The policy aims at promoting functional literacy in ICT, English and entrepreneurship, but stops short of fostering intellectual autonomy. Developed nations integrate transformative learning, research, critical debate and interdisciplinary reasoning into their curricula. Where the UGEP treats entrepreneurship as a technical module often disconnected from real innovation ecosystems, global counterparts embed it within incubators, start-up hubs and live industry collaborations. The curriculum in Pakistan also lacks foundational subjects such as moral philosophy, logic and ethics as independent disciplines, weakening its potential to cultivate reflective and globally responsible graduates.

Community engagement under the UGEP remains largely transactional, confined to a single civics course coupled with volunteer work. It does not provide students with tools for deep civic participation, advocacy or policy analysis. In contrast, higher education systems in countries like Canada or Germany introduce students to participatory governance, conflict resolution and democratic theory as part of civic learning. Ethical formation in the UGEP is similarly limited, largely confined within religious instruction, with no provision for applied ethics in domains like artificial intelligence, medicine, environment or business—areas where developed systems mandate interdisciplinary and inclusive ethical reasoning.

The most significant absence in the UGEP is its lack of global vision. There is no inclusion of competencies related to climate literacy, sustainability, intercultural communication, peace education or the Sustainable Development Goals. This contrasts starkly with countries like Singapore, where Global-Asia competencies and multilingualism are central; Finland, which prioritises transversal competencies and digital citizenship; and Canada, which integrates global studies, indigenous knowledge and internationalisation into its core curriculum.

While the UGEP brings much-needed structure and focuses on employability, it fails to embed universal core values essential to a transformative education. It lacks frameworks that support critical thinking, pluralism, equality, inclusive ethics and global responsibility. To address these gaps, the policy must evolve. Courses on ideology and constitution should be redesigned into comparative civics or global citizenship education. Philosophy, ethics and critical thinking should become core, stand-alone subjects.

Ethical education must shift from religious framing to pluralistic models rooted in human rights and shared moral inquiry. Climate change, sustainability, peace studies and AI ethics must be incorporated into the curriculum. Civic education should involve hands-on democratic practice and policy engagement rather than ceremonial volunteerism. Entrepreneurship and leadership training must be enriched with global competencies, intercultural awareness and systemic innovation.

In sum, while UGEP reflects an overdue attempt to modernize Pakistan’s undergraduate education, it remains conceptually anchored in parochialism and outdated pedagogical assumptions. Its failure to adopt pluralistic, critical and globally relevant education frameworks represents a fundamental shortfall. To prepare students for the complexities of the 21st Century, the UGEP must transcend ideological conformity and embrace a higher education vision grounded in intellectual freedom, ethical pluralism and global interconnectedness.

The Undergraduate Education Policy outlines structured provisions for student entry and exit, particularly for those holding associate degrees or traditional BA/ BSc qualifications. Students who have completed an associate degree in the same discipline are eligible for direct admission into the fifth semester of a four-year undergraduate programme, provided they have achieved a minimum CGPA of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. For those seeking to transition into a different discipline, universities require a bridging semester with deficiency courses.

Holders of conventional two-year BA/ BSc degrees may also enter the fifth semester, though they must first complete bridging coursework and have attained at least a 45 percent cumulative score. Additionally, the policy permits students enrolled in a four-year undergraduate programme to exit with an associate degree after completing a minimum of 60 credit hours, including 30 credit hours of general education, while maintaining a CGPA of 2.0. However, this exit option is restricted to non-regulated fields, excluding disciplines overseen by professional councils such as medicine, law and engineering. It remains available in areas like business, computing and teacher education.

In its miscellaneous provisions, the UGEP establishes that the stated standards constitute a minimum baseline, allowing universities the autonomy to exceed them. It also endorses the use of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for credit accumulation, contingent upon institutional approval through a statutory process. Furthermore, the policy mandates the establishment of a student advisory system (SAS) in all universities. This system is intended to support students with course planning, degree requirements and institutional navigation, although it offers limited detail on implementation mechanisms, staff training or performance metrics.

While these provisions introduce a measure of academic flexibility, they fall short when compared to practices in developed nations. The policy allows vertical academic mobility and an exit credential structure, yet remains bureaucratically rigid. Unlike credit transfer systems such as the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) or the US “2+2” model, the UGEP lacks a standardised, nationally recognised framework for credit mobility. Its insistence on formal bridging semesters for cross-disciplinary transitions reflects institutional discretion rather than system-wide academic interoperability. The exit with an associate degree after two years, although a positive step, lacks alignment with occupational standards and labour market competencies, undermining the real-world value of the credential.

The policy’s approach to MOOCs and online learning is symbolic rather than systemic. While MOOCs are acknowledged, their integration is piecemeal and dependent on institutional discretion, without any reference to a national digital education framework, open access policy or ed-tech infrastructure. In contrast, countries like the US, UK and India integrate MOOCs through centralised platforms and quality assurance protocols, embedding them within broad lifelong learning ecosystems. Similarly, although academic advisement is formally recognised, its operationalisation is vague. Developed nations employ robust advisement systems with dedicated personnel, digital tools for course audits and career mapping and performance metrics linked to student outcomes. These features are absent in Pakistan’s current model.

More gaps appear in the UGEP’s approach to credentialing and inclusivity. While the concept of exit degrees is structurally sound, the absence of a national qualifications framework and weak industry linkages diminish the functional utility of the associate degree. Moreover, the policy makes no provisions for equitable access, offering no recognition of prior learning, no targeted support for adult learners, rural populations or disabled students and no concrete strategies to address gender disparities in higher education, particularly in the STEM fields.

The Under-graduate Education Policy holds transformative potential for higher education in Pakistan. Its structured framework, forward-looking learning outcomes and emphasis on practical experience are steps in the right direction. However, to fully realise its vision, the UGEP must shift from a top-down administrative model to a responsive, ecosystem-driven approach, where policy, pedagogy and practice align. Drawing on best practices from Singapore and other developed nations, Pakistan must invest in local innovation, faculty capacity and industry engagement to bridge the gap between policy intent and student impact.

Despite its strengths in introducing pathways for degree mobility and recognising the role of online learning and academic advisement, the UGEP lacks the institutional integration and student-centred focus found in developed higher education systems. The absence of a unified credit recognition framework, the tokenistic inclusion of MOOCs, underdeveloped advisement structures, unaligned exit credentials and silence on access and inclusion collectively limit the policy’s transformative potential.

To bridge this gap, Pakistan must establish a national credit transfer system modelled after the ECTS or US articulation agreements, institutionalise MOOC integration via a centralized platform, develop a digital advisement ecosystem with trained personnel and audit tools and align associate degrees with national occupational standards. Most critically, the policy must embed inclusive access measures that support disadvantaged learners through remote learning options, scholarships and recognition of diverse educational backgrounds. While the UGEP represents a step forward in administrative reform, it must evolve from bureaucratic flexibility to functional empowerment, ensuring that learners are not only credentialed but also meaningfully equipped for an interconnected, equitable and dynamic global environment.

(Concluded)

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