Programme learning outcomes, while appropriately framed, remain general and lack measurable academic benchmarks. Internationally, learning objectives are often aligned with cognitive development models, progressing from basic comprehension to critical analysis and synthesis. Assessments in elite programmes include long-form research papers, oral defences and peer-reviewed projects — rigorous formats that are rarely emphasised in the current Pakistani curriculum.

Open eligibility for students from all academic backgrounds promotes inclusivity, but at the cost of academic rigour. History, as a discipline, demands proficiency in reading, writing and argumentation — skills often underdeveloped in students from non-humanities backgrounds. Top universities address this by requiring foundational courses or screening for subject preparedness, ensuring that all entrants are equipped to meet the intellectual demands of the programme.

Although the programme offers elective-based specialisations, it falls short in cultivating independent research, historiographical debate and publication skills — essential components of serious historical training. Globally, students are often required to complete theses, participate in faculty-led research or engage in original archival projects, especially in the final years. These immersive practices are notably absent in the prescribed structure.

So, while the BS history programme in Pakistan meets basic structural requirements and promotes interdisciplinary learning, it lacks the academic depth, research engagement and critical intensity that characterise elite history programmes worldwide. To rise to international standards, the curriculum must go beyond minimum compliance and invest in methodological rigour, sustained research opportunities, specialisation depth and stronger academic screening to produce globally competent and intellectually mature graduates.

The provided framework for general education and interdisciplinary course integration in the BS History programme encourages offerings across social sciences, natural sciences and humanities. In recommending interdisciplinary courses, such as environmental humanities, gender studies and technology and society, the HEC has demonstrated awareness of the need for holistic education. However, there are significant limitations in both structure and implementation flexibility when compared with leading universities worldwide.

The allowance for universities to “offer any course” in broad categories without robust quality assurance risks inconsistent academic standards across institutions. Top global universities carefully curate interdisciplinary content with clearly defined learning outcomes, expert instruction and cross-departmental collaboration —not guaranteed in this decentralised, opt-in model.

Finally, while the inclusion of interdisciplinary courses is progressive in principle, their placement as optional and department-dependent (subject to resource availability) undermines their intended impact. Elite institutions institutionalise interdisciplinary learning as core to the curriculum, not as an optional enhancement.

The specialisation streams prescribed in the BS History curriculum reflect a largely traditionalist, event-based and region-specific approach that often emphasises political chronology over critical engagement with modern thematic and methodological developments in historical scholarship. While the geographical range is broad—spanning Central Asia to South Asia, Europe to the Middle East—the courses reveal a tendency to prioritise dynastic, imperialor civilisational narratives at the expense of global, trans-national and thematic perspectives that define history programmes at top-tier international institutions.

Crucial contemporary themes such as environmental history, histories of race, capitalism, sexuality, digital history and memory studies are either absent or minimally addressed. Many course titles suggest a return to state-centred and civilisational grand narratives, overlooking more recent historiographical shifts that emphasise marginalised voices, bottom-up histories and complex intersections of class, gender and identity. The curriculum risks putting the clock back by presenting history as a series of isolated regional timelines, rather than a dynamic, interconnected discipline rooted in interpretation, debate and inquiry.

In comparison, globally leading history programmes emphasise methodological pluralism, critical theory and student-led research that interrogate—not merely recount—the past. Without substantial thematic integration and theoretical grounding, this course structure remains inadequate for developing historically literate graduates who can think across boundaries and engage meaningfully with the complexities of the modern world.

As regards the master’s, the programme uses the term Master of Studies (MS) as equivalent to MPhil, which is problematic when evaluated against global academic standards. In prominent institutions such as Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge, Yale and the University of Chicago, the MSt or Master of Studies is a relatively rare, often non-thesis programme, while the MPhil is widely recognised as a rigorous, thesis-based research degree that frequently serves as a pathway to doctoral study.

This conflation of MS and MPhil within the proposed structure does not align with international nomenclature and may result in confusion or misinterpretation by external academic or accrediting bodies. In most global contexts, the MS label is traditionally associated with scientific or technical disciplines, not with historical research. It would be more appropriate to adopt the internationally familiar and academically accurate title MPhil in History, particularly since the programme is research-intensive and thesis-based. If the MS title must be retained due to national policy or institutional constraints, it should be accompanied by a clear explanatory note indicating its distinction from science-based MS degrees.

The inclusion of advanced philosophy of history and research methods as core components of the curriculum is commendable and reflects international practices where theoretical rigour and methodological training are foundational. However, the programme lacks clearly articulated thematic or chronological specialisation tracks within the elective offerings. This absence risks diluting the academic focus and depth expected at the graduate level.

Globally, top-tier history programmes offer well-defined pathways, such as early modern Europe, modern South Asia, environmental history or intellectual history, which are typically structured around faculty research strengths and institutional expertise. The proposed programme would benefit significantly from similar specialisation options — such as colonial/ post-colonial studies, Islamic history or historical anthropology — that will allow students to develop expertise and a coherent scholarly identity.

The total credit hour requirement, set at 32, is relatively modest compared to leading MPhil or MA programmes in the US and UK, where workloads often range between 36 and 48 credit hours. Moreover, the allocation of just 6 credit hours for the thesis component under-represents the research intensity implied by the programme’s objectives. Internationally, thesis component often accounts for 9-12 credits and is supplemented by dedicated research seminars and workshops. To bring the programme in line with such standards, it is advisable to increase the thesis weight and integrate a capstone seminar to support scholarly writing and sustained inquiry.

The admission policy rightly requires a relevant undergraduate degree and standardised testing, which mirrors global norms. However, setting a 50 percent threshold as a passing score for entry merits further deliberation. Competitive programmes internationally rely on a more holistic admissions process that includes evaluation of writing samples, statements of purpose, research proposals and interviews. These measures help ensure that students are prepared for the demands of graduate-level research and can align with faculty interests. Raising the entry threshold and implementing comprehensive application reviews will significantly improve the programme’s academic outcomes.

The programme’s duration — ranging from 1.5 to 4 years — allows for flexibility, which is practical given the diversity of educational backgrounds and access issues in the national context. However, there is little information about how students will be supported throughout longer durations, particularly in terms of mentoring, progress tracking and funding. In elite institutions, students are typically guided through a series of structured milestones, such as proposal submissions, annual reviewsand cohort-based learning experiences. These are essential for ensuring academic continuity and timely degree completion and should be incorporated here as well.

Though the programme mentions career trajectories in academia, policy research, heritage management and civil services, it does not embed any form of professional development training in the curriculum. Globally, graduate programmes in history increasingly include elements such as academic writing workshops, publication mentoring, digital history labs, teaching practicums and ethics training. These additions not only support scholarly development but also prepare students for diverse career paths beyond academia. The current programme will benefit from similar enhancements to ensure its graduates are equipped with the practical skills needed in an evolving job market.

In terms of its core strengths, the programme offers a solid foundation in theoretical and methodological training and emphasises research through a mandatory thesis. It also ensures compliance with national regulatory frameworks, which supports local legitimacy and standardisation. Measured against global best practices, the programme has a number of weaknesses. These include the problematic use of the “MS” label, the absence of clear specialisation tracks, an underweighted thesis component, the mandatory inclusion of religious instruction, low entry standards and a lack of practical career preparation.

To align more closely with internationally recognised models, the programme requires adjustments that enhance its academic depth, disciplinary coherence and professional relevance. The suggested improvements will not only raise the programme’s intellectual profile but also facilitate international collaboration and mobility for its graduates.

(Concluded)

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.