“Institutions of higher education have main responsibility for equipping individuals with advanced knowledge and skills required for positions of responsibility in government, business and other professionals.” This is the lead-in into the chapter on higher education in Pakistan’s National Education Policy 1998-2010. If you see nothing startling about this statement, you need to read on to find much that’s wrong in this and the rest of the higher education policy. If, one the other hand, you think this statement rather odd-- the bit about ‘positions of responsibility’ -- you may find here other bits where, with a little bit of effort, many of our systems could be improved.

A high-ranking position often becomes possible in a just society with the acquisition of good education. In Pakistan, this doesn’t appear to be so. Those in power, our dictators and political leaders, are generally rather unenlightened and poorly educated.

The goal of true education must on the one hand be far grander than what the Policy envisages and, on the other, it ought to be more realistic and focused on actions that can transform us into a modern sustainable society. Mere competence in the modern fields of knowledge--science and technology or, equally, the arts and humanities – is not enough. The ability to think critically and to acquire a desire for life-long learning is essential -- more important than passive knowledge acquisition in a formal setting. Equally important is the transformation of acquired knowledge into products and more knowledge – from cars and airplanes to theorems and literature.

If the role of critical thinking is to be central in higher education, as it ought to be at all levels of education and academic research, it is imperative that no ideology be accepted uncritically. The policy’s repeated stipulation that a system be put in place that will ‘preserve the Islamic values and the cultural identity of the nation’, must by its nature restrict the role of critical thinking to areas of thought distinct for Islamic and Pakistan studies. But critical thought cannot flourish in an environment where certain subjects are declared to be above analysis and criticism.

Central to the reform of the education policy should be removal of the two subjects – Pakistan studies and Islamic studies -- from the university. The government should encourage the communities to take over the task of offering Islamic studies in neighborhood mosques, which are a plenty. If religion continues to be taught in universities it should through the critical study of all major world religions and ideologies. Pakistan studies should become a part of the study of world history without recourse to jingoism and ‘patriotic excesses’. By doing so, two major sources of confusion and non-critical thinking will be removed from the domain of universities. The desirability of such a radical transformation is clear but the author is not so naïve as to assume that the mere mention of this alternative will cause even a flutter. Change will only happen when many educators who are averse to indoctrination raise this issue consistently. Currently there are many conservative educators in policy-making positions who would find such a change distasteful.

Conservatism is not restricted to the domain of ideology. It rears it ugly head when it come to the provision of higher education to those in the 17-23 year range, which is projected to be 25 million youths by 2010. The policy says that to ‘develop the country to a respectable level, it is envisaged that participation rate would need to be enhanced to at least 7% of the age-group. This means that a population of 1.7 million would need to provided higher education by 2010.’ Even if one were to accept the desirability of the 7% figure it should not mean that so many new university seats need to be created. Higher education can take the form of a range of possibilities, wherein formal university is one of the oldest and most expensive methods. Apart from good vocational education there are a range of other innovative educational opportunities that ought to be available, and a few such as the Allama Iqbal Open University and the Virtual University could pay major dividends if the quality of these and other sources, as well as the universities, is kept high and under check. Unfortunately the flashing of large numbers and the large increase in the higher education budget (and the donor funds for school level budgets) has led to decision makers putting out unrealistic wish lists paraded as plans.

The Education Secretary in the preface to the Policy say that “we have an enviable [sic] history of producing excellent documents of plans and policies which could not be implemented.” This ‘unenviable’ error [and lack of attention to detail evident in the Policy] hides a serious myth about Pakistan’s planners. Our plans have in fact been poor, for good plans are formulated in light of constraints and capacity of the system to carry out plans. In reality most plans have been mere wish lists, which have inevitably failed. Let’s not just blame the implementers, the planners have been terrible!

It is important to have a clear focus on what we wish higher education to impart to our students. In some sense it ought to be an extension of high school and college, where the same criteria can be used for what’s desirable about education. What’s that? For this author it means the inculcation of critical thinking, environmental consciousness, knowledge and appreciation of the sciences, technologies, humanities, arts and the social sciences, communications skills, learning to work in a team, and the ability to use ones hands to do things. Beyond this, higher education should create a long lasting interest in self-learning. The Policy’s objectives of higher education are given in Box 1. Its over-emphasis on science and technology, to the exclusion of other important disciplines, is a significant failing. The absence of a clear emphasis on critical thinking – the very basis of modern education – and of the ability to work with ones hands are very serious omissions!

Since the attempt to highlight the prevalence of fake degrees in Pakistan I have watched from the sidelines how education authorities have handled this problem. A Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has been formed as part of the Higher Education Commission (HEC). Only the future will tell how it will perform, but to date it has failed to correct some oversights and weaknesses of the HEC.

Today at least two vice chancellors of universities in Pakistan hold dubious PhD degrees. Even more significant, none of the parliamentarians who obtained degrees to be eligible for the last elections have been asked by the HEC or the Election Commissioner to get their degrees verified. (Nearly 40 parliamentarians who support the government are said to have fake degrees.) The HEC has see-sawed about ranking of universities – an initial ranking was put on its website and then swiftly removed when pressured by strong business interests. If high budgets could solve such sticky problems, HEC would have done so.

The QAA’s project form, the PC1, shows a rather muddled plan – see HEC’s website. The criteria for assessing a university fails to look at the quality of governance of the institution – its vice chancellor and its administration system overall. The QAA largely concentrates on the assessment of the ‘achievements’ of the academic staff, with little attention paid to learning by students and staff. This omission needs correction.

An area that requires close attention by the QAA is that of examinations. Standards of universities and colleges vary a lot and no standard is available to assess students of different achievement levels coming out of our universities. The formation of a national testing service is a move in the right direction, but such a service can rely only on multiple-choice questions, which while useful, does not test communications skills and many other important aspects of education. For this to happen, the QAA cells set up in each public university – the plan does not include private universities – will not only need to teach good teaching practices but also monitor real-life class practices of academic staff. I have touched on several ideas relevant to the QAA in a paper written in 2003, “Examination and Higher Education Reform” available at http://pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2003/oct2003/17/04.html.

Our planners ought to move towards making the curriculum and teaching practices relevant to the needs of the people. This means more interdisciplinary education and an emphasis on vocational and hands-on experience, linking institutions of higher learning to industry, agriculture and other areas that have a direct bearing on our needs.

Programs designed to encourage group activity and learning are necessary. Work done in the community by teachers and students will have to be recognized as part of education and should count towards the degree requirement. This transformation will require a lot of hard work and a change of mindset that has dominated the post-colonial educational planner.

We may in fact need totally new people to take on this task. A visionary but modest leadership is needed, which will put innovative ideas in practice and support them with adequate funding and encouragement. The search continues.


-------Box 1-------

Objectives of Higher Education. From National Education Policy

1. To inculcate Islamic ideology, moral values and preservation of our religious and cultural heritage.
2. To equip the individuals with the latest knowledge and technology.
3. To provide sufficient base of scientific knowledge to every student and to enable him to contribute in nation building efforts.
4. To promote intellectual faculties and develop capabilities of individuals so that they are able to play their role effectively in the society.
5. To produce highly educated and technically skilled manpower in sufficient number as required by the society.
6. To increase access to higher education by providing places and to advance learning and generate knowledge.
-----------------------