qualitative
achievements by the university, f) resources available at the university, and g)
recommendations for improvement. The instrument enquires about these aspects on a
four point Likert-type rating scale for close ended questions.
2.2.3 RELIABILITY TEST OF THE INSTRUMENTS
Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used to assess the reliability/ internal consistency of each of
questions developed for various factors (subscales) addressed in the students and faculty
instruments. For the overall scale, values of α for the students and faculty members
instruments are .957 and .837 respectively. For Likert-type rating scale, these values are
sufficient to declare the questionnaires as reliable/ internally consistent. The α values for
each factor used in both the instruments are given in Appendix 5. The values mentioned
in the appendix are above .5 except for the factor (teaching workload) in faculty members’
questionnaire. It discloses that the questions used for all the subscales (factors) are also
reliable/ internally consistent except for the factor (teaching workload) in faculty members’
questionnaire.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
12
2.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION The questionnaire data were collected electronically via internet using the Google Form
and other qualitative and quantitative data were collected through personal interviews
during visits to the HEC and universities, and consultations with the university faculty.
The overall response rates of faculty and student survey questionnaires were 70.0 percent
(140 out of 200) and 98.9 percent (989 out of 1000), respectively. The response rates by
university and by gender are given in Appendix 4. Table 2.2 presents overall response rates
from faculty and students by gender.
Table 2.2. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by gender Type Gender Planned Number Actual Number Percent
Faculty Women 100 48 48.0
Men 100 92 92.0
Total 200 140 70.0
Students Women 500 549 109.8
Men 500 440 88.0
Total 1000 989 98.9
The overall response rate for both genders in students and faculty members was good
except for women faculty members. The response rates by region9 and university category
are given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4
Table 2.3. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by region.
Province/ Territory
Faculty Students
Number of respondents
Percent Number of respondents
Percent
Azad Jammu and Kashmir 3 2.1 - -
Balochistan - - 11 1.1
Gilgit-Baltistan 33 23.6 172 17.4
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 13 9.3 119 12.0
Punjab 30 21.4 202 20.5
Sindh 61 43.6 485 49.0
Overall 140 70.0 989 98.9
Although a constant follow-up was made, there was no response from AJK and Balochistan
on the student questionnaire and faculty questionnaire respectively. The response rate is
adequate from those universities, where Vice Chancellor actively pursued the data
collection process. This situation resulted in over or under response rate in some of the
provinces/ territories.
Table 2.4. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by university category.
University Category
Faculty members Students
Number of respondents
Percent Number of respondents
Percent
Education 13 9.3 51 5.1
Engineering 40 28.6 307 31.0
General 60 42.9 358 36.3
Medical 27 19.3 273 27.5
Total 140 989 100
9 The response rate is neither proportionate to the provincial population nor to the number of universities in the province. It presents number of students and faculty from the selected universities who voluntarily participated in the study.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
13
There is only one specialized university in the field of education i.e. the University of
Education, Lahore; that is why its proportion in overall response is less than other
categories of the universities.
2.3.1 SWOC ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR
Keeping in view the HEC mission statement, ‘The Higher Education Commission will
facilitate Institutions of Higher Learning to serve as Engines of Growth for the Socio-
Economic Development of Pakistan’, SWOC analysis of the higher education sector in
Pakistan was carried out through discussions and consultations with the university faculty
and management. The complete SWOC chart is placed as Appendix 6.
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Keeping in view the given timelines, financial resources and logistics available to the
study, the study stumbled upon the following limitations:
Intensive use of secondary sources: the major reliance of the data for the study
was secondary sources of data.
Restricted mobility of the researcher to visit all the sampled universities to
verify data collected from secondary sources and supervise the primary data
collection process. This limitation also resulted in sampling errors in some
cases.
Non-availability of resources to conduct regional consultative meetings/
workshops at a central location.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
14
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In recent years higher education in Pakistan has been transformed into a highly dynamic
sector that is rapidly evolving and developing the potential capacity to serve as an engine
of growth for the socio-economic development of the country. While good progress has
been made, numerous challenges also continue to be faced, including poor quality of
research carried out by the faculty and students due to inadequate research resources
and functional research structures within the universities.
This section presents results of the study with respect to the three key aspects of MTDF-
II: (a) quality of higher education, (b) increased access, and (c) relevance of the higher
education sector to national needs. The findings have been organized to present the
current status (achievements) of these aspects with regard to physical targets set in the
MTDF-II for each of its pillar under the aspect; and then gaps to meet the future needs on
these aspects, keeping in view the national aspirations.
3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality’ refers to the attainment of standards of resourcing and provision in the higher
education sector, and the achievements or outputs of an institution or system. Quality is
a multidimensional concept, and it is not possible to arrive at one set of global quality
standards against which local institutions can be assessed. Quality embraces all the major
functions of higher education: teaching and academic programs, research and
scholarship, staffing, students, infrastructure and the academic environment. The concept
of accountability is closely allied with quality; it is difficult for a system of higher education
to fulfill its mission unless it demands the highest quality of itself. Continuous and
permanent assessment is necessary to reach this objective. Simultaneously, it is to be
ensured that great care is exercised when making quality assessments, as it involves
matters of judgment, academic values and cultural understanding. Today, it is the quality
of education that is still a challenge to meet in Pakistan, for all levels of education. Quality
is the means through which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty
that the standards of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced. This
section reports on the achievements against the targets set for the first, second and fifth
pillars of the MDTF II to address quality in higher education.
3.1.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II (FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND
GOVERNANCE)
Three pillars; 1) Faculty Development, 2) Quality assurance, and 3) Excellence in
Leadership and Governance are the 1st , 2nd and 5th pillars mentioned in MDTF II, cover
quality component in higher education. The detail of the achievements under each of
these 3 pillars is as given below:
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
15
PILLAR 1: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
The aim set for first pillar in the PMDF-II was ‘to improve the quality of teaching and
research in institutions through programs to improve faculty pedagogical skills and
qualifications of faculty members’. Table 3.1 presents the achievements in this regard.
Table 3.1. Faculty Development- PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response.
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
New foreign post-graduate scholarship 3500 2784 79.54
New indigenous post-graduate scholarships 3750 2500 66.67
Faculty on tenure track system 3000 2500 83.33
Increase the percentage of faculty with Terminal Degree
34449 8957 26.00
(Source: adapted from HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015)
Major specific objective of investment in the universities is improvement of human
resources and building their capacities. The low rate of achievements under this pillar is
owing to various reasons, some of these have been identified by Planning Commission of
Pakistan, are as follows:
“Delayed selection of scholars has caused; time and cost overruns, 53% of scholars
approved in PC-I have been enrolled till end of 2013.
Universities are unable to complete the approved scope of enrollment for PhDs due to lack
of capacity & interest.
Out of 869 scholars enrolled in PhD, 31% scholars have completed studies & reported
back.
4% PhD students have dropped their studies.
Cost escalation of 30-35% as unit cost of the scholar was observed due to rupee fluctuation
against US dollar, thus scope and cost could not be kept intact.
Weak follow-up of HEC with universities regarding scholars where maximum enrollment is
in UK with highest unit cost were noted.” (Government of Pakistan, 2015)
Availability of PhD faculty: Table 3.2. shows the number of full-time faculty members, classified by their PhD degrees in the public and private sector universities/DAIs during 2014-15.
Table 3.2. PhD and non-PhD full time faculty by region during 2014-15.
Province/Area Full Time Faculty
PhD Non-PhD Total % of PhD
Azad Jammu & Kashmir 183 531 714 25.63
Balochistan 216 1055 1271 16.99
Federal 2378 4611 6989 34.02
Gilgit-Baltistan 38 125 163 23.31
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1615 3404 5019 32.18
Punjab 3833 9697 13530 28.33
Sindh 1672 6733 8405 19.89
Total 9935 26156 36091 27.53
(Source: Higher Education Commission MIS data received on 30 June 2016)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
16
Faculty development is being steered by the HEC where the ultimatum goal is to increase
the number of PhD faculty. All promotions of higher education faculty to professorial ranks
are subject to the requirement of holding a PhD degree along with a number of research
publications. The percentage of faculty with PhD degrees is now more than 27 percent
(27.53 percent, N= 9935). The achievements of the HEC in terms of faculty development
have not been impressive so far, as the increase of PhD has an upward trend and
exponential trend if we compare the numbers of last one decade.
PILLAR 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE
In MTDF-II, the key aim of the second pillar was ‘to establish and implement stringent
quality criteria developed against international standards to assess the performance at
both the program and institutional level’. Table 3.3 reports progress with respect to the set
targets under this pillar.
Table 3.3 Quality Assurance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
Establishment of quality enhancement cells 75 116 154.67
HEIs assessed against IPEs 100 37 37.00
Enrollment of students through DDEs 500,000 210,000 42.00
Establishment of accreditation councils 5 3 60.00
Number of Curricula Revised thru NCRCs 36
(Source: adapted from HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015)
Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) are ‘taking ownership’ of quality at the universities
and report on a regular basis to the Quality Assurance (QA) Division at the HEC. It was
observed that the QEC10 offices in most of the universities were generally functioning with
dedication and commitment on part of their staff, although the size of space of the office,
staff, funds, equipment, etc. available varied from the minimum prescribed to highly
satisfactory level. Generally, the QEC were
maintaining their offices with the standard staff as
proposed by the HEC, but in some universities, due to
much larger number of departments and
programmes, the students, faculty, etc. did not have
the required number of staff and facilities to deliver its
mandate.
The budgets for the QECs were observed to have
been ensured and reflected generally in the budgets
of all the universities. But the operational budget of
QECs, in most cases, was minimal and did not
support much of its management and operational activities, which reduced its awareness
and training programs for students and teachers, and did not allow their own participation
and contributions at other relevant forums, which affected their Scorecards. The requisition
10 The data reported with QECs have been extracted from TPV of QECs function, commissioned by HEC
Under Quality assurance aspect,
HEC has achieved most of the
physical targets set in MTDF-II.
However, on the two key targets
i.e. increase the percentage of
faculty with terminal degree and
institutional fund raising by the
university, achievement rate
remained very low i.e. 26% and
30%.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
17
of more funds for the QECs must be seriously looked into to enable QECs to create a
culture among students and faculty for their
acceptance and ownership.
PILLAR 5: EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
The key objective set for this pillar in the MTDF
was, ‘to support excellence in the higher
education sector’s leadership as well as
excellence in the governance and management of
Institutions of higher learning’. Table 3.4 provides
information about the achievement rate with respect to the key targets set in the MTDF.
Table 3.4. Excellence in Leadership and Governance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
University administrators trained 1000 1534 153.40 Annual reports prepared by universities 50 56 112.00 Establishment of career counselling centers in universities
50 70 140.00
Number of public sector universities with ERP/HEMIS Software for business automation deployed
50 15 30.00
(Source: adapted from HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015)
Institutional governance and ethics are critical. Universities are microcosms of the society
in which they exist. As such they necessarily reflect values and practices in the rest of
society. The successful functioning of a higher education institution depends critically
upon adherence to basic norms of academic values and behaviour. Conversely, any
institution that violates its own rules is unlikely to have collective self-respect.
IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND RESEARCH
QS Ranking: Improvements in the quality of academic standards and research was at
the top of the agenda of HEC MDTF-II. Considerable efforts have been made to improve
quality in the last five years. Six Pakistani universities have now gained rank among the
top 800 World Universities11. (QS12 World Universities Rankings 2015-2016). Since 2014
Pakistani universities have maintained their Asian ranking with ten universities ranked in
the top 300 universities in Asia (QS University Rankings).
The ranking of universities in Pakistan against regional countries is given in Figure 3.1.
11 There are five university ranking systems: a) QS; b) Times Higher Education (THE); c) Academic Ranking
of World Universities (ARWU); d) the CWTS Leiden Ranking and the Webometrics Ranking, and d) the UI GreenMetric. Out of these, The QS and THE rankings are more broadly based. 12 Four categories including system strength, access, flagship institutions, and economic context were used
for this scoring.
HEC has won “3G (Global Good
Governance) Excellence in Higher
Education Award 2016”. The
Award announced by Global
Donors Forums (GDF). The award
has been bestowed upon HEC in
recognition of its initiatives and
services for development of higher
education sector in Pakistan.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
18
Fig 3.1: Number of universities in global ranking (701+ Score)
Although Pakistani universities have improved occupying more space in the QS top
ranking in comparison to 2014, it is still not in a very
good position. Pakistan higher education system
has been ranked at bottom with 9.2 score as
compared to China 83.5, India 60.9, Turkey 26.1
scores in QS 2016 ranking. This position is quite off
target and somewhat depressing for a wide
academic circle. To catch up with the high ranking countries in quality of university
education, still much remains to be achieved.
3.1.2 QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES, AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES TO DELIVER THESE
PROGRAMMES AND STUDENTS SATISFACTION
Good quality and relevant higher education is able to equip students with the knowledge,
skills and core transferable competences they need to succeed after graduation, within a
high quality learning environment which recognizes and supports good teaching. This
section presents the student perceptions about the quality of programmes being,
generally offered in the universities, availability of resources to deliver these programmes
and their level of satisfaction about these programmes. The data are presented with
respect to various independent variables:
COMPARISON BY PROGRAMME
The data collected from the students of Undergrad (4 year), MA/ MSc (2year), MPhil, MS
and PhD programmes, from the selected universities suggest that students of all
programmes, except for the ‘MS programme’, had ‘no opinion’ about the ‘programme
clarity and flexibility’. The case is worse for MS programme, where the students expressed
‘disagreement’ on the quality of this aspect of the programme. Almost the same situation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
QS 2014 QS 2016
Under ‘higher education’ Pakistan is ranked at 124th out of 140 countries. This position has not improved since 2013. (World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
19
emerged for the aspect ‘quality of learning and teaching’ of these programmes, except for
MPhil programme, for which students were satisfied with the quality of learning and
teaching in their programme. Students of MPhil and PhD programmes had ‘no opinion’
about the ‘quality of assessment and feedback; however for the rest of the programmes,
students expressed dissatisfaction on this aspect of the programmes that they were
attending. The situation was the same for ‘student support and student-teacher
relationship’ aspect. Table 3.5 does not present any different situation on other aspects
of the programmes.
Table 3.5. Quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme Programme
Total
Undergrad (4 year)
MA/MSc (2year)
MPhil MS PhD
Programme Aspects N 748 172 16 37 16 989
Programme Clarity and Flexibility
Mean13 2.54 2.52 2.81 2.3 2.63 2.53
SD 1.08 0.95 1.26 0.84 1.35 1.06
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Mean 2.59 2.69 3.25 2.47 2.84 2.62
SD 1.06 0.91 1.23 0.81 1.41 1.04
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Mean 2.3 2.43 2.98 2.04 2.76 2.33
SD 1.17 1.16 1.21 0.8 1.37 1.16
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Mean 2.44 2.49 3.22 2.06 2.79 2.45
SD 1.21 1.02 1.19 0.96 1.48 1.18
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Mean 2.28 2.09 2.31 1.77 2.52 2.23
SD 1.25 1.07 1.1 0.87 1.63 1.22
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Mean 2.57 2.49 3.01 2.41 2.63 2.56
SD 1.28 1.11 1.14 1.09 1.61 1.25
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Mean 2.46 2.55 3.21 2.06 2.84 2.48
SD 1.29 1.1 1.56 1 1.79 1.27
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the types of programmes was
conducted to compare the programme quality and resources available to deliver it vis-à-vis
student satisfaction. There was a significant difference among the universities at the p<.05
level for the four (out of seven) aspects: a) quality of learning and teaching, b) quality of
assessment and feedback, c) satisfaction with the student support and student-teacher
relationship, and d) general satisfaction with the programme (the complete ANOVA results
are given in Appendix 7). Post Hoc test was applied to examine the programmes for which
more student satisfaction was evident with respect to these four aspects. Table 3.6 reveals
that students of the conventional (old) programmes i.e. MA/ MSc 2-year, MPhil and PhD
programmes, are more satisfied than those of the relatively newer programmes i.e. BS 4-
year and MS programmes. One of the reasons in this regard could be that either the
departments faculties are relatively not fully prepared for offering the new programmes’
requirements due to various reasons, or the faculties members’ level of readiness to deliver
these programmes is not up to the desired level.
