There has been considerable discussion in the media over the last few weeks on the performance of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) under the stewardship of Dr Atta-ur-Rehman. Some of it has focused a little too stridently on the person of Dr Rehman. What is important, however, is to learn from the experience of the HEC, not least because our education system remains in a state of acute crisis. One lesson that we should learn from the sharp rise of the budget for higher education, since the coming into being of the HEC, is that we cannot solve the problems that beset our education system just by putting more funds into it.The impression, deliberate or otherwise, created by the HEC that it was somehow equipped to transform the higher education system in the country was not entirely accurate. True, a large number of candidates have been supported by the HEC to work towards their PhDs. A certain number will doubtless benefit and put the opportunity to good use. All this is commendable. Equally, there is the issue of merit and standards, which has been frequently discussed in the media. A key question also relates to what kind of institutions of higher education there are to provide these PhDs or those working towards that end with an enabling environment in order for them to make a meaningful contribution once they have their degree.At another level the HEC effort fell well short in terms of supporting humanities and the social sciences. Its predisposition towards the natural sciences was also reflected in the entirely impractical and grandiose proposal of the kind that led many to wonder whether HEC was often playing to the gallery: the creation, more or less, simultaneously of not one or two but nine engineering universities (widely reported in the media). It might be interesting research for someone to investigate how often and in what circumstances has any nation managed such a feat. In a country facing formidable problems of extremism, intolerance and societal fracturing, it was not a small omission on the part of the HEC to have considered the social sciences and the arts to be of only marginal importance. Although it subsequently tried to correct the sharp imbalance, which is creditable, much distance remains to be covered still on that count.The other area that fell largely outside the ambit of the HEC was that of colleges. Colleges do not fall under the purview of the HEC but the provinces made no effort to correct the situation at that level even as HEC was trying to work at the higher end of education. These institutions just fell through the cracks, as it were. Here it might also be useful to refer to some of the media discussion suggesting that the expenditure on higher education was inordinately high compared to what was spent on basic education. This intra-sectoral wrangling over meagre resources is simply a distraction. The issue with the expenditure on higher education as indeed with that on basic education is its effectiveness. And this has little to do with the argument made popular at one point by the World Bank suggesting that rates of return for basic education are higher than those for higher education. The truth of the matter is that we need to spend much more on both higher as well as basic education. For the two are far from unconnected. Nor can reform of basic and higher education be seen sequentially. Unless the issues of higher education, including at the college level are addressed, reform of basic education cannot go very far. After all, those who can properly teach at this level, write readable and relevant textbooks, and design appropriate assessment systems that go beyond testing for memory will all come from the realm of higher education.All of this is not say that HEC has not made any difference. Enrolment in the higher education sector has gone up sharply. But we need to be wary of trading in quality for numbers. It seems very similar to the situation in the realm of basic education where again much has been made of sharply higher enrolments and the pursuit of Education for All within the framework of Millennium Development Goals. But the level of achievement even as assessed by the National Education Assessment System (NEAS) is far from encouraging. We certainly need a much higher percentage of our population having access to higher education but not at the expense of minimum standards. To offer access without standards or quality is, in effect, to offer very little. We have seen how our master’s and bachelor’s degrees have been devalued over the years. We should be cautious, lest we end up doing the same with PhD programmes. Reservations have been expressed regarding the selection process for those sent abroad but the problem is clearly greater with respect to PhD programmes pursued locally. Many institutions have been quick to enrol students in PhD programmes regardless of faculty available in the requisite areas of work. Consider the example of the University of Education. Having been created in 2002, it had by 2004, in the short span of a little over two years, already enrolled 181 PhD students and this in a situation in which the university had only ten faculty members with PhD qualifications.Now with a new government and a change of leadership at the HEC, this may be a good time for the HEC to review its own role and more carefully identify the ways in which it can contribute to improving both quality and access in the realm of higher education. For instance, quality assurance across a multiplicity of disciplines does not lie within the province of a centralised mechanism. In any case, a good place for the HEC to start would be its neighbourhood: enable the Quaid-i-Azam University to become an apex institution of excellence. Abbas Rashid lives in Lahore and can be contacted at abbasrh@gmail.com