The recently revised history degree programmes, developed by a team of historians under the guidance of the Higher Education Commission, aim to foster a critical understanding of historical developments across cultures and eras. According to the official notification, the programmes are designed to equip students with analytical and research skills that support both academic inquiry and civic engagement.
Informed by broad national academic input, the new curriculum emphasises scholarly rigour, academic inquiry, and versatility, preparing graduates for careers in education, public policy, media and beyond.
Supported by universities and the HEC, these programmes envision history graduates as informed citizens and professionals capable of contributing meaningfully to national development and global awareness through thoughtful engagement with the past. While the curriculum aspires to balance global and regional perspectives, its success will depend on consistent implementation, interdisciplinary integration and responsiveness to evolving socio-political realities.
The programmes’ focus on civic responsibility and ethical engagement is a strong step forward. However, to truly prepare students for real-world impact, it must incorporate more practice-based learning opportunities. The vision is ambitious and forward-looking. Its realisation will require ongoing institutional commitment and curricular innovation.
The document outlines the minimum mandatory curricular standards for history degree programmes in Pakistan, offering universities the flexibility to raise, but not lower, these benchmarks. It permits variations in course sequencing and titles, establishes basic course learning outcomes (CLOs) and mandates key components, such as general education courses, internships and capstone projects for BS programmes.
Specialisations are optional and can be tailored by departments. The institutions are expected to align syllabi and content with the HEC’s policy framework. However, universities are independent institutions of higher education with their own charters and statutory bodies. Thus the HEC’s assumption of curriculum design responsibilities raises concerns about infringement upon their constitutionally protected academic autonomy.
While this structure provides a foundational baseline, it falls short when measured against internationally acclaimed standards. A primary concern lies in the rigidity of the general eucation requirements, especially the compulsory inclusion of religious and ideological courses that undermines academic pluralism and limits the broad-based liberal education model championed by top global universities, which prioritise diverse intellectual traditions and academic freedom.
The approach to learning outcomes is overly prescriptive and limited. By defining CLOs merely as minimum standards, the framework discourages higher-order cognitive development. Leading international programmes typically adopt competency-based learning models with progressive mastery levels, enabling deeper intellectual engagement and the cultivation of transferable skills.
The framework also neglects global and interdisciplinary integration. There is minimal encouragement for cross-disciplinary linkages, such as combining historical study with data science, digital humanities or environmental perspectives—integrations that are increasingly central to top-tier curricula around the world. This omission curtails the relevance and adaptability of the programme in a rapidly evolving academic and professional landscape.
Research training within the degree structure appears insufficient. While the capstone project is a valuable component, relying on a single culminating task does not match the research intensity found in internationally reputed programmes. Elite institutions integrate research throughout the academic journey, offering students sustained opportunities for original inquiry, publication and collaboration.
Although institutional autonomy in customising syllabi is encouraged, the absence of clear quality assurance and monitoring protocols raises concerns about consistency and accountability. Without mechanisms to evaluate and support the enhancement of academic standards, the flexibility allowed may result in uneven programme quality across institutions.
More importantly, the treatment of degree specialisations lacks clarity. Equating all BS History degrees, regardless of specialisation, weakens the distinctiveness that specialisations are meant to convey in academic and professional contexts. International standards typically emphasise clear competency mapping and targeted learning outcomes for each area of focus, enhancing both marketability and academic rigour.
As several participants in curriculum consultation meetings noted, the argument that universities in far-flung areas cannot cope with raised standards is flawed. Rather than investing in capacity building to elevate lagging institutions, the HEC appears to be lowering benchmarks to create uniformity—thereby undermining high-performing universities and compromising overall academic excellence. This inverse approach diminishes Pakistan’s competitiveness in the global academic landscape.
Thus, the HEC framework serves as a foundational guideline but lacks the innovation, adaptability and academic freedom characteristic of globally competitive programmes. To align with international standards, it must move beyond standardisation and embrace a more dynamic, research-driven, interdisciplinary and pluralistic model of education in history.
The policy allows candidates with an associate degree (AD) in history or other disciplines—and those with conventional BA/BSc degrees—to enter directly into the fifth semester of the BS History programme, subject to fulfilling up to 18-21 credit hours of deficiency through a bridging semester. Admission is contingent on a minimum CGPA or cumulative score, but universities may impose stricter criteria. Conversely, students enrolled in BS History may exit after completing the first four semesters and receive an AD, without fulfilling capstone or internship requirements.
While the framework provides flexible entry and exit pathways to widen access, it falls short of the academic rigour and integration practices seen in top global universities. Leading institutions, such as those in the US, the UK and Europe, prioritise academic cohesion and depth over modular patchwork pathways. Lateral entry through AD or unrelated qualifications with minimal bridging risks compromising intellectual continuity and disciplinary grounding, both crucial in history education where contextual and methodological development is cumulative.
Moreover, global best practices emphasise early and sustained research exposure, whereas this model allows exit without research (capstone) or practical engagement (internship). This reduces opportunities for students to develop critical inquiry, analytical writing and archival research skills central to the discipline. In elite programmes, even shorter degrees often culminate in substantial academic work, ensuring depth over duration.
Additionally, the system’s heavy reliance on institutional discretion without robust standardisation or quality assurance could lead to inconsistent academic outcomes. Top universities manage such transitions through well-structured credit recognition frameworks; rigorous bridging programmes; and close academic advising—ensuring not just access but success. While the policy is inclusive, it risks sacrificing academic coherence and quality for administrative flexibility. To match global standards, it should prioritise disciplinary integrity, intellectual development and uniform academic benchmarks, ensuring students don’t just pass through a system, but are meaningfully shaped by it.
The BS History programme in Pakistan is a four-year undergraduate degree structured under HEC’s Undergraduate Education Policy V 1.1 (2023), comprising a minimum of 136 and up to 148 credit hours over eight semesters. It offers students a broad, interdisciplinary engagement with global, regional and thematic histories, encouraging analytical thinking, academic writing, digital literacy and civic awareness. While the programme aspires to meet comprehensive educational goals, it presents a mixture of structural adequacy and pedagogical limitations when compared with top universities globally, where history is pursued with greater academic rigour and depth.
The required credit load of 136-148 hours broadly aligns with international undergraduate norms, such as the 120-130 credit hours typical in the US or UK However, the similarity in structure does not guarantee equivalence in academic quality. Leading institutions balance credit hours with robust research opportunities, advanced seminars and methodological training that promote deeper disciplinary engagement rather than mere course completion.
The Pakistani programmes’ inclusion of diverse historical regions and interdisciplinary approaches is conceptually sound, yet it lacks the depth seen in globally ranked programmes. Universities like Harvard, Oxford and ANU incorporate intensive historiographical training, deeply structured specialisation tracks and continuous engagement with original research and archival materials. These components, which are central to developing a historian’s analytical sophistication, are either missing or only lightly indicated in the framework under study.
(To be continued)
The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse Na-tional University, Lahore.