Table 3.6. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction
13 It was a 5-point rating scale with 5 strongly agree and 1 strongly disagree. So mean values between ‘5 and
4.5’ refer to ‘strongly agree’, ‘ less than 4.5 and upto 3.5’ refer to ‘agree’, ‘less than 3.5 and upto 2.5’ refer to ‘no opinion’, ‘less than 2.5 and upto 1.5’ refer to disagree, and ‘less than 1.5 upto 1’ refer to ‘strongly disagree’.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
20
Dependent Variable
Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J
Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)
Quality of Learning and teaching
MPhil
MA/MSc (2year) .55819* .27139 .040
MS .77326* .31084 .013
Undergrad (4 year) .65622* .26243 .013
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
MPhil MS .93863* .34723 .007
Undergrad (4 year) .67697* .29316 .021
PhD MS .71988* .34723 .038
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
MA/MSc (2year) MS .43783* .21291 .040
MPhil
MA/MSc (2year) .72039* .30723 .019
MS 1.15822* .35189 .001
Undergrad (4 year) .77814* .29709 .009
General Satisfaction with the Programme
MA/MSc (2year) MS .49053* .22942 .033
MPhil
MA/MSc (2year) .65692* .33106 .047
MS 1.14744* .37918 .003
Undergrad (4 year) .74258* .32013 .021
PhD MS .78137* .37918 .040
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
COMPARISON BY GENDER
Table 3.7 discloses the difference among the perceptions of men and women students
about the quality of programmes, availability of resources, and the overall satisfaction with
the programmes that they were attending. Although all students generally expressed
dissatisfaction for all aspects, the criticism was quite strong from the women’s side. This
difference regarding all the aspects is statistically significant, as t-value for all the aspects
is less than .05.
Table 3.7. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by gender
Programme Aspects Gender N Mean SD t df sig
Program Clarity and Flexibility Women 548 2.2 0.9 -5.215 985 .000
Men 439 2.5 1.0
Quality of Learning and Teaching Women 544 2.3 0.9 -3.309 980 .001
Men 438 2.6 1.0
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Women 550 2.0 1.0 -4.428 886.195 .000
Men 441 2.3 1.1
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Women 544 2.1 1.0 -4.075 979 .000
Men 437 2.4 1.1
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Women 550 2.0 1.0 -3.959 903.844 .000
Men 441 2.3 1.1
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Women 543 2.1 0.9 -3.408 863.894 .001
Men 435 2.3 1.1
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Women 550 2.3 1.2 -2.990 989 .003
Men 441 2.5 1.2
It used to be that men were overrepresented in higher education, but that trend has been
changing for several years now. Like in many parts of the world, in Pakistan women
students also began switching places with their men counterparts as the most dominant
gender in terms of higher education participation. This might be one of the reasons that
women students are more conscious about their quality of education.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
21
COMPARISON BY TERRITORY
Although the overall state of quality of programmes is below the preferred status in all the
provinces, in comparison to the other provinces and territories, the opinions of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa students are comparatively positive from other provinces on various aspects
as depicted in Table 3.8. It is might be due to the reason that the Government of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa is “sensitive and actively engaged to improve quality of education by focusing
on capacity building of teaching faculty, objectivity in making use of available human
resources, avenues for local and foreign scholarships and improving quality of knowledge”
(the secretary higher education, speech on April 04, 2015)14.
Table 3.8. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory
Programme Aspects
N
Province
Balochistan Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh GB Total
11 118 202 484 172 987
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Mean 2.72 2.61 2.29 2.34 2.36 2.37
SD 1.37 1.03 0.83 1 0.85 0.95
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Mean 2.17 2.66 2.35 2.38 2.57 2.44
SD 1.4 0.98 0.82 0.98 0.92 0.95
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Mean 2.56 2.43 2.12 2.12 2.25 2.18
SD 1.52 1.16 0.92 1.07 1.02 1.05
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Mean 1.93 2.56 2.14 2.19 2.41 2.26
SD 0.92 1.09 0.86 1.15 0.97 1.06
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Mean 1.59 2.31 2.11 2.1 1.98 2.1
SD 0.86 1.22 1.01 1.14 0.99 1.1
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Mean 1.81 2.33 2.1 2.15 2.17 2.16
SD 1.28 1.05 0.85 1.08 0.86 1
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Mean 2.13 2.74 2.34 2.31 2.35 2.38
SD 1.33 1.22 1.1 1.27 1.13 1.21
One-way AONVA test was applied to analyze the differences among group means and
their associated procedures. The ANOVA results (Appendix 8) show that there is a
statistically significant difference between the means score of the provinces on five (out of
seven) aspects: a) program clarity and flexibility, b) quality of learning and teaching, c)
quality of assessment and feedback, d) satisfaction with student support and student-
teacher relationship, and e) general satisfaction with the programme. Post Hoc test was
applied to examine which of the programme’s students were more satisfied with respect to
these four aspects. Table 3.9 again confirms that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was ahead of the
other provinces and territory, and the differences among the mean scores of the various
provinces are statistically significant.
14 A report of a nation daily ‘the News’ published on April 05, 2015
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
22
Table 3.9. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by territory
Dependent Variable
Province/Territory Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Punjab .32209* .10995 .003
Sindh .26943* .09743 .006
GB .25280* .11343 .026
Quality of Learning and teaching
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Punjab .30678* .10937 .005
Sindh .27799* .09701 .004
GB Punjab .22019* .09793 .025
Sindh .19140* .08390 .023
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Punjab .30876* .12124 .011
Sindh .30979* .10740 .004
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Punjab .42506* .12288 .001
Sindh .37465* .10883 .001
GB Punjab .27022* .10979 .014
Sindh .21981* .09380 .019
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Punjab .39913* .13937 .004
Sindh .42919* .12347 .001
GB .38867* .14394 .007
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
COMPARISON BY TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
The data were also analyzed with respect to the different types of universities –
Professional (Education, Engineering and Medical) and General. Table 3.10 gives detail of
this analysis.
Table 3.10. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university
Programme Aspects
N
Type of University
Medical Engineering Education General
272 305 51 359
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Mean 2.32 2.4 2.02 2.43
SD 1.08 0.86 0.74 0.94
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Mean 2.29 2.45 2.19 2.58
SD 1 0.89 0.72 0.96
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Mean 2.06 2.19 1.91 2.31
SD 1.02 1.07 0.83 1.08
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Mean 2.11 2.25 1.86 2.43
SD 1.1 1.09 0.62 1.03
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Mean 2.06 2.18 1.85 2.11
SD 1.13 1.13 0.78 1.09
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Mean 2.08 2.21 2.03 2.2
SD 1.06 1.04 0.76 0.94
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Mean 2.22 2.42 2.22 2.48
SD 1.23 1.26 1 1.18
The table reveals that mean score of engineering universities on two aspects i.e. ‘program
organization’ and ‘availability and effectiveness of learning resources’, is higher than the
other universities, and for the rest of all aspects, general universities are ahead as
compared to the other types of universities. One of the reasons for this could be that
nowadays, the majority of the larger general universities now usually have all the three
(education, engineering and medical) faculties as well.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
23
A one-way ANOVA between types of universities was conducted to compare the
programmes provisions in these universities on programme quality and resources available
to deliver it vis-à-vis student satisfaction. There was a significant difference among the
universities at the p<.05 level for the five aspects: Program clarity and flexibility’, ‘quality of
learning and teaching’, ‘quality of assessment and feedback’, ‘satisfaction with student
support and student-teacher relationship’ and the ‘overall satisfaction with the programme’
(see Appendix 9).
Table 3.11. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by type of university
Dependent Variable
Type of University Mean Difference) (I-J
Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)
Program clarity and flexibility
Medical Education .30197* .14484 .037
Engineering Education .38410* .14360 .008
General Education .41072* .14205 .004
Quality of learning and teaching
Engineering Medical .16346* .07885 .038
General
Medical .28585* .07578 .000
Engineering .12238 .07359 .097
Education .38407* .14091 .007
Quality of assessment and feedback
Engineering Education .28206 .15862 .076
General Medical .24645* .08419 .003
Education .39817* .15695 .011
Satisfaction with student support and student-teacher relationship
Engineering Education .39385* .15961 .014
General
Medical .31716* .08476 .000
Engineering .17122* .08248 .038
Education .56507* .15772 .000
General satisfaction with the programme
Engineering Medical .20114* .10059 .046
General Medical .26339* .09704 .007
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 3.11 confirms that in the opinion of students, the general universities were
significantly performing better than all other types of universities on two aspects i.e.
‘Quality of learning and teaching’ and ‘Satisfaction with student support and student-
teacher relationship’.
3.1.3 UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES
AND FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION
This section presents insights from the faculty responses to the ‘Faculty Questionnaire’. The following analysis is organized with reference to the specific sections of the questionnaire.
FACULTY WORKLOAD
Few issues in recent years have aroused as much interest outside of the academy as the
question of faculty workload. Universities in Pakistan with shrinking resources, calls for
more teaching, and demands for greater accountability responded in various ways:
including attempted to mandate the number of hour faculty must spend in the classroom.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
24
In response to a question, ‘What proportion of your teaching load is comprised of the
following types of courses in a typical academic year? (All – 4, Most – 3, Some – 2, None
– 1)’, the Faculty indicated that their teaching load consisted of courses that meet general
education requirements, masters’ and PhD classes; few taught undergraduate classes.
Since the majority of the respondents were among the regular faculty members, it means
that the undergraduate classes are most taught by the visiting/ adhoc faculty. Table 3.12
gives complete detail of the responses.
.
Table 3.12. Proportion of teaching workload by gender Assignment Women Men Overall
Courses that meet general education requirements 2.65 2.50 2.55
Undergraduate classes 1.96 2.11 2.06
Masters’ classes 2.69 2.48 2.55
PhD Classes 2.98 2.95 2.96
Data on response to the question, ‘How frequently do you participate in the following
activities? Frequently – 3, Occasionally – 2 and Never – 1)’, show that the faculty
occasionally participates in almost all the activities listed in Figure 3.2, but their participation
is at the lowest level in the capstone experiences such as exams, portfolios, theses or
performances, and conducting research on teaching and learning. There is no mentionable
difference between the men’s and women’s participation in the services for their
department/ institution. Figure 3.2 shows a complete picture of the existing situation in the
universities in this regard.
Figure 3.2 Faculty members’ services to the department/institution
0.5 1.5 2.5
Conduct research on teaching and learning
Evaluate the effectiveness of new teaching andlearning practices for your faculty/…
Help determine the performance standard forstudents graduating from your faculty/…
Evaluate faculty in their use of new teaching andlearning practices
Assist faculty peers in their use of new teaching andlearning practices
Evaluate students on capstone experiences such asexams, portfolios, theses, or performances.
Test students entering your faculty/institute/department
Make recommendations to administrative officesabout new teaching and learning practices
Assess students for course placement purposes
Overall Men Women
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
25
In response to question, ‘What is the level of faculty involvement in your faculty/ institute/
department on the following? (Very strong involvement – 5, Strong involvement – 4,
Moderate involvement – 3, Little involvement – 2 and No involvement – 1), the faculty
members responses are more positive in aspects which relate to their core work but not
very encouraging in management policies and administration. For e.g. in curriculum
development and academic planning they are involved more than the aspects like faculty
promotion and resource allocation. This situation leads to the conclusion that promotion
and evaluation are not being done in a participatory manner.
Figure 3.3 Faculty involvement in developmental activities
AWARENESS ABOUT POLICIES
HEC Policies: Responding to the question, ‘In terms of your awareness of HEC policy
changes affecting the university in the last five years’, the majority (74 percent) of the faculty
members were partially aware of the policy changes at HEC level during the last five years;
only a small proportion (16 percent) of the faculty members were completely aware of these
changes. Women faculty members’ proportion was greater than their counterparts on this
aspect. Figure 3.4 gives complete detail on this aspect.
Figure 3.4 Faculty members’ level of awareness about HEC policies
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Academic planning for undergraduate education
Resource allocation
Student recruitment policies and decisions
Curriculum development
Faculty development activities
Faculty promotion and evaluation
Student academic support services
Student assessment policies and procedures
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Completely aware of HEC policies
In part aware of of HEC policies
Not aware of what these policies are
Overall Men Women
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
26
Availability of university Research Policy: Research in universities, plays an extremely
important role in innovation by ensuring the provision of new knowledge. Conducting
research requires financial resources and research infrastructure. Boosting universities
links with industry and their contribution to innovation needs some policy guidelines
because there is increasing pressure for investments in research to be held accountable
for their contribution to innovation and growth.
In response to the question, ‘Does the university have a research policy?’ Figure 3.5 does
not portray any encouraging situation. The universities either do not have any research
policy or the faculty is not aware of even its presence; only 22.9 percent of the overall
respondents reported that their universities had research policy, and this proportion is even
less (only 20.7 percent) in case of the men respondents.
Figure 3.5 Whether the university has its research policy
UNIVERSITY CLIMATE In the perception of the faculty, universities do not encourage students to have a public
voice and share their ideas openly and nor do the universities treat women faculty fairly.
Overall, the faculty members somewhat disagreed that a culture of inclusiveness and
fairness and openness persisted in the universities, as for all factors, the mean score is
between 1.5 to 2.5 on 4-point rating scale15 (cf. Table 3.13).
Table 3.13. University management climate by gender
Factor Mean Score
Women Men Overall
The university management regularly speaks about the value of diversity. 2.10 2.10 2.10
The university has strategic diversity goals and plans. 2.06 2.20 2.15
The university encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly.
1.63 1.98 1.86
The university promotes the appreciation of cultural differences 2.00 2.08 2.05
The university promotes the understanding of gender differences 1.94 2.12 2.06
The university has standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or discrimination
2.00 2.03 2.02
Racial and ethnic diversity is strongly reflected in the university’s curriculum 2.50 2.39 2.43
The university treats women faculty fairly 2.06 1.89 1.95
Mostly decision-making is centralized in the university 1.96 2.10 2.05
15 Agree Strongly– 4, Agree Somewhat– 3, Disagree Somewhat– 2, Disagree Strongly– 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Yes
No
I don't know
Overall Men Women
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
27
Governance of higher education involves the authority to make decisions about
fundamental policies and practices in several critical areas concerning universities In
response to question, ‘How centralized are each of the following activities at your
university?’ on a five point rating scale16; most faculty felt that the initiatives emerged as
‘ad-hoc faculty groups’ are constituted for making decisions. (cf. Table 3.14).
Table 3.14. University academic climate by gender
Factor Mean Score
Women Men Overall
Criteria for assessment of student learning 2.08 2.36 2.26
Goals for student learning 2.25 2.36 2.32
Development of teaching techniques 2.44 2.54 2.51
Decisions regarding course content 2.00 2.08 2.05
Use of student assessment data 2.54 2.46 2.49
Determination of coursework requirements 1.85 1.92 1.90
Development of final exams 2.23 2.05 2.11
Student evaluations of teaching 2.35 2.39 2.38
Faculty peer evaluations of teaching 2.50 2.58 2.55
FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION
Responding to the question how satisfied with regards the factor (mentioned in Table 3.15) the faculty members are; on a four point rating scale17; most of the faculty members were ‘somewhat satisfied’ with their job security and the quality of the students that they teach. They were dissatisfied with their salary/ benefits and workload. (cf. Table 3.15).
Table 3.15. Faculty members job satisfaction (academic) by gender
Factor Mean Score
Women Men Overall
Workload 2.17 2.52 2.40
Job security 3.21 2.90 3.01
Opportunity for advancement 2.10 2.29 2.23
Department support for promotion and tenure 2.21 2.37 2.31
Quality of students faculty (you) teach 2.46 2.50 2.49
Collegiality in your department 2.31 2.55 2.47
Relationships between faculty and administrators 2.25 2.41 2.36
Level of support provided for teaching and learning 2.38 2.27 2.31
Freedom to do outside consulting 2.17 2.36 2.29
Support for assessment activities 2.48 2.28 2.35
Salary/benefits 2.13 2.14 2.14
Most respondents somewhat agreed that the faculty received public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment. Faculty scholarship or innovative uses of student assessment are also considered in promotion, tenure, or salary reviews. Faculty disagreed that ‘collaborative work’ is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty (cf. Table 3.16).
16 University– 5 faculty/Institute – 4 Department – 3 ad-hoc faculty groups – 2 No coordination – 1 17 Very satisfied – 4 Somewhat satisfied – 3 Somewhat dissatisfied – 2 Very dissatisfied – 1
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
28
Table 3.16. Faculty members job satisfaction (compensation) by gender Factor Women Men Overall
Merit/salary increases are fair and adequate in my university 2.23 2.18 2.20
Teaching is more important than research for faculty promotion 2.21 2.36 2.31
The most highly rewarded faculty are those oriented primarily toward research 2.13 2.04 2.07
Faculty evaluation for higher rank and merit increases incorporates evidence of student performance
2.06 2.14 2.11
Faculty receive public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment
2.60 2.28 2.39
Collaborative work is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty 2.13 1.85 1.94
QUALITATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS BY THE UNIVERSITY
Recent data indicate that men and, to a lesser extent, women faculty members of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) perceive that on some indicators, including meeting educational needs of the students of various programmes, the quality of education had ‘somewhat improved’ in recent years. On other indicators, such as clear policies that support collaborative work, they report no/ slight improvement. The students, both men and women, agree that the programme support and quality in the HEIs had improved (see Appendix 10).
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT THE UNIVERSITY
Faculty members considered that ‘fair’ amount of resources are available in their institutions (mean score=3.2 on scale of 5, for both men and women respondents; see Appendix 11).
