Most public universities are currently facing two dilemmas: first, of the 154 public universities in the country, only 88 (57 per cent) currently have vice-chancellors (VCs) on regular appointments. Of the other 43 per cent, six universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are operating without any VC at all and another 60 nationwide (29 in Punjab, 16 in KP, and five each in Sindh, Balochistan, and ICT) have only acting charge VCs, most of them since 2023 and quite a few since 2022.
In all of government, acting appointees stall on major decisions, the kind that brings major changes or requires spending – anything that rival parties (and there are always rivals) can weaponize into corruption charges.
Second, as I have repeated on multiple occasions, since 2017, public spending on higher education has been essentially flat in rupee terms. Given the aggregate inflation since then and the slip ’n slide the local currency has been on against the US dollar, in purchasing power terms, that spending has been decimated. Irrespective of whether public university VCs are appointed on a regular or acting basis, the biggest challenge that all public universities face right now is making ends meet.
You would think that at least now, seven years since the higher education budget was frozen in place, the search for new VCs would prioritize – in fact, actively seek – candidates that understand this challenge, have a credible plan to take it on and a demonstrable track record of delivery at prior institutions.
That would be sanity but instead what we do is this: we take a group of outsiders who are not affiliated with the university, are unaware of the challenges and available opportunities of individual institutions and put them in a search committee.
In Punjab, search committees are bound by short-listing criteria that comprise: academic qualifications like the ranking of the university the applicant earned their PhD degree from (weighted 35 per cent); professional and leadership experience like experience as senior academic, management in teaching/research or leadership (CXO, DG) at a large public/private organization (weighted 30 per cent); and publications such as research articles in conferences, journals, books/book chapters and patents (weighted 35 per cent). Other provinces use similar short-listing methodologies, though weights may vary a bit. Note that the third criterion disqualifies almost anyone who does not have a background in academia.
KP and Balochistan have added other score categories for their shortlisting, such as awards/honours and financial management.
Short-listed candidates advance to the interview stage in which candidates are evaluated on another three criteria: The first one is ‘strategic vision and leadership abilities’ (35 per cent). Its description includes “plans for growth and progress of the institution … keeping in view specific needs”, “leadership abilities and managing change, strategic planning” and an “ability to create a peaceful environment”. Providing supporting evidence will favour applicants who have been previously appointed to a VC position. In part, that is why the pool of applicants for VC openings is a large pool of current VCs (with some new entrants) – a game of musical chairs.
The second is ‘knowledge pertaining to higher education’ (35 per cent). It is described as “knowledge of major developments, trends and challenges in higher education”, "significant international exposure and ability to create linkages”, and “understanding scholarly purposes of a university” – all things that can be acquired by paying attention to ongoing debates in higher education and reading a good book. Even then, looking at the constitution of ‘search’ committees raises the question, are they competent to evaluate the responses?
The third is ’personal traits’, described as communication, presentation, team building, and conflict management skills (30 per cent).
That is a lot of ground to cover meaningfully in an interview. A recent search committee conducted 38 VC interviews in a single day. Even if the committee worked for 12 hours back-to-back that day, that comes to a little over 18 minutes per candidate. I cannot imagine what the committee could have learned in that time to let them make a confident recommendation for such a high-stakes appointment.
The bottom line is that there is a mismatch between what the search committees evaluate applicants on, and the problems VCs must face once they are in office. The challenge confronting all public universities is financial sustainability and (in cases further along) insolvency. Financial management is included in the evaluation criteria, but it is only one of a laundry list of items, but perhaps the only one that has mattered for years.
What has this long-standing search process wrought us? Last year, I had the opportunity to read through hundreds of plans VC candidates had submitted for openings at several public universities in Islamabad. With each plan I read, my reactions oscillated between bewilderment and disappointment. These so-called plans were just items on the application submission checklist – something that had to be included but without any serious thought given. In the same vein, the inclusion of financial management is just lip service.
Just this past Saturday, Dr Riaz Ahmed, an associate professor of Applied Chemistry at the University of Karachi, and member of the university syndicate, was ‘disappeared’ and detained by the police for hours – without charge. According to his statement to the media, the professor was going to put on record his (lone) dissent on the recommendations of the Unfair Means (UFM) committee at his university syndicate.
These are the kinds of political pressures universities are under. That is why many VCs in the country come in with one objective: to not rock the boat so as not to jeopardize their next gig, sometimes long before the one they just landed is up. Even now, some VC applicants are as little as two years into their four-year tenure but are already looking to abandon their current post and jump ship to another.
That is a lack of commitment I can expect from an entry-level employee who is job-hopping but does not behoove the head of an institution. Most come in without having given any thought to the individual circumstances of the universities they are joining and have no serious plans to address deep-rooted issues. This is evident in the types of issues universities’ highest governing bodies, the senate and syndicate, spend their time on. That said, there are always a few positive exceptions that buck the trend and prove the rule.
The way VCs at some universities come in – clueless, spending their time without a handle on the most pressing challenges, helplessly flailing until their tenure expires, as if the job has been forced on them – reminds me of camel racing. The only difference is that the poor camel jockeys (children) are in fact victims, forced into the position, while VCs willingly compete for theirs. However, I see the same visible lack of control and helplessness.
The current VC selection process is deeply flawed and needs urgent reform. Broadly, the search ought to be led by the university’s board of governors, which itself should consist of people familiar with its challenges and an understanding of the context it operates within.
Today, for most public institutions, the criteria for selection should prioritize financial acumen and a proven track record of institutional leadership, rather than academic qualifications and research output. We need VCs who are committed to the long-term sustainability of their institutions, not just political handmaidens looking to prove themselves loyal to land their next gig.
The writer (she/her) has a PhD in Education.