What should be the objectives of national higher education policy? Should it strengthen and advance undergraduate studies or continue to invest heavily in producing PhDs, as has been its priority in the past decade?
This is the debate precipitated by Dr Tariq Banuri, the new chairman of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), as he stated the preference for improving undergraduate studies and laying strong foundations for advanced academics. On the other side is Dr Ata-ur-Rahman, the previous head of the HEC and the author of the policy to produce PhDs, who aimed to foster research and increase the international standing of Pakistani universities.
The debate
The Banuri versus Rahman debate has been joined in by Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, an old critic of the HEC’s policy of producing poorly trained PhDs, and recently by Prof Anjum Altaf (“Debating education, ” Dawn, June 16), a former dean of LUMS, who sides with Banuri.
l also primarily weigh on the side of strengthening and advancing undergraduate studies, though l also suggest the masters’ programmes could be an appropriate anchor for higher studies; providing training in research and disciplinary analysis. More about this proposal later.
The weaknesses of investing billions of rupees in producing PhDs in Pakistan and sending others abroad for doctoral studies are widely acknowledged, despite the spirited defence by Dr Rahman (“Higher education in turmoil’ The News, June 1).
Largely, the questions raised are about the quality of the PhDs produced and their contributions to the hollowing out of the higher education.
The HEC claims to have sponsored 3000 students for doctoral studies in Pakistan while 5000 were funded for studies abroad. Drs Hoodbhoy and Daudpota have been consistently and publicly arguing about the poor quality of local PhDs and the plagiarism and nepotism that the perverse incentives of the HEC have promoted in the drive to mint doctoral graduates. Many of these ills have been implicitly acknowledged by the HEC.
It has instituted protocols for checking plagiarism and introduced the GRE tests for candidates enrolling in the PhD programmes. Yet, the quality has not significantly improved, and corruption has been institutionalised.
My experience, as an external examiner for a doctoral thesis at a reputable public university, testifies to the unethical practices of examination. I found the supervisor and the vice-chancellor were both involved in pushing through a failing thesis by removing me (and the second external examiner) for not “passing” the thesis and appointing some pliable examiners to accept the thesis.
Mine may not be a solitary experience, as some other Pakistani academics in North America that l have spoken with also report similar experiences. We, the expatriates, are sought as examiners with the expectation that we will not be too demanding and be amenable to the “advice” and influence of the Pakistani counterparts.
One persistent issue with the PhD studies is the poor knowledge and understanding of the disciplines
Two unintended effects of investing heavily in the Rahman approach are:
i) the ill-prepared PhDs becoming university faculty and their rise in time to senior positions is perpetuating mediocrity in Pakistani universities for years and decades.
ii) the unethical practices that brought them to power are being woven into the culture of educational institutions. Undoubtedly, not every Pakistani PhD is incompetent and ill qualified. There are some departments and programmes that have an ethical and academic commitment to advance higher education. They are, however, exceptions rather than the rule.
One persistent issue that the PhD studies have revealed is the poor knowledge and understanding of the disciplines. Many PhDs have been found to be lacking in the basic understanding of the discipline. Even those who study abroad have been wanting on this score. This makes Banuri’s proposal for concentrating on undergraduate studies all the more necessary. With limited resources, it may be more appropriate for Pakistan to strengthen undergraduate studies and produce competent professionals and well-grounded academics, who are steeped in the ethics of learning. Good teaching should be rewarded as much as the publication of papers, many of which have turned out to be fake.
Masters’ degree as the anchor of higher education.
On the foundations of good undergraduate degrees, comprehensive master’s programmes should be organised. The master’s degree should be the gateway to higher education. Those of us educated in the ’50s, and the ’60s fondly remember demanding courses, teachers who were scholars, though not caught in the frenzy of publishing articles, and learning that prepared us for research. Those traditions should be revived.
The master’s degree is the required preparation for undergraduate teaching. For higher education, a comprehensive programme of master’s studies with innovative requirements of writing term papers and research theses are the missing link in the Banuri-Rahman debate. I think the resources for higher education should be largely focussed on the master’s programmes.
It is not there may not be any doctoral studies. Selected centres of excellence with adequate faculty, equipment and administrative resources should be funded to offer doctoral studies.
There should be an emphasis on specialisation within disciplines and preference for research on problems related to Pakistan’s scientific, economic and intellectual problems. But the doctoral programmes should be conceived as institutional propagative, earned on the basis of faculty’s demonstrable academic and research achievements.
The writer is a professor emeritus at Queen’s University, Canada