3.1.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO UNIVERSITY
CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY
JOB SATISFACTION
This section presents overall comparative analysis of the data gathered through faculty responses by gender, type of universities and territory.
COMPARISON BY GENDER
Table 3.17 indicates that statistically, there is no significant difference among the
perceptions of men and women faculty members about the factors investigated in the study,
as ‘significant’ value for all the aspects is greater than .05.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
29
Table 3.17. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by gender
Key Factor Factor Gender N Mean SD t df sig
Faculty workload
Research and support activities
Female 48 2.1 0.6 -.429 138 .669
Male 92 2.1 0.6
Developmental activities
Female 48 3.5 1.0 1.111 138 .268
Male 92 3.3 1.2
University climate
Management Culture Female 48 2.0 0.9
-.437 138 .662 Male 92 2.1 0.8
Academic Culture Female 48 2.3 1.1
-.958 138 .340 Male 92 2.5 1.0
Job Satisfaction
Support and workload Female 48 2.1 0.8
-1.356 138 .177 Male 92 2.3 0.8
Reward and compensations
Female 48 2.2 0.7 1.121 138 .264
Male 92 2.0 0.8
Qualitative achievements by the university
Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
Female 48 3.5 0.9 .060 138 .952
Male 92
3.5 0.9
Quality of faculty inputs
Female 48 1.9 0.8 .053 138 .958
Male 92 1.9 0.8
Availability of resources
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Female 48 3.2 1.0 -.076 138 .939
Male 92 3.2 0.9
COMPARISON BY TYPE OF UNIVERSITY
Table 3.18 indicates that the medical and engineering universities are better in
‘developmental activities’, whereas, the ‘quality of students’ intake and university’s
preparedness’ is excellent in medical and general universities, as the mean score values
these universities on these factors is more than 3.5 on 4-point rating scale. Research and
support activities, management culture, faculty quality inputs were rated pretty low in all
type of universities.
Table 3.18. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university
Key Factor Factor
Medical Engineering Education General
N 27 40 13 60
Faculty workload
Research and support activities
Mean 2.2 2.1 2.4 2
SD 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6
Developmental activities
Mean 3.8 3.6 2.6 3.2
SD 0.8 1 1.4 1.2
University climate
Management Culture Mean 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.2
SD 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.9
Academic Culture Mean 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6
SD 0.8 1.1 1.1 1
Job Satisfaction
Support and workload Mean 2.4 2 2.5 2.3
SD 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8
Reward and compensations
Mean 2 2.4 1.9 2
SD 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8
Qualitative achievements by the university
Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
Mean 3.9 3.3 3.1 3.5
SD 1 0.9 1.1 0.8
Quality of faculty inputs
Mean 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.1
SD 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9
Availability of resources
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Mean 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.4
SD 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
30
Post Hoc test results presented in table 3.19, reveal that medical universities are
significantly better with respect to ‘developmental activities’, and ‘quality of student intake
and university’s preparedness’ than general, education and engineering universities.
Table 3.19. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university
Dependent Variable
Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)
Developmental activities Medical
Education 1.25641* .36451 .001
General .64167* .25023 .011
Engineering Education .98558* .34472 .005
Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
Medical Engineering .51842* .21830 .019
Education .78316* .29588 .009
Quality of faculty inputs
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Engineering Medical .62037* .23241 .009
General Medical .74537* .21624 .001
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
COMPARISON BY TERRITORY Data exhibited in Table 3.20 reveal that the universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are
performing, to some extent, better in ‘Developmental activities’, ‘quality of student intake
and university’s preparedness’ and ‘human, financial and knowledge resources’ in
comparison to other provinces and territories, as the mean score for the province is more
than 3.5 on the 4-point rating scale. These results of the perceptions of faculty oppose the
general perception prevailing in the academia and HEC ranks18. According to HEC.
Ranking (2016), 4 universities of Punjab, 3 from ICT, 2 from Sindh are in the top 10
universities of Pakistan whereas from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The universities in Sindh are
good at developmental activities’ and ‘quality of student intake and university’s
preparedness’, as the mean score for Sindh is more than 3.5.
Table 3.20. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory
Key Factor Factor
Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh AJK GB
N 13 30 61 3 33
Faculty workload
Research and support activities
Mean 1.88 2.25 2.14 1.67 2.12
SD 0.51 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.56
Developmental activities Mean 3.73 3.12 3.61 3.17 3.02
SD 1.20 1.20 0.94 1.26 1.24
University climate
Management Culture Mean 2.31 2.07 1.98 1.17 2.24
SD 0.72 0.92 0.77 0.29 0.97
Academic Culture Mean 2.50 2.52 2.17 3.33 2.62
SD 1.04 1.11 0.96 1.44 0.98
Job Satisfaction
Support and workload Mean 2.42 2.37 2.17 2.17 2.30
SD 0.76 0.89 0.80 0.76 0.62
Reward and compensations
Mean 2.31 2.08 2.14 1.50 1.89
SD 0.85 0.88 0.72 0.50 0.87
Qualitative achievements by the university
Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
Mean 3.71 3.36 3.57 3.22 3.32
SD 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.19 0.66
Quality of faculty inputs Mean 2.15 1.95 1.80 1.33 2.17
SD 0.92 0.90 0.68 0.58 0.91
Availability of resources
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Mean 3.65 3.18 2.95 2.17 3.53
SD 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.29 0.96
18 The ranking is finalised on basis of quality assurance, teaching quality, research, finance and facilities
and social integration and community development
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
31
Nonetheless, results of the ANOVA test on this data suggest that the difference is
significant among the mean scores of the provinces/ territories (see Appendix 12) only for
the factor ‘Human, financial and knowledge resources’. Table 3.21 discloses that the
universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and GB are significantly better equipped with human,
financial and knowledge resources as compared to the ones in Sindh and AJK.
Table 3.21. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory
Dependent Variable
Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Khyber Pakhtun
khwa
Sindh .70303* .28307 .014
AJK 1.48718* .59353 .013
GB Sindh .57948* .20024 .004
AJK 1.36364* .55879 .016
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
3.1.5 DISCIPLINE WISE NEED ASSESSMENT OF PHD FACULTY IN PAKISTANI UNIVERSITIES
Business
Education
Physical
Sciences
Biological &
Medical
Sciences
Social
Sciences
Engineering
&
Technology
N 1003 2250 1856 1872 2503
% 11.7% 11.8% 12.5% 21.1% 30.7%
3.2 ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION
In a socially, economically, religiously and culturally diverse state like Pakistan, higher
education institutions and universities, imparting education and conducting cutting edge
research, are the central mechanisms that can raise the declining social and economic
infrastructure of the country. Pakistan, despite rapid growth in the education sector during
the past decade, suffers from severe challenges in its educational development. These
challenges include lack of access to higher education for the majority of its youth. The
following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the targets
set in the MTDF-II regarding its fourth pillar-- Improving Equitable Access.
3.2.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II
PILLAR 4: IMPROVING EQUITABLE ACCESS The achievements with regard to the key physical targets set in MTDF-II on equitable
access to HE aspect are as under:
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
Establishment of new universities 10 31 310.00
Establishment of financial aid offices in HEIs 60 70 116.67
Students enrolled in HEIs 1,579,805 1,298,600 82.20
Gender Ratio 50/50 53/47
(Sources: HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015; and HEC MIS data received on 30 June 2016)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
32
Only one university was exist at the time of creation of Pakistan in 1947 (i.e. the University of the Punjab), now there are many. The trend of increase in the number of public and private sector universities and degree awarding institutions (DAI)19 is illustrated below in Figure. 3.6
Fig 3.6: Trend of increase in number of Public and Private sector universities and DAI
Figure 3.6 shows the growth in the number of universities, as well as other DAIs, over a
period of some 68 years20. The first major increase in the number of public universities
occurred between 1971 and 1977. This increase was meant to make higher education
widely available. But it proved to be insufficient. Hence, this increase was subsequently
eclipsed by an even faster expansion in the public sector which, after 1995, because of the
sheer level of needs, was accompanied by a nearly equivalent increase in the number of
private sector institutions. This rapid expansion was especially pronounced after 2002
when the increase in both the public and the private sectors became exponential.
The first private Pakistani universities were the élite Lahore University of Management
Sciences in 1984, followed by the Aga Khan University Hospital in 1985. The higher
education sector expanded rapidly after the early 2001-2002 and has been increasing
exponentially ever since. Between 2010 and 2015, Pakistan has experienced a 78 percent
increase in the number of universities/ Degree Awarding Institutions (DAI), both public and
private. And during the same period, there has been a 174 percent increase in student
enrollment, including a large proportion of females.
19 A DAI (Degree awarding institution) is an institution with one or two faculties/schools only. It is not a university but yet can award degree in the discipline(s) 20 Data Sources: Higher Education Commission MIS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19
47-4
8
19
50-5
1
19
53-5
4
19
56-5
7
19
59-6
0
19
62-6
3
19
65-6
6
19
68-6
9
19
71-7
2
19
74-7
5
19
77-7
8
19
80-8
1
19
83-8
4
19
86-8
7
19
89-9
0
19
92-9
3
19
95-9
6
19
98-9
9
20
01-0
2
20
04-0
5
20
07-0
8
20
10-1
1
20
13-1
4Nu
mb
er
of
Un
ivers
itie
s/D
AIs
Public Sector Private Sector
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
33
Now, the higher education institutions have coverage throughout the country. Region wise
number of universities and their sub campuses as per HEC-MIS and the province wise
number of Universities/ DAI in November 2015 is given in Table 3.22.
Table 3.22. Distribution of public and private sector universities/DAI by region
Region Public Private Total
Punjab 25 24 49
Sindh 19 30 49
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
19 10 29
Baluchistan 6 2 8
Federal21 25 8 33
AJK 4 2 6
GB 1 0 1
Total 99 76 175
3.2.2 ENROLLMENT TREND IN PAKISTAN
Enrollment (provisional) by gender and total enrollment at universities/DAIs (excluding
affiliated colleges)22 over the years is shown in Figure 3.7.
Fig 3.7: Enrollment at University (Campus + Constituent Colleges) 2001 to 2015.
The trend of increase in women enrollment (573.53 percent) is significantly higher than that
of men enrollment (409.77%) at HEIs during the last 15 years. The OECD report lists a
number of hypotheses for why women are outpacing men in higher education participation
21 The number is not only including universities situated in ICT but also those universities situated in other provinces/territories that are administrated by Federal Government 22 HEC MIS data received on 30 June 2016
276
332423
472 521
640741
803
948
10361117
1243 1298
174 204244
280 308 345399
447
520555
608 675713
102128
179 196 213295
342356
428482 509
568585
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2011-12 p
2012-13 p
2013-14 p
2014-15 p
Stu
de
nts
(0
00
)
Total Men Women
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
34
(it cautions, however, that almost all of these hypotheses are based on studies that contain
either methodological limitations or are contradicted by other studies.) The possible factors
include:
Women’s knew ability to combine studies and work with family life, in many places;
Decreasing discrimination against girls in families (again, in many places);
Women’s higher preparation for higher education, as evidenced by their test scores
in secondary education;
Women’s higher aspirations to obtain tertiary degrees; and
The feminisation of the teaching profession and a learning environment more
conducive to girls’ social and cognitive dispositions.
Enrollment (provisional) in public and private sector universities classified by region during
years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15., is given in Table 3.23.
Table 3.23. Enrollment at universities/DAI + constituent colleges by area and sector during
2012-13 to 2014-2015
Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15.
Sector Public Private Total Public Private Total Public Private Total
Distance Learning
474,510 - 474,510 490,596 - 490,596 472,395 - 472,395
Federal 101,433 14,634 116,067 105,204 17,994 123,198 111,823 21,068 132,891
AJK 7,778 2,077 9,855 10,709 3,273 13,982 13,329 2,727 16,056
Balochistan 17,297 1,447 18,744 14,320 549 14,869 23,537 118 23,655
G.B 2,506 2,506 3,161 3,161 3,557 3,557
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
64,322 26,894 91,216 83,868 27,714 111,582 81,159 29,835 110,994
Punjab 184,174 75,967 260,141 212,613 77,437 290,050 244,604 87,928 332,532
Sindh 88,794 55,754 144,548 113,382 82,220 195,602 119,615 86,905 206,520
Total 940,814 176,773 1,117,587 1,033,853 209,187 1,243,040 1,070,019 228,581 1,298,600
Table 3.24. Enrollment by Level of Degree during year 2013-14 and 2014-15
Year
Bachelor (upto 16 Years of
Education)
Bachelor (17 Years of Education)
Master (Years of
Education)
MS/M.Phil (17 Years of Education) PhD P.G.D
Grand Total
2013-14 844,461 57,025 209,617 111,440 12,784 7,713 1,243,040
2014-15 869,378 63,142 219,280 124,107 14,374 8,319 1,298,600
3.2.3 OUTPUTS OF UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN
The distribution of PhD graduates from Pakistani universities from 1947 to 31st December
2014 is given in Table 3.25 and graphically shown in Fig. 3.8.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
35
Table 3.25. Number of PhD produced (provisional) by Pakistani universities by discipline by the end of 2014
Discipline Up to 2002 Up to 2014
Agriculture & Veterinary 348 1402
Arts & Humanities 671 1645
Biological & Medical Sciences 586 2470
Business Education 14 229
Physical Sciences 712 2537
Engineering & Technology 21 491
Social Sciences 897 2695
Honorary 49 59
Total 3298 11528
Fig 3.8: Number of PhD s Produced by Pakistani Universities 1947 to 2013
INCREASED QUANTITY VIS-À-VIS ITS QUALITY
The outcome sought by the MTDF is the increase in the number of students attending
Higher Education Institutions. However,
quantitative increase is not always accompanied,
as is often assumed by policy formulators, by the
maintenance of quality standards or, even less,
by desired increases in those quality standards.
Policy measures need to be accompanied by the
means capable of ensuring that these measures
can and will be implemented. Without proportional increases in university support functions
(financial resources, human resources and material resources), the results of such an
increase can only be the weakening of teaching and research programme outcomes. At
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
19
47
19
50
19
53
19
56
19
59
19
62
19
65
19
68
19
71
19
74
19
77
19
80
19
83
19
86
19
89
19
92
19
95
19
98
20
01
20
04
20
07
20
10
20
13
Num
ber
of
Ph.D
s P
roduced
Public Sector Private Sector Total
‘‘If you look at history, innovation does not
come just from giving people incentives; it
comes from creating environments where
their ideas can connect”
Steveen Johnson
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
36
present, with the current number of students, these resources, particularly the quality and
number of human resources, are already considered inadequate. They cannot be stretched
without lowering quality below the current level.
In short, increase in output, as required by the increase of numbers of students, requires
proportional increases in support functions as well as increased effectiveness and
efficiency in certain production functions (market and social needs analysis, programme
adaptation). The latter requires a functional research capacity in the universities or, at the
very least, a functional research capacity for the sector.
3.3 RELEVANCE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR TO NATIONAL NEEDS
The expansion of education has clearly been involved in the extraordinary modern
expansion of the professions and other formerly elite occupations. In addition, expanding
access to and linking tertiary education to the demands in the labor market are vital steps
to building a knowledge-based economy (OECD, 2014). As a result, higher education
systems have faced a challenge in accommodating the growth in student numbers in the
existing higher education system and, further, in the job market.
During the process of expanding global higher education, the world’s job market has
changed dramatically to become a knowledge economy. At the same time, the world has
been facing an economic recession, leaving fewer job vacancies to make the school-to-
work transition substantially more difficult for young people, as those with more work
experience are favored over the new entrants into the labor market (OECD, 2014).
The HEC introduced and standardized a large number of curricula to respond to the skill-
based needs of developing Pakistan. It also supported research pertaining to the socio-
economic needs of the region in the vicinity of the university through supporting and
expanding on the establishment of Business Incubation Centers (BICs). HEC also
introduced Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants to support relevant research
at the university which are partnered with the industry. However, only 25 percent of
surveyed faculty members reported that they had ‘substantial’ grants for conducting
research.
The following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the
targets set in the MTDF-II regarding its third pillar-- Research, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship.
3.3.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II
PILLAR 3: RESEARCH, INNOVATION & ENTREPRENEURSHIP
HEC aims to develop and sustain a dynamic and internationally competitive research sector
in Pakistan that makes a major contribution to economic prosperity, national wellbeing and
the expansion and dissemination of knowledge. Promotion of Research is one of the core
strategic aims of HEC. The achievements with regard to the key physical targets set in
MTDF-II ‘Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ are as under:
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
37
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
Impact factor journal publications 12,500 7,141 57.13
Establishment of ORICs 75 39 52.00
Establishment of technology incubators 60 47 78.33
Centers for Advanced Studies 4 4 100.00
(Source: adapted from HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015)
HEC achieved its 100 percent target of establishing centres of excellence, however, the
success rate on the promotion of research related targets, remained around 50 percent
only. The key reasons for this lower achievements have been discussed in the following
sections.
