Pakistan’s higher education sector reflects a story of remarkable growth in access, yet one that still grapples with deeper structural change.
The numbers are impressive: from just 67 higher education institutions (HEIs) in 2001 to 269 by 2024, spanning public, private and military universities. Doctoral production, too, has seen a dramatic rise. From 2,729 PhDs awarded over seven decades (1930–2000) to nearly 3,647 in a single year (2024).
This expansion owes much to the Higher Education Commission’s efforts, which transformed access and laid the foundations for knowledge creation where almost none existed before. Notwithstanding, beneath these achievements, the sector struggles to move beyond quantitative growth toward meaningful transformation.
The financial trajectory speaks volumes. Federal allocations to higher education have stagnated and even declined in real terms – from Rs47.5 billion ($471 million) in FY2015 to 65 billion ($546 million) in FY2019, after which they remained almost stagnant, standing at around Rs65 billion ($231 million in FY2025). In other words, we have multiplied universities but divided their share of resources. This funding squeeze has starved institutions of quality inputs, leaving them in a perpetual struggle to balance survival with aspirations for excellence.
What explains this paradox – more universities but weaker performance? The answer lies in the absence of a consistent vision. Expansion has become a numbers game: a race to increase the count of universities without clarity on their role, mandate or specialisation. While the state bears responsibility for this incoherence, universities too have failed to develop internal strategic vision. The outcome is predictable: a debilitating slide in global rankings. And this failure is not just about rankings; it reflects deeper structural flaws that compromise the purpose of higher education: to produce a civilized and employable citizenry.
Higher education governance in Pakistan is a maze with no clear exit. An HEI is answerable to multiple power centers: the Council of Common Interests (CCI), standing committees of parliament, the HEC, the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training (MoFEPT), provincial education departments, provincial HECs, the chancellor (president or governor or chief minister), courts and strategic committees such as syndicates and senates. Each of these stakeholders claims a piece of authority, but none takes holistic responsibility.
Within this fragmented structure, student representation has remained notably absent: the ban on student unions since 1984 has deprived students of formal avenues to voice concerns. A 2022 I-SAPS study found that over 70 per cent of students in public-sector universities felt they lacked adequate platforms to raise issues related to academic policies, housing, or campus life. Recognising this gap, the Supreme Court in March 2024 (Judgment No 7 of 2024) highlighted the importance of student representation in governance and called for clearer regulatory frameworks – a reminder that without integrating student voices, governance remains incomplete.
The HEC, once seen as a symbol of reform, today struggles to balance its broad mandate: from accreditation, standard-setting, and funding allocation to promoting research, industry linkages and scholarships. While its role remains central, increasing influence from the MoFEPT has complicated its autonomy, often pulling leadership towards political or bureaucratic priorities. Accreditation processes, too, have lacked uniformity, with some institutions gaining recognition despite gaps in facilities, while others face delays despite compliance.
The structural contradictions extend to faculty development. With promotions pegged to publication counts, a “publish or perish” culture thrives. Producing thousands of papers with little real-world impact. Most faculty members follow a linear academic track, moving from bachelor’s to postdoc without any industry exposure. In advanced economies, postgraduate study without professional experience is often discouraged for this reason: research must solve real problems, and real problems are understood only through practical engagement.
Teaching quality suffers further from skewed workloads and lack of pedagogical training. Faculty members juggle teaching, research supervision, administrative duties and consultancy projects. Unsurprisingly, classroom teaching becomes a perfunctory exercise. Salaries compound the problem. Even graduates of Ivy League universities see their pay eroded year after year, particularly when measured in dollar terms. Financial insecurity breeds disengagement, and disengagement breeds mediocrity.
Internal governance mirrors the dysfunction at the system level. Key managerial positions such as vice chancellor, registrar, controller of examinations and treasurer lack standardised fit-and-proper criteria akin to corporate governance codes. There are no clearly defined KPIs for these roles, nor mechanisms to align individual performance with institutional strategic plans.
Search committees, when functional, often operate as political instruments. Those who manage to navigate this labyrinth face another challenge: the ‘one-man show’ syndrome. Vice-chancellors wield disproportionate power, remnants of the political governance structure, undermining collective decision-making. Managerial roles are frequently assigned to faculty members as additional charges, driven by financial incentives rather than institutional needs. The result: short-termism and poor strategic vision.
Students, the ultimate stakeholders, bear the brunt of this dysfunction. They pay burgeoning fees because, with diminishing higher education funding and the absence of alternative revenue streams apart from interest on bank balances, enrollments remain the only source of finance, yet they receive outdated curricula, rote-based learning and negligible exposure to outcome-based education.
Administrative inefficiencies delay degree issuance, result processing and verification for overseas applications. Start-up ecosystems remain stunted, while campus environments oscillate between apathy and authoritarianism. Policies on harassment or substance abuse exist on paper but lack dissemination and enforcement, leaving students in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
The first step is to acknowledge that the current model – characterised by expansion without excellence, regulation without facilitation, de jure autonomy without de facto autonomy and governance without accountability – is unsustainable. Rethinking higher education requires a bottom-up approach, starting with the student as the end product. If graduates lack quality, no amount of infrastructural growth or global ranking rhetoric will matter.
Three priorities stand out. First, governance must be rationalised by cutting redundant layers, clarifying accountability and ensuring meaningful student representation. Chancellors should ideally be eminent alumni-elected figures rather than political appointees, while the HEC should evolve into a lean facilitator of autonomy instead of a bulky regulator. A four-tiered league system could help: struggling universities would receive greater administrative and financial support, while stronger institutions would enjoy greater autonomy, subject to a five-year certification process to ensure compliance with clear benchmarks.
Second, financing higher education must return to the national priority list. Countries that thrive in the knowledge economy invest strategically in universities. For Pakistan, this means shifting focus from quantity to quality: fewer but specialised institutions aligned with national development goals rather than scattered generalists chasing enrollment numbers.
Finally, professionalise university leadership and faculty development. Define fit-and-proper criteria for key positions, tie KPIs to strategic outcomes, and mandate training in governance and pedagogy. Encourage industry-academia linkages to ensure research addresses real-world problems.
Pakistan’s higher education system does not lack talent; it lacks direction. Unless we replace this culture of incremental fixes with bold structural reforms, the dream of a globally competitive higher education sector will remain just that – a dream.
Furqan Ali is a Peshawar-based researcher who works in the financial sector. He can be reached at: alifurqan647gmail.com
Dr Zafar Ullah Koreshi is a seasoned academic and governance expert and the author of ‘Nuclear Engineering – Mathematical Modeling and Simulation’ (Elsevier, 2022).