Through the program and initiatives launched by HEC for strengthening research and the
process of knowledge creation, the quality and research output emanating from the
universities and institutes in the country have shown improvements in terms of percentage
increase in internationally cited research publications. Yet, this is no more than an end of
a beginning and we need not only to sustain and improve this trend but also contemplate
on questions of relevance and economic, social and academic impact of the research. In
pursuit of this end, HEC has started working to organize the research activities of
universities/HEIs ensuring availability ORIC. The ORICs has potential to provide strategic
and operational support to the University’s research activities/program, and if strengthened,
it could have central role in facilitating the University’s research outcomes.
3.3.2 RESEARCH CULTURE IN UNIVERSITIES/HEIS
It was generally reported by most of the faculty members that the research activities failed
to become a well rooted, defining value, and a goal which is actively, effectively and
sustainably pursued in their university. And it is also reported that the plans and efforts
deployed by the national, provincial and university level authorities to make research into
such a defining value have not been successful. Interviews and interactions with the faculty
members in multiple universities yield the following picture:
1. Generally and as a practical matter, universities do not consider research as a
requisite or necessary part of the workload of its faculty. Only teaching is a key
element for making decisions about the faculty workload.
2. Most of the research that is carried out is not undertaken in response to educational,
social, economic or disciplinary needs. Rather, research is mainly carried out because
it is a short term requisite activity, mandated by the authority, for the promotion of
individual faculty members. Research is, thus, an individual, short term, effort aimed
at satisfying this career need. It is typically carried out only by younger faculty, who
has not yet gained a permanent status. When they have attained this status, these
faculty members join the larger faculty group of complacent non-researchers for
whom research is no longer mandatory. And because there is no criterion to guide in
which area the for-promotion research must be done (see Appendix 13), the
researcher’s choice is typically opportunistic: repeat what was done for the Ph.D.
while introducing a slight variant or simply unashamedly copying what is currently
being done in their area of interest in other countries. Neither of these approaches
brings much that is of value to building a Pakistan-relevant knowledge base or to
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
38
satisfying the needs of Pakistan’s educational, social, economic and industrial needs
(see Appendix 13)
3. There exists little or no interaction and, much less, coordination between the
universities and their external stakeholder environments whether these be
educational, social, economic, or industrial. In the absence of such interaction and
coordination, the research produced by the university remains a function of personal
preference used mainly for internal promotion. It is of little use in addressing real
problems (see Appendix 13)
4. Although HEC has made it mandatory to establish Quality Assurance Directorate in
every university and although HEC monitors the number of theses produced and
research articles published, quality checks on the research productions are most
often perceived to be weak. They are typically guided by quantity rather than by
quality criteria. It is often reported also that some universities are not beyond
manipulating the data they report under Quality Assurance requirements if it is
perceived that this will help maintain or enhance their status.
5. HEC and universities claim that their programmes are research oriented. In reality,
however, this does not appear to be the actual case. An examination of research
supervision assignments in a number of universities suggests that supervisors are
required to oversee the research work of numerous students working on widely
differing topics, few of which fall into the supervisors’ area of specialization. Likewise,
the examinations of M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. theses in a cross section of public as
well as private Pakistani universities reveals methodological and statistical-analytical
deficiencies that can only suggest that the students are not adequately trained in
methods and statistics in their programmes and/ or that their supervisors themselves
are not sufficiently competent in these areas to ensure adequate supervision.
6. Critical thinking, the disciplined non-acceptance of knowledge proposed on the basis
of tradition, authority or custom – these are generally accepted as a necessary, if
insufficient, condition for alternative, creative thinking. Creative thinking, on the other
hand, is also generally thought to be a necessary condition for imagining alternate
states of being, of structures and of processes: a requisite condition for bringing about
adaptive change in society and in its diverse constituent institutions. There is much
talk and much lip service addressed to this highly desirable feature of learning in
Pakistan’s universities. Generally, however, it is recognized that Pakistani universities
are not training their students to become critical thinkers. The dominant culture is
typically perceived as one of authoritarianism, of preservation of the traditional identity
through the avoidance of change, of an unexplained fear of the unknown that could
be unhinged by thinking differently and of harsh personal consequences for deviation
from the cultural and organizational norms. Although it extends through social and
organizational norms, so far as to influence promotion decisions (at least, in the minds
of the promotion seekers who, while young and often foreign trained, hesitate to rock
the boat), there is a perception that younger faculty of emerging middle class origins
are progressively overcoming the restraining attitudes of change resistance and
welcoming critical thinking.
7. There appears to be a prevailing culture of non-collaboration among faculty members
in the universities. There is a generalized perception that there does not exist, in the
area of research in particular, either joint projects or team efforts. This perhaps should
not come as a surprise given that research conducted in universities is predominantly
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
39
an individualized-for-promotion activity (as described above) and that, appearing as
an innovative feature in what is essentially a culturally conservative environment, it is
an unnecessary change. In the absence of a core research activity capable of
justifying a common approach, it is difficult to imagine the establishment of an
interactive, collaborative approach. This is consistent with points presented above.
8. The processes for acquiring funding for research projects by university faculty are
lengthy and complex. Seed money is often not available within the university and, if it
is, it is often a discretionary item dependent on the VC’s views and preferences. In a
way, this is the chicken or the egg kind of problem. To be lavish with seed money and
risk losing it to non-meaningful exploratory projects, or to be restrictive and risk
missing out on critical thinking faculty with useful innovative projects, or worse,
pushing such people out of academia because they see no future there. An
established research culture with corresponding structures and procedures to guide
research project conception and realization, in short, a university research policy, so
that research funds become an investment rather than simply being perceived as an
expenditure, then there would not be the problem universities presently face
regarding research funding. Such a culture does not exist at present. The focus must,
therefore, be placed on developing such a culture. How this might be done is
discussed at greater length in Appendix 14.
9. Most of the universities in Pakistan are lacking in-library learning resources. And, as
observed, where these resources are not numerous, they tend to be guarded, lest
they are removed. Many scant library resources, books and periodicals, in particular,
have been observed to be under lock and key with access to them limited to only a
few hours a week. Although HEC has developed system to make online journals and
books accessible, many universities lack the infrastructure to access these facilities.
And, even in those that do have the necessary infrastructure, access is often limited
by the lack of electricity due to load shedding. In addition to reading materials, libraries
also often lack the relevant software that are prerequisite for doing research.
10. Some universities put much hope in the faculty members who have gone abroad for
PhD. training. This hope is often misplaced for two reasons:
Newly trained PhDs have only beginner level training in research. This is
particularly true in the complex and therefore soft fields like education—some
say it is the most complex--where one must be trained in several methods. Many
of these new PhDs, thought to be the best trained faculty, have only a one-time
experience in one method: that used in the doctoral research project. Whereas,
for example, airlines would never think to give an aircraft to a pilot with only one
real flight’s experience, universities tend to count on these junior faculty
members to ensure the proper operation of their research functions and to fulfill
their research obligations.
Upon returning, these junior professors, who are the likely critical thinkers and
teachers of critical thinking, are often considered to be outsiders in the
governance culture. Hence they tend to be treated as outsiders, people who
must be adjusted to or broken from the prevailing culture.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
40
3.3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTERS (BICS)
Business Incubation is a business support process that accelerates the successful
development of start-up companies by providing new entrepreneurs with an array of
targeted resources and services. A business incubator’s main goal is to produce successful
firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding. It creates jobs helping
the new graduates to become job providers instead of being job seekers, commercializes
new technologies, and strengthens communities and economies.
HEC is supporting the establishment of Business Incubation Centers (BICs) in Public
Sector Universities to provide basic infrastructure and allied facilities for researchers/young
entrepreneurs who are interested in developing early-stage business ventures. So far 17
BICs have been established23. Promotion of Education in Pakistan Foundation (PEP) has
provided financial assistance to HEC for setting up BICs in 9 public universities of the
country. As BICs are new, no proper evaluation has yet been carried out.
3.3.4 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR THE HEC SCHOLARS
RETURNING FROM ABROAD
Since the inception of the HEC, millions of rupees have been spent on the human resource
development. As a result, thousands of PhD scholars have been trained outside Pakistan
and have returned to the country. Now it is time to ask them for a return on the investment
they represent. To accomplish this the Pakistan government has recently set aside funds
to help the industrial sector. It is a project entitled: Establishment of Technology
Development Fund for HEC. (Govt. of Pakistan 2015, p.188). Given the recent creation of
this Fund, no evaluation of its effectiveness presently exists.
3.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
For fiscal year 2015 the total budget allocation for higher education stood at PKR 73 billion,
an increase of more than 70 percent over 2011 in nominal terms. However, this nominal
increase reduces to only half that amount when inflation is factored in. Of the total federal
spending on higher education from 2011 to 2015, 65 percent corresponds to the recurrent
budgets. During the same period development budgets were limited to 35 percent. The
following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the targets
set in the MTDF-II regarding its sixth pillar-- Financial Management and Sustainability.
3.4.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II
PILLAR 6: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
The achievements with regard to key physical targets set in MTDF-II ‘Financial
Management and Sustainability’ are as under:
23 http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/RND/ebic/Pages/Default.aspx
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
41
Indicator Target Achievement
Number Number Percent
Public Expenditure Survey 1 In progress
Capacity Building of staff on financial management
350 260 74.29
Business plans prepared by universities 50 40 80.00
3.4.2 FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TO UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN
Pakistan Vision 2025 aims at a substantial expansion in levels of education as well as
substantial improvements in the quality of education. As a consequence, it also aims for an
increase in the level of public expenditure on education to the extent of 4.0 percent of GDP
by 2018. If this goal is attained it will be a substantial increase in the current level of budget
provision. Funding levels provided by HEC to the public sector universities for non-
development and development purposes over the years is given in Fig. 3.9.
Fig 3.9: Funds provided by the HEC to the public sector universities for non-development and development expenditure 2001-2015
3.4.3 ANALYSIS OF MTDF II (2 0 1 1 – 15) SPENDING PATTERN
Recurrent spending made up 65 percent, while development made up 35 percent, of the
total higher education federal spending in 2011/15 as given in Table 3.26 below:
Table 3.26. Recurring and developmental spending by year
Indicators
Fiscal Year
FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 *
(partial Year)
Total HEC Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development)
Nominal Total HEC Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)
43,121 38,650 48,292 61,432 73,223
Annual Percentage Change (%) 31.7% -10.4% 24.9% 27.2% 19.2%
Real Total HEC Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)*
22,294 18,904 21,949 26,085 29,057
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Rupees (
Mill
ion)
Non Development Development
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
42
Indicators
Fiscal Year
FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 *
(partial Year)
Annual Percentage Change (%) 10.2% -15.2% 16.1% 18.8% 11.4%
Higher Education Recurrent Spending (including PM Tuition Fee Reimbursement Scheme)
Nominal Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)
29,057 28,887 36,278 42,619 47,550
Annual Percentage Change (%) 35.1% -0.6% 25.6% 17.5% 11.6%
Real Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)*
15,023 14,129 16,489 18,096 18,869
Annual Percentage Change (%) 13.1% -5.9% 16.7% 9.8% 4.3%
Higher Education Development Spending (including PM Laptop Scheme)
Nominal Development Spending ( PKR Million)
14,064 9,763 12,014 18,813 25,673
Annual Percentage Change (%) 25.0% -30.6% 23.1% 56.6% 36.5%
Real Development Spending ( PKR Million)*
7,271 4,775 5,460 7,988 10,188
Annual Percentage Change (%) 4.6% -34.3% 14.3% 46.3% 27.5%
Except FY 12, Higher Education Spending as a share of GDP, during the MTDF II period
(FY 11 to FY15) remained steady for the past 05 years as illustrated in Fig3.10 below:
Fig 3.10: Spending on Higher Education as GDP % by year
During the years 2011 to 2015 there has been 51 percent increase in student enrolment
over the five years or an average 10 percent increase in enrollment per annum. The
increase in enrollment, coupled with only six percent annual increase in real Higher
Education Spending, has resulted in a decrease of 14 percent in real per student higher
education federal grants. (see Table 3.27 below):
Table 3.27. Per Student Federal Grants
Indicators Fiscal Year
FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
Enrollment in Public Sector Universities
FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 3024-15
Spending on Higher Education asGDP %
0.24% 0.19% 0.21% 0.24% 0.26%
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0.30%
GD
P %
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
43
Enrollment- Excluding Distance Learning AIOU & VU (#)
401,771 442,710 473,877 559,450 606,654
Enrollment- Distance Learning (DL) I.e., AIOU & VU (#)
548,585 623,392 708,400 805,000 885,000
Total HEC Higher Education Spending
Real Total Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development) PKR Millions
22,294 18,904 21,949 26,085 29,057
Real per student (Exc DL) higher education spending ( PKR)
55,490 42,702 46,318 46,626 47,898
Higher Education Recurrent Spending
Real Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million) 15,023 14,129 16,489 18,096 18,869
Real per student Recurrent Spending ( PKR)
37,391 31,915 34,795 32,347 31,104
Higher Education Development Spending
Real Development Spending ( PKR Million)
7,271 4,775 5,460 7,988 10,188
Real per student development Spending ( PKR)
18,098 10,786 11,522 14,279 16,794
The recurring budget made available to the HEC each year is allocated to cater recurring
grants to universities, as well as to other national programs of the higher education sector,
such as Inter-University Academic Activities, Digital Library PERN, Promotion of Research,
Prime Minister’s Tuition Fee Reimbursement for students of under-developed areas of
Pakistan, and the HEC Secretariat. The bulk of the funding goes to direct recurring grant
to universities (~87 percent), Promotion of Research and Inter University Academic
Activities (~ 9 percent), PM Tuition Fee scheme (~ 3 percent), while around only one
percent is spent on HEC administration expenses.
Table 3.28. Federal recurring grants for universities, national programs and HEC Secretariat
Indicators Fiscal Year
FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
Total Higher Education Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)
29,057 28,887 36,278 42,619 47,550
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
HEC Corporate Spending ( PKR Million) 370 435 460 520 520
as percentage of total 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%
University Grants ( PKR Million) 26,612 25,658 32,198 35,859 41,490
as percentage of total 91.6% 88.8% 88.8% 84.1% 87.3%
HEC National Programs for Universities ( PKR Million)
2,075 2,794 3,120 5,040 4,040
as percentage of total 7.1% 9.7% 8.6% 11.8% 8.5%
Prime Minister Tuition Fee Scheme ( PKR Million) - - 500 1,200 1,500
as percentage of total 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.8% 3.2%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
44
3.4.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF MTDF 2010-2015 AND PROJECTIONS TO 2016-2020
Table 3.29 presents the actual allocation to MTDF-II by year and projections at the rate of
12 percent and 5 percent for the years 2016 to 2020.
Table 3.29. Comparative analysis Actual allocation of MTDF 2010-2015 and projections to 2016-2020
Indicators Actual Allocation (Amount in PKR millions)
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Total Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development)
43,121 38,650 48,292 61,932 73,223 71,500
Nominal Total Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)
31.7% -10.4% 24.9% 28.2% 18.2% -2.4%
Real Total Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)*
22,294 18,904 21,949 26,297 9,057 6,517
Annual Percentage Change (%) 10.2% -15.2% 16.1% 19.8% 10.5% -8.7%
Projected growth rate FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
Projections (Amount in PKR millions)
12% 80,080 89,690 100,452 112,507
5% 27,843 29,235 30,697 32,232
3.5 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES/
CONSTRAINTS (SWOC) ANALYSIS OF THE HE SECTOR
The higher education sector in Pakistan presents both a challenge and an opportunity for
Pakistan. If properly organized it has the potential of equipping the nation with the high
technical and scientific knowledge necessary for its progress in the 21st Century.
With institutes of higher learning like the Virtual University (VU), the country’s first university
based completely on modern information and communication technologies offering
academic programs while “using free-to-air satellite television broadcasts and the Internet”
and the Information Technology University (ITU) which is nurturing “an environment of high-
tech research and entrepreneurship with its state-of-the-art facilities, world-class faculty,
in-house startups incubator and well-established government and industry linkages,”
Pakistan’s higher education landscape is certainly versatile.
The Pakistan Education and Research Network (PERN), an initiative of the HEC,
launched in 2002, is providing communication infrastructure to the 250 plus universities
and institutes of higher learning, including colleges and research organizations of the
country to meet their networking and internet requirements.
A complete SWOC analysis chart has been placed as Appendix 6. The major challenges/
constraints of the sector and universities are given below:
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
45
3.5.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF HIGHER EDUCATION A situation of uncertainty was created after the adoption of the 18th amendment
regarding the role of HEC, as each province is establishing its own HEC in the
province.
There typically exist shortfalls between the Government planned budget for HEC
and the effective budget released to HEC for the funding of the higher education
sector.
o There exist delays in the release of government funds to the HEC resulting
in systemic uncertainty in the sector.
Frequent changes in senior management of the HEC and prolonged vacancies of
senior management positions of the HE Institutions hinder HEC efficiency and
effectiveness.
Weak monitoring and evaluation systems in the HEC hinder its capacity to track
levels of progress and to affect required course correction.
3.5.2 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF UNIVERSITIES Missing link- the strengthening of middle management
Universities tend to have very weak middle management. It is this middle
management, however, that holds the functionaries that are the key to any policy
implementation or desirable change. Top leadership (VC) is often outsiders with
limited knowledge of the institutional strengths and weaknesses and of
organizational cultures. They have no hands-on control of crucial administrative
processes. To exaggerate only a little, VCs can have vision and can give orders
from an authoritarian position and expect obedience. However, they are unable
(although some try) to manage the implementation process themselves. And in the
absence of an institutionalized mechanism, which is dependent on knowledgeable
and stable middle level managers, they cannot bring about the implementation of
policies coming from HEC, or the changes that they, themselves, wish to implement.
The result of this is that actions from HEC or other levels higher than the university
can only be aimed at the input stage of university processes. Examination by HEC
-- that is, monitoring and evaluation--of throughput processes and of outcomes, are
typically not possible: with the university having no effective means of implementing
policies or changes, there is, most often, little to monitor or evaluate, and,
consequently, no corrective measures to formulate and apply. The net result is that
the effectiveness of inputs (policies, goals, desired changes, budgets, structures) is
not measured. The only thing that can be measured is the outcome of the usual
ongoing uninfluenced activities. And, when they are measured, the resulting data
indicate that the inputs have had little or no influence.
This means that planning in most universities has only a short term, typically one
year, outlook and that this planning consists of deciding how to do the same thing
next year that was done last year while perhaps taking into account variations in
certain contextual variables such as levels of available budget, variations in
numbers of faculty, of students and so on.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
46
4.0 RECOMMENDATION In the light of the data analysis and findings, the following section covers recommendations
for increasing equitable access, improving quality of education and its relevance to the
national aspirations.
4.1 INCREASED EQUITABLE ACCESS
Substantial expansion of the higher education system is necessary in the next few years.
If it does not happen, huge portions of future cohorts of youth will be left aside, posing
serious implications for the country’s stability and economic development and may become
a source of social problems for the country. Following are the key recommendations in this
regard:
4.1.1 HEC should improve equitable access through establishing campuses and
universities in backward areas; in providing financial assistance to needy students;
and in introducing soft disciplines, such as social sciences, media and journalism,
and fine arts.
4.1.2 HEC should seek to cater more to the women population so as to attain further
gender parity. Although proportional increase in the women students is already
more than men students in the sector, still, the overall number of enrolled women
students (585,000) is less than the number of men students (713,000); see Fig 3.7.
4.1.3 The traditional “brick and mortar” solution is not a viable option for enhancing
equitable access to higher education for an additional million students. HEC should
encourage cost-effective and widespread dissemination of knowledge through the
use of educational technologies and distance education so that far-flung areas are
covered while simultaneously ensuring that the quality standards are not
compromised. It will be necessary to leverage technology and develop and deploy
quality distance education solutions for this purpose, such as expanding on ICTs
and education technologies to establish VU campuses in remote and far flung
areas, where no campuses exist but a reasonable population exists.
4.2 IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
4.2.1 The Federal Cabinet Criteria, which categorizes universities under the W, X, Y, Z
classification, should further be elaborated for W category through the introduction
of ten Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards against which each Institution
will be assessed.
4.2.2 There should be much greater attention placed on the improvement in quality of
governance and leadership at the universities. The merit criteria should be central
for the appointment of all senior positions, including Vice-Chancellors. Political
influence should be minimized in the selection and appointments of candidates to
these key positions. All these sizeable changes relate particularly to quality issues.
4.2.3 HEC needs to ensure not only that the quality is maintained at a minimally
acceptable level it also needs to enhance quality to keep the higher education
system in Pakistan competitive and reactive to changes in the external environment.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
47
In this context, higher education quality should be subjected to higher performance
pressures.
4.2.4 In order to develop the ability to evaluate the fit between the graduate profiles and
social and economic needs (market needs), universities need to develop effective
systems to produce and to analyze data on their own structures and processes,
including entrance level characteristics of students (one of the important
determinants of student success) and periodic programme assessment. The
production of adequate data resides in an effective and efficient internal
management information system (MIS), coupled with effective means to exploit
these data (data mining) and, with data inputs from external social and market
sources, to translate findings into attainable goals. In this regard, it is ironic that
universities in the world over, through their research functions, help other
institutions to produce information while they typically fail to produce useful
information on themselves to help them adapt to the changing environments.24
4.3 CAPTURING NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS
4.3.1 Vision 2025 and the 11th Five Year Plan, present a comprehensive approach for
addressing existing human and social development gaps: the emphasis is placed
on developing human and social capital so as to take full advantage of Pakistan’s
expanding youth bulge. Indeed, Pakistan has been projected to become the world’s
5th most populous country by 2030. The larger portion of this population increase
will naturally be the youth. Implementing the GOP’s development vision requires
the Higher Education Commission to take numerous steps to ensure:
access to higher education for an enlarged portion of the population;
opportunities for young Pakistanis to seek high-level training in top world class
universities;
academic environments that are conducive for student and faculty development;
research activities and facilities that are developed beyond the current
unsatisfactory level;
the creation of new types of institutions offering more choices in content areas
and new modes of educational delivery;
linking higher education to the demands in the labour market to build a
knowledge-based economy (OECD, 2014); and.
exploring ways to help ease the transition from higher education into the labour
market (OECD, 2015).
4.3.2 It appears critical that in expanding its higher education system, Pakistan must
focus on the needs and requirements of its labour market. An immediate example
for this need can be found in the imminent CPEC. To reap the benefits of this
project, higher education must produce the type of human resource that can meet
the project’s needs and requirements.
4.3.3 It is of prime importance to identify the areas where professionals will be required
in order to meet the C PEC needs. Simply put, the government should know, at the
24 See Appendix 14 for a more in depth treatment of this question and for suggestions.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
48
very least that how many engineers, architects, IT experts, skilled workers and
unskilled workers and others will be needed in realizing this project. Without such
information, it will not be possible for the government or the universities to arrange
for the required human resource. Human resource need, once identified, must then
be translated into a plan by HEC to develop or increase training programme
capabilities at various universities and to plan for their effective implementation. In
this way only can the needs of the C PEC project be met. Therefore a
comprehensive needs analysis of human resource required for C PEC is required.
In the light of the results of the needs analysis, efforts should be targeted at;
expanding the higher education sector through establishment of new HEIs
and new campuses of existing universities, capacity enhancement of
existing universities and through facilitating the increased participation of
private sector while ensuring its proper supervision and evaluation;
aligning the expansion of HE sector with the national priorities through
introduction of new disciplines, cutting edge and market based
technologies; and
ensuring equity and removing regional, gender and financial-need
disparities through distance learning and financial assistance for needy
students.
4.4 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS From an institutional perspective, HEIs are under pressure to become more effective and
efficient across all of their missions – teaching, research and innovation and local
economic development. Yet, many face financial challenges that threaten their long-term
sustainability. At the institutional level, HEIs can adopt a range of approaches, which may
be encouraged by HEC schemes but are sometimes entirely rooted in institutions’ own
strategic objectives and policies. These approaches range from the internal allocation of
resources, to choices regarding staff appointment and hiring, or the selection of students,
where the institutional setting allows for such autonomy. Below is proposed framework to
make the HEIs more sustainable in terms of availability of financial resources.
Give targets to HEIs for grants release, as per following criteria:
o How many graduates
Got jobs
Got admission to next level of education
Stayed in U because no job was available
o How many international students enrolled (by programme/ level)
o How many research publications
By the faculty from the students’ work
How many independently published
Is there evaluation of quality of publications?
o What impact do these publications have on
Policy formulation
Development of/ expansion in the industry
Innovations in the industry
Creating new jobs
Creating new knowledge
o How many research grants won by
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
49
The institute/faculty/department
The individual faculty member (senior—regular—faculty
members/teams)
What is faculty students ratio in?
o Classroom teaching
o Supervision of masters’ thesis
o Supervision of MS/MPhil Thesis
o Supervision of PhD Thesis
How many projects’(financial support) won by the university?
o From provincial/federal government
o From national donors/development partners
o From international donors/development partners
o Other sources
How many awards won by the university from
o National bodies
o International bodies
How many courses (programmes) have been accredited by the relevant
o National bodies
o International bodies
How many faculty members invited in?
o Provincial consultations
o National consultations
o Boards, Councils…
4.5 STRENGTHEN RESEARCH To strengthen the important research function:
Make research activities a legitimate part of the faculty workload
Insist on not-only-for-promotion research relevant to the Pakistan context
Use a strategy appropriate to the existing level of research capacity to establish
working research units (see Appendix 13) through adopting the following
strategies:
A. jump starting: importing the necessary resources;
B. concentrating: Isolating and insulating existing resources; and
C. rationalizing: consolidating existing resources
4.6 DEVELOP AND STANDARDIZE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (MIS) IN ALL UNIVERSITIES
Universities can create and mine their own data in order to monitor themselves and
plan, develop, control or adapt their teaching, programmes and research functions
(see Appendix 14).
I conclude, as HEC Chairperson proposed the way forward, ‘in order to fully achieve the
MTDF objectives, as well as develop the next phase of higher education reforms for the
country, MTDF III is to develop ambitious yet attainable goals for the next 5 years in all
the priority areas’.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
50
REFERENCES Garvin David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. V.
71, no. 4 (July-August)
Govt. of Pakistan (2013). Pakistan Vision 2025-One Nation One Vision. Islamabad: Planning Commission of Pakistan.
Govt. of Pakistan (2015). Annual Plan 2015-16.Islamabad: Planning Commission
Government of Pakistan (2015). Knowledge Economy and Role of Higher Education Commission. A Policy Research Paper developed Dr. Fazli Hakim Khattak Director General). Islamabad, Planning Commission of Pakistan
Haché, Jean B. (2008). Perspectives on Education and Research. Conference, International Conference on Transforming Teacher Education – Improving Practicum and Internship, Lahore, Pakistan
Haché, Jean B. (2016). The Development of Research and Research Culture in Education. Keynote Address, ICRPE 2016 AIOU, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Higher Education Commission (2012 Higher Education Commission: Knowledge Exchange Strategic Plan (KESP) July 2012- July 2017, developed by Jo Chaffer with HEC. Islamabad
Higher Education Commission (2015). National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015 (Draft). Islamabad
Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Higher Education Medium Term Development Framework II (2011-15). Islamabad
Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Institutional performance evaluation process- Manual for six standards. Islamabad: HEC Quality Assurance Agency
Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Medium Term Development Framework (2005-10). Islamabad
OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Retrieve from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en on 17 March 2016.
OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Retrieve from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2015 eag-2015-9-en on 17 March 2016.
Stiglitz, J.E. and B.C.Greenwald. (2014). Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press.
University of the Punjab (2014). Fact Book2014. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Campus
World Economic Forum (2015). Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16. Geneva
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
51
Appendix 1. TORS
Terms of Reference for Overall assessment of the sector (study # 1)
Overall assessment of the higher education sector (current situation, recent trends)
I. Introduction and Background
Pakistan’s GER is currently reaching 9 percent, enrollments in higher education are on the increase, and actually, the GOP is planning to raise the GER to 15 percent by 2020 which still is comparatively lower than other south Asian countries. Similarly, the number and qualification of the academic staff that are the backbone of the teaching and learning and research, have also increased to 26 percent of the faculty over the last 10 years. But needs to be increased to 40 percent and improved even more in the coming years. All HEIs in a country cannot be engaged in research, it is widely recognized that research from the academia has the potential to be one of the main producers of the new knowledge. Moreover, there are about 40 percent private students, who have their own dynamics and challenges. In order to have Pakistan’s economy transition to take off stage, as envisaged both in the Vision 25 and the 11th Plan, HEC has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the higher education. However, in view of making the right strategic move towards this goal, it is imperative to have a candid analysis of the higher education sector. This study aims to contribute to this objective.
II. Objectives
The main purposes of the consultancy are to: (i) take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan, (ii) evaluate what are the current status, recent trend in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths and (iii) assess the potential to become a driving force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country.
III. Scope of the work - Specific tasks
The consultant will focus on the following areas and issues
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has brought significant growth of higher education in focusing on improving access to quality higher education as a key element of its strategy. The documentary evidences clearly demonstrate Higher
Education Commission’s achievements through the implementation of MTDF HE I and II and significant transformation in the educational landscape of national universities. Seven universities of Pakistan have made it to the list of top 250 Asian Universities while three other universities are among the top 200 world universities in Agriculture and Forestry. More than 5,000 Pakistani scholars were facilitated to present their research work in leading international conferences abroad.
However there were many challenges and issues that need to be assessed to chalk out the way forward. It is important to sustainably focus on HEC’s mission i.e. “to facilitate institutions of higher education to serve as engine of growth for the socioeconomic development of Pakistan” and expand the educational reform agendas through a holistic, futuristic and practical approach.
The first five year medium term development framework of HEC, launched in 2005, identified access, quality and relevance as the key challenges facing the sector at that time. The focus was on the internal development of the Institutions of Higher Learning as world class centers of learning and research.
MTDF HE II goes a step further to link this development to the society and industry. Universities building leadership, communities and economies to serve as an engine of growth for the socio-economic development of Pakistan. For the next five years, HEC’s key focus was to sustain the gains in faculty development, quality improvement, and maximizing the opportunities for acquisition of quality higher education. Yet, HEC expanded the reform agenda to promoting innovation and enhancing integration of higher education sector to the society and community; faculty development.
Apart from expansion in the current reform agenda, the Higher Education Commission now envisages to ensure civic engagement through linkages.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
52
This study will critically evaluate the current higher education sector, its current trends and will provide an assessment of the past performance with a view to guide on the future course of action. The performance of the sector is to be compared with the targets and the achievements of the last two Midterm Development frame Works
IV. Methodology
In order to carry out the above tasks, the consultant will mostly rely on administrative data and in information gathered from officials of HEC, Planning Commission, HEIs management and faculty. Additional information will need to be collected from other stakeholders, both from academic and non-academic higher education institutes and from representatives of private (and semi) private firms engaged or interested in the higher education sector as a whole.
V. Deliverables
1. The consultant will deliver the following products according to well defined timeline:
A detailed inception report, within one week after contract signing.
A draft report, within eight weeks of contract signing. The report will have two parts: (i) findings and results of the study -including assessment of the current situation and of recent GOP’s measures and plans, and (ii) recommendations based on the findings. The consultant will draw from best practices and relevant cases in other countries to support her/his conclusions and recommendations.
The final report, after incorporating the comments of HEC on draft report, in 90 working days of the contract signing.
VI. Institutional arrangements
HEC will provide support to the consultant by (i) constituting and notifying a “Technical cum Steering Committee” to oversee and monitor the assignment; (ii) in addition, one focal person from respective section of HEC were nominated for each study and (iii) by writing letters to the relevant universities, institutes, affiliated colleges, and federal and provincial authorities, as identified by the consultant, requesting them to facilitate and provide access to required information directly related to the subject of the study.
The consultant will report to HEC Steering Committee headed by Dr Mehmood-ulHassan Butt, Consultant to the Chairman HEC.
It were the sole responsibility of the consultant to obtain data and other relevant information from universities, institutes, affiliated colleges, and federal and provincial authorities, and/or any other quarters. The Consultant will also be responsible for timely delivery of the Deliverables, as mentioned above.
VII. Report Format
Abstract/Executive summary/Synopsis
The abstract needs to convey a complete synopsis of the paper, remaining within a word tight limit, with the maximum word count limited to within 250 words. The executive summary/abstract must be written after the completion of the report and must, in summary for, follow the pattern and outline of the report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The report must be based on the following general outline, the consultant may improve upon it if s/he so desires.
Introduction
In the introduction, the consultant must inform the audience of the report about the rationale and justification behind the report. This part of the report is not subject to a word count limit but it be as brief as possible and should not be too “wordy”. Preferably it should be written last to ensure that major points are not missed out.
Methodology
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
53
The consultant must explicate the methods used, in a threadbare manner, for collecting data along with completely accurate description of the tools and techniques used. S/he must provide an explanation of how the raw data were compiled, analyzed and utilized. It is important to note that the report needs to be verifiable by other end users as well.
Findings and Results
The consultant must not attempt to interpret results. That belongs strictly in the discussion section. The objective must be to narrate findings without trying to interpret or evaluate them, other than to provide a link to the discussion section.
Irrelevance must be avoided along with too much information, which will the findings underneath mounds of triviality.
If a table of the findings is made then the consultant need not make a graph highlighting the same data. Repetition in any form is to be avoided. If the consultant presents a table of results, then it should be referred to it in the text, WITHOUT REPEATING the figures.
Conceivably the best way to use the results section is to show the most relevant information in the graphs, figures and tables.
The text portion of the Results section must direct the reader to graphs/charts etc, also clarifying any ambiguities. The text should also act as a link to the discussion section, highlighting any correlations and findings.
Conclusions
The consultant must attempt to put his/her findings into the context of the previous research if any that was found during your literature review.
Writing a conclusion involves summing up the paper and giving a very brief description of the results, although too much detail about this is best avoided. The audience reading the conclusion has read the entire paper, so the conclusion merely acts as an aid to memory.
While writing the conclusion, the consultant must also highlight any deficiencies in the methodology, explaining how they may have affected your results. Impediments and roadblocks must also be explained.
Recommendations
Recommendations are often included with a report’s conclusion, although they serve different purposes.
While a conclusion offers you the opportunity to summarize or review your report’s main ideas, recommendations suggest actions to be taken in response to the findings of a report and serve as a prompt to action for the audience of the report.The report structure should be such so as to lead up to the recommendations and provide justification for them.
Just as a proposal grows from a client’s objectives, a report should actually go backwards from the consultant’s recommendations. Having his recommendations accepted then becomes part of the consultancy’s purpose.
Effective recommendations must include the following:
Describe a suggested course of action to be taken to address a particular problem;
They are written as action statements without justification;
Recommendations must be stated in clear, specific language;
They should be expressed in order of importance;
They are based on the case built up in the body of the report; are written in parallel structure.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
54
Appendix 2. Physical targets of MDTF-II
Summary of the physical targets set following the implementation of the MTDF-II 1. Faculty Development
• 3,500 new foreign postgraduate scholarships awarded
• 3,750 new indigenous postgraduate scholarships awarded
• 1,250 new split Postgraduate scholarships awarded
• 700 new Post Doc scholarships awarded
• 3000 additional PhD holders recruited on tenure track system
• Staff development courses offered to 750 staff members
• 2,500 faculty members completing specialized English language teacher training programs
• 50 new Continuous Professional Development Centers established in universities
• 4000 new faculty members taking faculty development courses for enhancement of pedagogical skills
2. Quality Assurance
• 5 Pakistani universities internationally ranked by Times Higher Education among the top 500 universities of the world
• 75 universities with Quality Enhancement Cells
• 100 Institutions assessed against Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards
• 75 QECs performing satisfactorily as measured by the scorecard system
• Quality Assurance ensured in 170 affiliated colleges (imparting 4 yrs bachelor program)
• 50,000 private students enrolled through new Directorates of External Students’ Education
• 1,250 training courses delivered for improvement of examination system
• 50 universities having ISO 9000 or similar certification
• 5 new disciplines for which Accreditation Councils have been established by HEC
• 75 four-year undergraduate Courses whose curricula has been revised including 25 curricula revised on the (2 + 2) Model
• 125 academic programs offered jointly with premier foreign universities
• 90 Institutions carrying out Institutional Performance Evaluation
• 150 new programs that are fully accredited by Accreditation Councils
• 500 evaluators trained for internal and external quality assurance and accreditation of programs
3. Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship
• 12,500 publications from researchers based in Pakistan in Impact Factor Journals in 2015
• 30 Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization performing satisfactorily at universities
• 70 universities having their services hosted and managed at the National Data Centers (NDC)
• 30 joint university-industry projects
• 60 Technology Incubators established
• 5 technology parks established
• 45 US/International patents issued to university faculty and students
• PKR 100 million total yearly income of university from commercialization of research
• 75 public universities with well-functioning offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization.
• 194 MB Average bandwidth available per Institution
4. Improving Equitable Access
• 10 percent of students aged 17-23 having access to higher education
• 85,000 new students enrolled in science and technological programs of public HEIs
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
55
• 100,000 postgraduate Students enrolled at public HEIs
• 10 new universities/Degree Awarding Institutes established
• 5 new campuses established
• 35 new campuses of Virtual University established.
• 35 Private HEIs eligible for Public funding
• 60 new Financial Aid Offices established
• 5000 additional need based scholarships provided
• 10,000 students provided loans under the Student Loan Program
5. Excellence In Leadership, Governance And Management
• All University Vice Chancellors appointed following a Search Committee process
• 200 University Administrators undergoing training courses per year
• 1250 bandwidth provided to number of tertiary education / research institutions.
• 50 public universities with ERP/HEMIS Software for business automation deployed
• HEC team represented in all events at national championships
• HEC getting at least 3rd highest points total in National Championship
• HEC winning at least 5 Gold Medals in a year in Team Events
• Standardized Annual Reports published by 50 universities annually
• Career Counseling Centers established in 50 Universities
6. Financial Management and Sustainability
• 30 HEI’s implemented New Accounting Model (NAM) introduced under the
• PIFRA Project.
• Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) conducted & recommendations communicated for removing bottlenecks in tertiary education.
• 350 HEI’s employees trained to support capacity building for financial management, and accounting manuals.
• 20 universities having external independent audit certification.
• 100 Universities having functional Alumni Associations
• 50 Public Universities having having established Endowment Fund.
• Proposal finalized and forwarded to government to establish “National professional organization to support higher education advancement”
• Outreach activities initiated by 50 public sector universities to create public awareness of the need for raising private funds for higher education.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
56
Appendix 3. Organizational Chart of Provincial Higher Education
Departments
Provincial Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(Sources: official web site of Higher Education Archives & Libraries, Govt of KP, http://hed.gkp.pk/?page_id=175)
Provincial Higher Education Department Punjab
(Sources: official web site of Higher Education Department, Govt of Punjab, http://hed.punjab.gov.pk/organogram)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
57
Provincial Education Department, Balochistan
(Sources: official web site of Education Department, Govt of Balochistan, http://balochistan.edu.pk/organograms.htm)
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
58
Appendix 4. Number of respondents by university
Number faculty respondents by university and by gender
University Name Number of respondents
Women Men Total
1. Dow University Of Health Sciences 13 14 27
2. Karakoram international University 8 25 33
3. Lahore College for Women University 7 0 7
4. NED University Engineering & Technology, Karachi
13 17 30
5. University Engineering & Technology Lahore
2 8 10
6. University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad
1 2 3
7. University of Education Lahore 3 10 13
8. University of Malakand 1 8 9
9. University of Peshawar 0 4 4
10. University of Sindh Jamshoro 0 4 4
Total 48 92 140
Number student respondents by university and by gender
University Name Number of respondents
Women Men Total
Dow University Of Health Sciences 208 65 273
Karakoram international University 78 94 172
NED University Engineering & Technology 125 87 212
University of Education Lahore 33 18 51
UET Lahore 31 75 106
University of Loralai 4 7 11
Lahore College for Women University 45 0 45
Peshawar University 12 11 23
University of Malakand 14 82 96
Total 550 439 989
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
59
Appendix 5. Reliability tests of faculty and student questionnaire
Reliability test of Faculty questionnaire
Key variable Sub-variable No. of Items Cronbach's Alpha Faculty workload Teaching 4 .240
Research and support activities
9 .725
Developmental activities 8 .812
University climate Management Culture 9 .807
Academic Culture 9 .841
Job Satisfaction Support and workload 11 .786
Reward and compensations 6 .655
Qualitative achievements by the university
Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
9 .858
Quality of faculty inputs 12 .811
Availability of resources
Human, financial and knowledge resources
14 .878
Overall 91 .837
Reliability test of student questionnaire
Variable No. of Items Cronbach's Alpha Program Clarity and Flexibility 11 .791
Quality of Learning and Teaching 13 .834
Quality of Assessment and Feedback 6 .764
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
9 .823
Satisfaction with the Program Organization 4 .682
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
7 .794
General Satisfaction with the Programme 7 .827
Overall 57 .953
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
60
Appendix 6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges/
Constraints (SWOC) Analysis of Higher Education Sector
Strengths Weaknesses
1. HEC is playing leading role towards
building a knowledge based economy in
Pakistan by awarding thousands of doctoral
scholarships for education abroad and
within the country.
2. Mechanisms (QECs) exist at institutional
level to monitor /promote quality of
education within the DAIs.
3. A well-organized effort of continued
updating of curriculums of various bachelor/
master level programs of diversified
disciplines through innovative and
experimental projects, including
assessment.
4. A number of academic programs specialty
of various universities, especially
professional courses that are nationally and
internationally ranked and highly
competitive.
5. HEC Accreditation community awareness
campaign with regards to illegally operating
campuses/ non-accredited universities has
enabled the students to select the
genuinely accredited institutions for their
future.
6. HEC constantly pursuits/ follows-up
actions, higher education system has made
impressive strides toward developing
institutions of higher learning where
learning is preeminent.
7. For rapid increase in the access to higher
education, alternate tried and tested
models exist in the form Virtual University,
Allam Iqbal Open University, and sub-
campuses through public-private
partnerships. Furthermore medium size
campus with small class size help to
maintain better student –teachers ration
and quick flow of information as well as
individual interaction.
8. Increased number of professional/regularity
bodies (Pakistan veterinary Medical Council
(PVMC), National Computing Education
Accreditation Council (NCEAC), and
National Accreditation Council for Teacher
Education (NATCE)) is helping improve
quality of education in the sector.
1. It has been proven over and over again that for the
development of successful industrial base and invention in
technological advancement, a well laid out infrastructure of
skilled workforce is an absolute necessity, which is missing in
the HE sector.
2. Though prevailing emphasis on English language as one of
the official and academic language can be regarded strength
of Pakistan’s higher education system as a common tool for
imparting knowledge to foreign students; it has not done
enough to promote the language to the common man.
3. The current higher education infrastructure is lacking element
of quality & research culture. Underdeveloped research culture
and the one that exists are mostly irrelevant to local needs and
blamed for plagiarism. Hence unable to withstand the
competitive environment likely to prevail in globally.
4. Inadequate research culture emanating from the initial
"developmental" focus and low proportion of PhD holders
among academic staff.
5. Inadequate library facilities thus limiting academic
development and lack of land for future expansion of the
campus.
6. Inappropriate funding limiting scope of future growth on
competitive pattern and productivity to private sector
universities. Proliferation of providers of university level
education has dispersed already low level of qualified faculties.
7. Experienced staff leaving for greener pastures. Low
recruitment and retention levels of staff due to unattractive
terms and conditions of employment. Inability of senior
management in the universities to hire and retain the quality
faculty rather such decisions are mostly influenced by the
socio- political pressures or undermined by the sluggish
bureaucratic procedures.
8. High and unequal workloads faculty and staff resulting into
shifting of priorities and responsibilities at different levels.
Heavy dependence on part-time lecturers in some faculties
especially in private universities of lesser age. Growth of
private sector and availability of limited resource persons in
different disciplines has made the market highly competitive to
retain and maintain the qualified faculty and staff.
9. Inadequate institutional capacity to meet the rising demand for
higher education with increase in literacy level and growth
enrolment.
10. Absence of a systemic approach to quality assurance
constraining the development of management and
administrative structures with regard to capacity building.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
61
Opportunities Constrains/Challenges
1. Location and size: Pakistan is the world's
seventh most populous country and is
therefore in a better position than smaller
countries that are limited in terms of their
scope of growth and expansion. Pakistan's
size also means that the country has a
large domestic market for education that it
has access to. Another advantage is its
vicinity that offers connectivity to West Asia,
Central Asia, South Asia and China that
lends itself to export higher education from
Pakistan and vice versa.
2. Meeting CPEC requirements: Keeping in
view the C PEC requirements, developing
and enhancing of capacity to accommodate
more students and research.
3. Export of Education: Pakistan should focus
on creating higher education a service-
oriented industry capable to be exported
abroad. Our historic and socio-cultural roots
in Central Asia are likely to facilitate our any
such move of exporting higher education
towards that area. Pakistan also stands a
fair chance to exploit the memberships of
forums like OIC, ECO, and SAARC etc.
4. Capitalize on Local Market Size: Pakistan's
local market is very large and is capable of
supporting local industries up to some
extent. Local universities are also in a
better position to cater to the needs of the
local market.
5. Collaboration and partnerships: Increased
chances of collaboration and partnerships
in support of university initiatives, and
programs.
6. Academia and industry linkage: Meaningful
and market needs oriented programs have
more chances to increase value of higher
education completion. Furthermore, ever
increasing need and realization of
academia and industry linkage is helping to
refine curriculum, introduce new programs,
and easy/ timely placement of students.
7. Improved peace and harmony: Diversity of
student from within and abroad is likely to
improve civilizational understanding,
cultural exchange and respect, and
improved prospects for international /
regional peace and harmony.
8. Prospects for Foreign Aids: Based on the
current regional instability, Pakistan can
apply for additional aid and with that
investment it gains access to expertise from
sources like the World Bank. Pakistan can
1. 18th Amendment: After 18th Amendments, provincial HECs have
been created in three provinces. Ambiguity persists in the roles
of these HECs in the presence of Federal HEC. One of the
province has also asked it complete share from the Financial
Award for higher education
2. Political Instability: Pakistan has seen a great share of political
instability in its life span that equally effected the development of
its HE system like many other areas. The regimes have
remained more concerned in yielding power, strengthening and
manipulating their terms thereby relegating education as lower
priority, which is evident from its share of GDP in last 60 years.
These sudden shift in political clout and shifting national priorities
effected the direction in which our education & particularly higher
education headed and left the legacy of poor infrastructure.
3. Poor education system: Education is the key to a knowledge
economy, which Pakistan wants to be. Pakistan must improve
education on all levels i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary. From
an IT stand point the most critical level is higher-level education,
which will in turn produce industry-leading professionals. A
strong education system will also overcome the root cause of a
skill deficient workforce.
4. Weak legal System: A weak legal system coupled with weak
enforcement has created an environment conducive to piracy.
The legal system is lacking especially in dealing with technology
related disputes. The legal system is backlogged to such an
extent that for any decision the plaintiff has to wait for years,
which acts as a deterrent to litigation. This weakness has acted
negatively in encouraging new research, writing of books,
registration of new patents etc. Therefore, culture of promoting
original work and discouraging plagiarism could not be nurtured
in our higher education.
5. Stakeholder Resistance: Of the many reforms proposed by the
task force, a central one was to change the governance and
management of universities, to make them more autonomous
and introduce transparency and accountability into their
administrative functioning. Here the main battles emerged with
the chancellors, vice chancellors, and some senior members of
the education bureaucracy. The chancellors foresaw an erosion
of their unchecked powers. Most of the vice chancellors were
concerned because the proposed reforms envisaged a
transparent process of selection, a system of accountability of
their performance, and checks on the blanket emergency powers
they enjoyed. The systematization of university governance
would similarly erode the power of the education bureaucracy.
Outwardly, all of them lamented the dire state of affairs in higher
education and supported reform, as the pressure for that was
coming from the highest authorities. However, behind the scenes
their resistance to change was dogged and, unfortunately,
effective. They clouded issues by quoting precedence, and
raising legalistic and/or procedural constraints. Their opposition
was informed by the mindset that the state and its various
organs must have hegemony and control, despite evidence that
in Pakistan the outmoded functioning of the state is the problem
that stifles the establishment of good governance and credible
and efficient institutions. Their position was that a better
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
62
Opportunities Constrains/Challenges
also avail this aid from the developed
countries, which would allow Pakistan
access to foreign markets and can ensure
foreign direct investment growth.
9. Strategic alliances and partnerships with
institutions of international repute for
offering university courses, and with
national institutions to make judicial use of
resources and raise barrier for new entrants
from abroad.
10. Use of available infrastructure of distance
education, flexible learning and adoption
of new information and communications
technologies to increase access.
implementation, by “good” people, of prevailing procedures and
systems would solve the problems.
6. Leadership Deficit: The most critical positions of higher
education management presently occupied are politically
motivated and lack the necessary qualities to provide credible
leadership. The rather whimsical methods of their appointment,
and the conditions of service; their lack of vision, confidence in
themselves; and low institutional or professional commitment-all
combine to make a pessimistic mix for reform.
7. Operational structure/bureaucracy seen in almost all campuses
retards the routine procedural works and lead to generate
mistrust. Heavy and mostly politically represented academic/
decision making bodies in universities which are proving counter-
productive in quick decision making and to meet the dynamism
of globalization of higher education. Sluggish responsiveness to
student and community needs.
8. Lack of pride of internal community i.e. Student life or
professorship, or teacher community.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
63
Appendix 7. ANOVAfor quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by programme
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Between Groups 6.615 4 1.654 1.830 .121
Within Groups 887.641 982 .904
Total 894.256 986
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Between Groups 16.357 4 4.089 4.609 .001
Within Groups 866.777 977 .887
Total 883.134 981
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Between Groups 24.415 4 6.104 5.598 .000
Within Groups 1075.144 986 1.090
Total 1099.559 990 Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Between Groups 21.609 4 5.402 4.848 .001
Within Groups 1087.475 976 1.114
Total 1109.084 980
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Between Groups 10.052 4 2.513 2.080 .081
Within Groups 1191.062 986 1.208
Total 1201.114 990 Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Between Groups 8.468 4 2.117 2.123 .076
Within Groups 970.124 973 .997
Total 978.591 977
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Between Groups 27.103 4 6.776 4.677 .001
Within Groups 1428.626 986 1.449
Total 1455.729 990
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
64
Appendix 8. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by programme Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Between Groups 9.933 4 2.483 2.757 .027
Within Groups 884.323 982 .901
Total 894.256 986
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Between Groups 12.667 4 3.167 3.554 .007
Within Groups 870.467 977 .891
Total 883.134 981
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Between Groups 12.259 4 3.065 2.779 .026
Within Groups 1087.299 986 1.103
Total 1099.559 990
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Between Groups 21.149 4 5.287 4.743 .001
Within Groups 1087.935 976 1.115
Total 1109.084 980
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Between Groups 10.562 4 2.640 2.187 .069
Within Groups 1190.553 986 1.207
Total 1201.114 990
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Between Groups 5.327 4 1.332 1.331 .256
Within Groups 973.264 973 1.000
Total 978.591 977
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Between Groups 18.864 4 4.716 3.236 .012
Within Groups 1436.865 986 1.457
Total 1455.729 990
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
65
Appendix 9. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student
satisfaction by type of university
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Program Clarity and Flexibility
Between Groups 8.552 3 2.851 3.164 .024
Within Groups 885.704 983 .901
Total 894.256 986
Quality of Learning and Teaching
Between Groups 15.919 3 5.306 5.984 .000
Within Groups 867.215 978 .887
Total 883.134 981
Quality of Assessment and Feedback
Between Groups 13.482 3 4.494 4.084 .007
Within Groups 1086.077 986 1.100
Total 1099.559 989
Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship
Between Groups 24.197 3 8.066 7.264 .000
Within Groups 1084.887 977 1.110
Total 1109.084 980
Satisfaction with the Program Organization
Between Groups 5.418 3 1.806 1.491 .215
Within Groups 1195.696 986 1.211
Total 1201.114 989
Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources
Between Groups 3.923 3 1.308 1.307 .271
Within Groups 974.669 974 1.001
Total 978.591 977
General Satisfaction with the Programme
Between Groups 12.672 3 4.224 2.889 .035
Within Groups 1443.057 986 1.462
Total 1455.729 989
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
66
Appendix 10. Universities’ programmes support and quality as
perceived by the students
Aspects Row N %
Agree Disagree No
Opinion Not
Applicable Strongly Agree
Strongly disagree
Total
1. Programme clarity and flexibility
1.1 Aims of programme are clear 57.6% 3.0% 2.7% 0.3% 33.8% 2.6% 100.0%
1.2 Relevant careers information has been provided
57.6% 11.0% 6.5% 0.0% 20.5% 4.5% 100.0%
1.3 Programme information on enrolment was clear and complete
54.9% 7.8% 6.8% 0.0% 27.2% 3.3% 100.0%
1.4 Received clear information about structure and alternative routes
54.7% 10.8% 8.0% 0.3% 22.9% 3.3% 100.0%
1.5 Given clear advice about my choice of optional free choice courses
44.8% 14.0% 10.4% 3.9% 20.9% 6.0% 100.0%
1.6 Reasonable balance of total workload between courses
47.4% 21.2% 9.8% 0.6% 14.4% 6.6% 100.0%
1.7 Timetable enabled me to take the courses I wished to study
45.3% 17.6% 9.3% 2.9% 19.1% 5.9% 100.0%
1.8 Level of difficulty of work has increased stage to stage
47.1% 7.7% 6.2% 1.1% 35.3% 2.7% 100.0%
1.9 Helped and encouraged to manage my own learning
55.5% 7.1% 6.9% 0.6% 25.9% 4.1% 100.0%
1.10 Helped and encouraged to manage my own development
51.9% 10.1% 10.4% 0.9% 23.0% 3.8% 100.0%
1.11 Student views about the program makes a difference
46.8% 8.7% 13.4% 1.5% 24.7% 5.0% 100.0%
2. Learning and Teaching
2.1 Programme is helping me to develop skills relevant to life-situations
57.9% 5.9% 6.8% 0.5% 25.6% 3.5% 100.0%
2.2 Teaching style in my programme encourages me to participate actively
51.1% 11.9% 8.7% 0.8% 22.6% 5.0% 100.0%
2.3 Programme is helping me to develop subject-specific skills
56.7% 8.0% 7.1% 0.8% 24.7% 2.9% 100.0%
2.4 Programme is helping me to develop my ability to work with others
55.2% 5.1% 5.1% 0.8% 31.4% 2.4% 100.0%
2.5 Programme is helping me to develop skills in working independently
52.9% 7.2% 8.0% 0.6% 27.5% 3.8% 100.0%
2.6 Project work has enhanced my learning experience
48.4% 5.7% 8.6% 2.1% 31.7% 3.5% 100.0%
2.7 Programme is competently taught
49.9% 12.3% 12.3% 1.2% 20.2% 4.1% 100.0%
2.8 Staff teaching online program very knowledgeable about their subject area
34.1% 10.2% 17.7% 16.7% 14.4% 6.8% 100.0%
2.9 Abled to contact my programme tutor easily
50.7% 8.9% 8.4% 2.9% 25.9% 3.3% 100.0%
2.10 Meetings with my research supervisor are planned and scheduled
37.4% 13.4% 14.3% 12.2% 16.1% 6.6% 100.0%
2.11 Can seek advice from my research supervisor as and when need arise
44.4% 7.8% 12.0% 11.4% 19.1% 5.3% 100.0%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
67
Aspects Row N %
Agree Disagree No
Opinion Not
Applicable Strongly Agree
Strongly disagree
Total
2.12 Encouraged to participate in conferences and other such events
48.9% 8.7% 9.2% 4.4% 23.9% 5.0% 100.0%
2.13 Supervisor is overburdened due assigned number of supervisees
29.8% 15.5% 26.5% 12.2% 9.8% 6.3% 100.0%
3. Student Assessment
3.1 Programme assessments are scheduled in satisfactory way
53.4% 15.6% 6.5% 0.5% 18.3% 5.7% 100.0%
3.2 Program workload including assessment has been about right
56.8% 15.0% 9.8% 0.0% 13.5% 4.8% 100.0%
3.3 Feedback that i receive on my assignments is informative and useful
52.5% 12.9% 10.5% 0.6% 17.1% 6.3% 100.0%
3.4 I am satisfied with the speed of return of my assignments
47.8% 17.6% 9.8% 0.8% 16.5% 7.5% 100.0%
3.5 I understand what the assessments on my programme expect of me
56.7% 8.0% 11.1% 0.3% 20.2% 3.8% 100.0%
3.6 Assessments notice given me opportunities to manage time effectively
52.3% 10.2% 9.6% 0.9% 20.6% 6.3% 100.0%
4. Student Support
4.1 I feel that I belong to an academic department
58.9% 3.9% 6.5% 0.3% 27.1% 3.3% 100.0%
4.2 staff teaching are committed to the students
57.4% 6.9% 9.8% 0.3% 22.4% 3.2% 100.0%
4.3 programme is encouraging my personal development
57.6% 5.7% 6.9% 0.5% 26.0% 3.3% 100.0%
4.4 provision of guidance is adequate for my needs
55.9% 11.9% 11.6% 0.8% 15.9% 3.9% 100.0%
4.5 The Student Support given me the support I need
47.8% 13.5% 12.0% 2.6% 17.4% 6.6% 100.0%
4.6 satisfied with my placement in a work environment
55.6% 7.1% 9.6% 3.3% 19.1% 5.3% 100.0%
4.7 Effective personal support has been available
53.8% 12.5% 10.1% 1.1% 16.8% 5.7% 100.0%
4.8 Relationships between students and staff generally good
56.4% 6.3% 6.5% 0.3% 25.9% 4.7% 100.0%
4.9 Relationships between students and teachers are good
54.6% 3.9% 6.5% 0.6% 29.9% 4.5% 100.0%
5. Programme Organization
5.1 Programme Organization satisfied with the amount of choice within my programme
55.2% 14.7% 8.7% 1.1% 13.7% 6.6% 100.0%
5.2 Programme Organization satisfied with the way in which the components fit together
59.5% 14.1% 7.4% 0.2% 14.0% 4.8% 100.0%
5.3 Programme Organization workload on my programme is at the right level
55.8% 16.8% 8.7% 0.0% 12.5% 6.2% 100.0%
5.4 Programme Organization The programme is well-organized
50.4% 14.3% 9.2% 0.2% 19.4% 6.6% 100.0%
6. Learning Resources
6.1 Teaching rooms for my programme are good
51.6% 18.0% 6.0% 0.2% 14.1% 10.1% 100.0%
6.2 There is good availability of library materials
50.7% 13.8% 6.5% 0.2% 20.5% 8.4% 100.0%
6.3 Computing facilities are good 46.5% 19.2% 5.9% 0.0% 19.4% 9.0% 100.0%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
68
Aspects Row N %
Agree Disagree No
Opinion Not
Applicable Strongly Agree
Strongly disagree
Total
6.4 Facilities within the institution for working on ones own are good
50.8% 14.7% 10.1% 0.2% 15.9% 8.3% 100.0%
6.5 In my programme the facilities for practical activities are good
47.2% 18.3% 8.0% 1.2% 15.8% 9.5% 100.0%
6.6 On-line learning and support has enhanced my studies
44.7% 9.3% 12.0% 8.6% 17.1% 8.3% 100.0%
6.7 The use of library resources has enhanced my studies
52.3% 8.0% 10.7% 1.4% 20.5% 7.2% 100.0%
7. General Satisfaction
7.1 I find my programme stimulating
68.4% 4.7% 9.8% 0.0% 14.4% 2.7% 100.0%
7.2 The programme has helped me to develop self-confidence
56.4% 5.0% 6.5% 0.0% 29.2% 3.0% 100.0%
7.3 I have had the opportunity and encouragement to develop skills
60.2% 5.9% 5.0% 0.2% 25.4% 3.5% 100.0%
7.4 I have been made to feel welcome at the University
54.6% 8.3% 8.3% 0.2% 23.6% 5.1% 100.0%
7.5 Overall I am satisfied with this programme
58.6% 5.6% 6.3% 0.5% 25.1% 3.9% 100.0%
7.6 I am pleased I chose this programme
51.7% 6.5% 8.7% 0.3% 29.2% 3.6% 100.0%
7.7 I would recommend this programme to my friends
46.6% 5.9% 10.8% 0.2% 30.5% 6.0% 100.0%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
69
Appendix 11. Universities’ programmes support and quality, and
climate as perceived by the faculty
Proportion of your teaching load All Most Some None
N % N % N % N %
Courses that meet general education requirements
36 25.7 37 26.4 35 25.0 32 22.9
Undergraduate classes 24 17.1 9 6.4 58 41.4 49 35.0
Masters classes 34 24.3 33 23.6 49 35.0 24 17.1
PhD Classes 17 12.1 106 75.7 11 7.9 6 4.3
Frequency of participation in Frequently Occasionally Never
N % N % N %
Conducting research on teaching and learning 59 42.1 43 30.7 38 27.1
Evaluating effectiveness of new teaching and learning practices for faculty institute department 66 47.1 41 29.3 33 23.6
Helping determine the performance standard for students graduating from faculty institute department 57 40.7 55 39.3 28 20.0
Evaluating faculty in their use of new teaching learning practices 50 35.7 34 24.3 56 40.0
Assisting faculty peers in use of new teaching and learning practices 59 42.1 45 32.1 36 25.7
Evaluating students on capstone experiences 41 29.3 87 62.1 12 8.6
Testing students entering your faculty institute department 52 37.1 59 42.1 29 20.7
Making recommendations to administrative offices about new teaching and learning practices 66 47.1 39 27.9 35 25.0
Assessing students for course placement purposes 64 45.7 45 32.1 31 22.1
Frequency of participation in Frequently
Never Occasionally
Conducting research on teaching and learning 27.3% 30.0% 42.7%
Evaluating effectiveness of new teaching and learning practices for faculty institute department
28.2% 22.7% 49.1%
Helping determine the performance standard for students graduating from faculty institute department
43.6% 17.3% 39.1%
Evaluating faculty in their use of new teaching learning practices 23.6% 38.2% 38.2%
Assisting faculty peers in use of new teaching and learning practices 36.4% 24.5% 39.1%
Evaluating students on capstone experiences 64.5% 6.4% 29.1%
Testing students entering your faculty institute department 40.0% 19.1% 40.9%
Making recommendations to administrative offices about new teaching and learning practices
29.1% 23.6% 47.3%
Assessing students for course placement purposes 32.7% 22.7% 44.5%
Faculty involvement in your faculty/dpt/institute on
Little involvement
Moderate involvement
No involvement
Strong involvement
Very strong involvement
Academic planning for undergraduate education
5.5% 23.6% 3.6% 38.2% 29.1%
Resource allocation 19.1% 31.8% 14.5% 24.5% 10.0%
Student recruitment policies and decisions
21.8% 30.9% 18.2% 23.6% 5.5%
Curriculum development 10.0% 20.9% 2.7% 35.5% 30.9%
Faculty development activities 13.6% 30.9% 15.5% 25.5% 14.5%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
70
Faculty promotion and evaluation 22.7% 30.0% 30.9% 10.9% 5.5%
Student academic support services 11.8% 32.7% 4.5% 26.4% 24.5%
Student assessment policies and procedures
11.8% 32.7% 3.6% 36.4% 15.5%
Do you agree?
Do you agree? Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Strongly
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
The university management regularly speaks about the value of diversity
43.6% 20.0% 17.3% 19.1%
The university has strategic diversity goals and plans 38.2% 22.7% 25.5% 13.6%
The university encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly
44.5% 28.2% 17.3% 10.0%
The university promotes the appreciation of cultural differences
40.9% 25.5% 20.0% 13.6%
The university promotes the understanding of gender differences
38.2% 27.3% 20.0% 14.5%
The university has standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or discrimination
37.3% 31.8% 14.5% 16.4%
Racial and ethnic diversity is strongly reflected in my university curriculum
36.4% 11.8% 23.6% 28.2%
The university treats women faculty fairly 24.5% 57.3% 10.9% 7.3%
In general decision-making is centralized in my university
30.0% 45.5% 14.5% 10.0%
How centralized is/are
How centralized is/are Department Faculty Institute No coordination
Voluntarily by ad-hoc faculty groups
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Criteria for assessment of student learning 38.2% 17.3% 28.2% 10.9% 5.5%
Goals for student learning 37.3% 18.2% 27.3% 9.1% 8.2%
Development of teaching techniques 24.5% 25.5% 28.2% 14.5% 7.3%
Decisions regarding course content 43.6% 27.3% 13.6% 9.1% 6.4%
Use of student assessment data 27.3% 14.5% 36.4% 18.2% 3.6%
Determination of coursework requirements 50.9% 20.9% 17.3% 5.5% 5.5%
Development of final exams 38.2% 22.7% 28.2% 8.2% 2.7%
Student evaluations of teaching 28.2% 14.5% 44.5% 7.3% 5.5%
Faculty peer evaluations of teaching 29.1% 14.5% 33.6% 21.8% 0.9%
Your satisfaction with
Your satisfaction with Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Your workload 15.5% 46.4% 23.6% 14.5%
Your job security 9.1% 30.0% 12.7% 48.2%
Opportunity for advancement 30.0% 36.4% 20.9% 12.7%
Department support for promotion and tenure 28.2% 33.6% 25.5% 12.7%
Quality of students you teach 16.4% 50.0% 7.3% 26.4%
Collegiality in your department 18.2% 48.2% 8.2% 25.5%
Relationships between faculty and administrators 23.6% 43.6% 10.9% 21.8%
Level of support provided for teaching and learning 20.0% 53.6% 9.1% 17.3%
Freedom to do outside consulting 26.4% 40.0% 17.3% 16.4%
Support for assessment activities 15.5% 53.6% 15.5% 15.5%
Your salary/benefits 29.1% 48.2% 10.9% 11.8%
Level of agreement on the following statements Agree somewhat
Agree strongly
Disagree somewhat
Disagree strongly
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
71
Merit salary increases are fair and adequate in my university
35.5% 17.3% 28.2% 19.1%
Teaching is more important than research for faculty promotion
35.5% 15.5% 32.7% 16.4%
The most highly rewarded faculty are those oriented primarily toward research
42.7% 21.8% 20.9% 14.5%
Faculty evaluation for higher rank and merit increases incorporates evidence of student performance
46.4% 11.8% 24.5% 17.3%
Faculty receive public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment
35.5% 10.9% 28.2% 25.5%
Collaborative work is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty
51.8% 14.5% 27.3% 6.4%
About the same
Somewhat improved
Somewhat worse
Very much improved
Very much worse
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
How has Quality of Undergraduate students admitted to the programme changed
20.2% 39.4% 13.8% 24.8% 1.8%
How has Quality of Master's student admitted to the programme changed
22.9% 37.6% 15.6% 19.3% 4.6%
How has Quality of PhD students admitted to the programme changed
45.9% 26.6% 6.4% 11.0% 10.1%
How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering undergraduate students changed
16.5% 43.1% 8.3% 31.2% 0.9%
How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering masters students changed
22.9% 35.8% 9.2% 26.6% 5.5%
How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering PhD students changed
39.4% 22.9% 9.2% 15.6% 12.8%
How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare Under graduate students changed
14.7% 45.0% 4.6% 33.9% 1.8%
How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare Masters students changed
20.2% 45.9% 1.8% 26.6% 5.5%
How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare PhD students
34.9% 30.3% 5.5% 18.3% 11.0%
Agree or Disagree Agree somewhat
Agree strongly
Disagree somewhat
Disagree strongly
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Administrators and faculty work collaboratively 47.3% 15.5% 21.8% 15.5%
The faculty institute department is trying to increase its research reputation at the expense of teaching
43.6% 13.6% 23.6% 19.1%
Women faculty are treated as equals with men faculty 26.4% 47.3% 16.4% 10.0%
Grade inflation no longer exists 50.9% 13.6% 24.5% 10.9%
Administrators tend to behave in an authoritarian way 37.3% 34.5% 20.9% 7.3%
Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups are treated as equal here
32.7% 50.9% 8.2% 8.2%
There has been pressure to increase faculty workload here 38.2% 39.1% 17.3% 5.5%
The faculty institute department is trying to increase its national ranking
43.6% 43.6% 6.4% 6.4%
The central administration of the university is often autocratic
47.3% 24.5% 21.8% 6.4%
There is a concerted faculty institute departmental effort to increase grant funded research
47.3% 20.0% 23.6% 9.1%
There are clear policies that support collaborative work here
35.5% 16.4% 23.6% 24.5%
The faculty department institute is striving for a national reputation for high quality teaching
43.6% 37.3% 8.2% 10.9%
How would you evaluate Excellent Fair Good Not available Poor
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
72
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Number of faculty colleagues in the faculty institute department
9.1% 38.2% 37.3% 0.9% 14.5%
Funds to develop teaching learning initiatives 6.4% 25.5% 8.2% 17.3% 42.7%
Release time for course development or faculty development
7.3% 35.5% 14.5% 14.5% 28.2%
Internal funding for research 1.8% 18.2% 10.0% 29.1% 40.9%
Faculty development workshops and other activities 8.2% 27.3% 22.7% 9.1% 32.7%
Classrooms size location and cleanliness 21.8% 33.6% 19.1% 2.7% 22.7%
Technological aides for teaching 18.2% 39.1% 23.6% 2.7% 16.4%
Teaching and research laboratories 9.1% 28.2% 22.7% 7.3% 32.7%
Research library materials equipment and instruments
8.2% 31.8% 20.9% 10.0% 29.1%
Computer facilities 12.7% 36.4% 28.2% 5.5% 17.3%
General library holdings 10.9% 37.3% 29.1% 2.7% 20.0%
Secretarial support 6.4% 36.4% 19.1% 7.3% 30.9%
Funds and administrator support for collaborative work
5.5% 31.8% 10.9% 13.6% 38.2%
Financial and other support to implement changes in teaching
3.6% 26.4% 11.8% 20.9% 37.3%
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
73
Appendix 12. ANOVA for faculty responses with respect to university
climate, availability and quality of resources at
universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Research and support activities
Between Groups 1.863 4 .466 1.216 .307
Within Groups 51.699 135 .383
Total 53.563 139
Developmental activities
Between Groups 11.306 4 2.826 2.318 .060
Within Groups 164.616 135 1.219
Total 175.921 139
Management Culture
Between Groups 4.616 4 1.154 1.617 .174
Within Groups 96.347 135 .714
Total 100.963 139
Academic Culture
Between Groups 7.927 4 1.982 1.920 .111
Within Groups 139.366 135 1.032
Total 147.293 139
Support and workload
Between Groups 1.237 4 .309 .512 .727
Within Groups 81.469 135 .603
Total 82.705 139
Reward and compensations
Between Groups 3.030 4 .758 1.172 .326
Within Groups 87.255 135 .646
Total 90.286 139 Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness
Between Groups 2.667 4 .667 .829 .509
Within Groups 108.587 135 .804
Total 111.254
139
Quality of faculty inputs
Between Groups 4.536 4 1.134 1.730 .147
Within Groups 88.507 135 .656
Total 93.043 139
Human, financial and knowledge resources
Between Groups 13.249 4 3.312 3.857 .005
Within Groups 115.923 135 .859
Total 129.171 139
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
74
Appendix 13. Creating an effective university research function and
culture
The difficulties relating to the establishment and institutionalization of functional and effective
research functions in the universities of Pakistan have been generally presented above (see section
3.2.3). Principal among these difficulties are:
i) the absence of research cultures that are well established into which young well trained but
inexperienced faculty members can be integrated,
ii) an unwarranted expectation that young trained faculty members can be counted upon,
because of their recent Ph.D. level training, to establish functional research programmes, and
iii) a focus on research and its ensuing publications solely as a means of ensuring one’s the
individual promotion of faculty members without regard for the needs that require research
based knowledge production.
The present appendix focuses on the possible avenues to the creation of permanent research
functions in Pakistani universities.
There does not appear to exist a solution that constitutes a fit to all situations. Therefore it is
important that feasibility studies, useful for establishing whether necessary and sufficient conditions
exist for the use of specific strategies, be carried out in individual universities settings to help in
decision making.25
Three well known strategies that could potentially enable the establishment of working research
functions in universities have been identified. They are:
A. jump starting: importing the necessary resources
B. concentrating: Isolating and insulating existing resources
C. rationalizing: consolidating existing resources
A. JUMP STARTING: IMPORTING THE NECESSARY RESOURCES
This strategy or approach relies on importing the research and research administration capacity that
is not available locally and working with it until a structure and culture of research is well established
and has been generalized to an extent such that the process is unlikely to be reversed. It typically
consists of the following steps:
1. Stop doing research by copying the type of research other countries are doing. It does not
address the needs of Pakistan. . Research ought not be done for the sake of doing research.
Instead establish the priority needs in the relevant sectors and fields that must be addressed
with research-produced knowledge in this country.
2. Initially start by building one, at least one, world class research unit in each important discipline
(In a country as large as this perhaps three or more) with a mandate to produce this knowledge.
3. Ensure that there exists a high level legitimacy and support for this unit.
4. To make sure that it will function as required,
a) Bypass existing organizations that could or would become possible barriers to its
operations
25 The following is adapted with permission from Haché, 2016
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
75
b) Endow this unit with adequate financial resources for a world class library and other
material requirements.
c) Appoint at least one Director of research with extensive experience in doing research in
the soft knowledge sectors and with experience in directing (managing) research
programmes. Pay him or her well and give him or her the rank and power to pursue the
goals set: hire people, assign tasks, supervise, and when necessary, dismiss people.
d) Mobilize key research personnel from within the university to work in this unit
e) Administer and manage well, particularly human resources: research activities need to
be recognized as a part of the normal workload of faculty members along with teaching.
5. Communicate broadly, disseminate research results, make others interested. Show that
research produced knowledge responds to needs, that it is useful.
6. When it is established, use as an exemplary multiplier it to train others: through training and
research associates from different universities
7. As soon as possible (this may take some years) create auxiliary research units in different
universities under the supervision of the main unit.
8. As they grow, these research units become autonomous and themselves become multiplier
units
9. And there will be a research culture….
10. It is initially a top down policy implementation which spreads to become a bottom up model of
implementation.
B. CONCENTRATING: ISOLATING AND INSULATING EXISTING RESOURCES
Research Institutes
This strategy or approach is a variant of the above with the exception that it may or may not require
imported senior experienced research and research administration personnel, that it is not
necessarily attached to a university setting and that its research personnel is solely involved in
research activities.
Implementing this strategy, widely established in France for example, involves creating independent
research institutes that are focused exclusively on research activities in specific fields of knowledge.
Personnel are either full time or part time appointees cross appointed from existing university
departments for example. Institutes are independently funded by public or-and private sources and
are independently administered with Boards of directors and CEOs. The extent of their teaching
activities is often limited to accepting post-doctorate fellows who act as collaborators in existing
teams and projects. Their information dissemination responsibilities are extensive.
Research institutes are a feasible strategy in situations where research expertise exists but where it
requires consolidation to be effective.
C. RATIONALIZING: CONSOLIDATING EXISTING RESOURCES
Research Chairs
One alternative to the above, applicable where there are sufficient trained faculty members within a
disciplinary area in a given university, is to establish a research chair programme. Research chairs
are centered on specific problem areas that needs to be researched and for which a research
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
76
programme has been planned. They group a number of researchers together, sometimes from two
or more different universities, who work under the authority of a senior researcher. This senior
researcher is the manager of the research team. Research chairs are well funded for a number of
years and are evaluated on a yearly basis. Funding is contingent upon positive evaluation. Research
chairs have the advantage of concentrating limited financial and human resources on relevant
problem areas.
The research chair approach can, as in the case above, become a locus of research training for
junior faculty and be instrumental in providing an exemplary multiplier effect.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
77
Appendix 14. The University as a Learning organization26: How
universities can create and mine their own data in order to
monitor themselves and plan, develop, control or adapt
their teaching, programmes and research functions.
In the absence of valid self-knowledge about what a given university is and does, about where it is
in relation to where it wants to be, the least damaging position for its action is to keep doing what it
has been doing in the past. At least it knows how to do this and it know what it produces. At least it
thinks it does.
Why is it that universities, in comparison to many other large organizations, typically have little valid
and useful information about themselves that they can use to adapt to their rapidly changing
environments? Universities are designed to be the important producers and purveyors of knowledge.
It is their responsibility, by doing this, to educate the elites of the future.
Pakistani universities are, by law, mandated—legally given the responsibility—to seek out
knowledge, to produce knowledge, to transfer knowledge, useful knowledge. Universities are
institutions normally and usually reputed for their knowledge production competencies. This is the
research function of universities. Why is this function not usually utilized to produce information
about themselves?
Contrary to common perception, universities are not learning organizations.
What is a learning organization?
In what has become a classic article in the Harvard Business Review, Garvin (1993, p. 80) has
defined a “learning organization (is) an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring
knowledge and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insight”27. Following this
now generally accepted definition, organizational learning requires 1) the production or the
acquisition of new knowledge or new ideas, and 2) it also requires that this new knowledge trigger
or cause organizational improvements to occur.
Whereas universities are obvious candidates as learning organizations, they are typically not
learning organizations because:
they do not typically produce knowledge about themselves, their environment or their clients
or about things that are useful to them;
they overly rely on faculty turnover or faculty expansion as a means of acquiring new
knowledge;
they do not typically develop other means of acquiring knowledge produced by others that
is useful to them in their different functions; and
even if they were to do so, they rarely have mechanisms through which to use this
information, particularly to affect teaching and learning, to improve instruction or to activate
and focus their research activities.
Production of information, of course, refers to research activities. And the production of information
about their own functioning in particular refers to institutional research.
The mechanisms through which to apply knowledge, whether produced or otherwise acquired, are
found in a system function best referred to as the adaptation function. Adaptation is one of four
essential functions of a successful organization. The others are goal attainment, system
maintenance, and the maintenance of equilibrium while adapting.
26 Adapted with permission from Haché, 2008. 27, Garvin David A. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. V. 71, no. 4 (July-August
1993): 78-91.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
78
It is a well-known fact in the natural world that organisms which are unable to adapt stagnate or die.
In the world of organizations this is also true. Particularly in the case of industrial and commercial
organizations where the adapt-or-die cycles are rapid and brief. In universities this cycle is much
slower to the point of being invisible during the tenure of different administrations. Successful
industrial and commercial organizations invest massive amounts of resources in learning about
themselves, from both internal and external sources, and their environment and in adapting to
changing circumstances. One has but to look at the automobile sector or the power generating
sector or the information technology sectors to understand that survival is linked to adaptation and
that adaptation is related to information and to effective internal processes to put this information to
good and proper use. And one has but to look at the ongoing turmoil in the financial sector to see
what happens when undue emphasis is placed upon the goal attainment function—in this case profit
making—without due attention to adaptation to the financial and social conditions of its environment.
The irony, of course, is that industrial and commercial organizations, being keen to ensure that their
adaptation mechanisms are operating successfully, often enlist the help of universities to produce
and to apply the relevant knowledge to their own situations; this while universities do not do it for
themselves.
ADAPTATION REQUIREMENTS
The adaption function, of course, besides requiring research capabilities to produce adequate
information on the organizations’ external and internal environments, requires:
policies governing when and how to use this information,
planning capacities capable of determining how and where this information should be
applied,
management capacities particularly at middle management levels, capable of monitoring,
evaluating and controlling internal processes, in order to implement the adaptation changes
planned.
In recent years, many countries have adopted policies requiring universities to be accountable for
the large sums of monies they receive from government sources. They are increasingly submitted
to reporting procedures and to audits. And, so, they are under pressure to demonstrate that their
programmes, their research activities and their teaching and learning activities are preparing
students for the circumstances of tomorrow.
It is a generally held belief that the circumstances of tomorrow and the educational responses they
will require are most difficult to apprehend. Indeed, researchers and university managers cannot and
do not tell the future. Nor do educational planners.
But industrial and commercial organizations and their researchers and managers do not tell the
future either. Yet the best ones succeed. How do they do it? They do it by:
learning as much as they can about themselves and their environment
adopting flexible approaches,
using flexible organizational structures, and
by not putting all their eggs in one basket:
o they explore possibilities,
o they invest in the probable as opposed to the possible, and they
o insist on being ready when the goals they wish to attain become visible to them.
They are like martial art experts. They do not know where the next blow will come from, so they
adopt flexible postures and attitudes, learn to fall without damage to themselves and to rapidly get
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
79
up again, that is, to adopt means of recovery when things go wrong. They keep themselves in good
health. They study and adapt to their opponents strategies. And most importantly, they do not lose
sight of their purpose.
So why do universities, mandated as they are to produce knowledge through research, and to
acquire and transmit knowledge, who are in the business of preparing future generations for
tomorrow, fail to behave like successful industrial and commercial organizations, like martial arts
experts and good cricket teams who go over their shortcomings after each game? Why are they not
successful learning organizations? It is because, among other things:
most, in Pakistan, are recently created organizations concentrated on system goal
attainment and maintenance functions,
traditionally, they have relied on faculty turnover and faculty expansion for adaptation. Under
scrutiny, they have not typically been observed to possess other adaptation capabilities,
traditionally, universities were not concerned with education in the professions through
which they are required to have immediate linkages to their social and economic
environment.
Basic requirements for universities to become learning organizations
1. Appoint VCs and senior administrators who see the need for it as legitimate. In other words,
establish political will to effect change from the status quo.
2. Where they do not exist, establish adequate University Management Information Systems
that collect all relevant data on each of the universities’ support functions: student, faculty,
and other personnel, financial, material and building resources. Such MIS are well
established in many universities worldwide. Such MIS need to generate data capable of
being merged into provincial and national databases.
3. Establish a long term study of students’ entrance level characteristics. When correlated with
academic achievement and professional success this enables the establishment of effective
admission criteria that guarantee an adequate response to social and economic market
needs.
4. Establish an institutional research unit as a permanent structure at the next to highest
hierarchical level in each university. In practice, this is an on-demand data mining capacity
available to university administrators for the administrative tasks of coordinating, monitoring,
evaluation and planning.
5. Establish a programme evaluation policy that requires faculties and departments to establish
linkages with the relevant stakeholders in order to assess changing environmental and
market needs.
6. Establish an academic—teaching and learning—programme support unit to support
faculties and departments in evaluating and adapting their programmes and in enhancing
their program delivery capabilities.
A partial approach to establishing the conditions of transforming one Pakistani university into a
learning organization has been planned and in part implemented. (see Haché, 2008)
In brief, if universities are not learning organizations, it is not because they cannot be learning
organizations. It is because individual researchers center their research activities on projects which
are centered on professional or disciplinary goals or both. It is because, in certain areas like the
social sciences and education, researchers attempt to emulate their hard discipline counterparts and
center their activities on disciplinary-like projects despite their own domain being complex, soft and
requiring a multi- method approach.
Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector
80
But, mainly, it appears to be because University managers do not perceive the need to produce
knowledge that is useful for the University as an organization or as a system. University managers
tend to come from disciplinary backgrounds from which they view the University not as a system, an
organizational whole, but as being composed of parts—faculties, departments, centres—not
necessarily related to each other or interdependent but depending on disciplinary fields and
disciplinary organizations for their goals and organizational structures and processes.
Given their young age and its young faculty, and its lack of resistance prone traditions and
established structures, most Pakistani universities and other institutions of higher education in the
country have the choice of establishing themselves as a learning organization.