On March 18, 2017, the Chairman Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) gave his tacit support for gradually transforming the duration of undergraduate degrees, such as Bachelor of Arts, Science and Commerce from the existing two years to four years. Interestingly, the same position was taken by the HEC during the tenure of a former chairman, which was eventually annulled by almost all the universities.

This policy proposal to stretch the BA/BSc/B.Com degree programmes from the existing duration of two years to four years was criticised by stakeholders in the past. The HEC has been promoting this policy to make general degree programmes comparable to international standards.

Enhancement in the quality and knowledge-base of students are the key merits expressed by the HEC. However, there are many factors which must be seriously considered. Availability of corresponding faculty in various universities, laboratory facilities, revision and expansion of curricula and socio-economic effect of this decision on the majority of student bodies are matters that require a detailed deliberation.

Apparently, the universities were not adequately consulted while framing this policy move. It may be appropriate to at least obtain opinions from those in the universities and institutions that will be directly affected. The autonomy of the universities must also be acknowledged by the regulator to make universities make decisions and policies that suit respective academic conditions and priorities.

Some time ago, the HEC took the liberty of enforcing semester system in all institutions of higher learning in the country. Normally, such decisions are within the legal and administrative mandate of academic councils and syndicates of the universities. Notwithstanding the merit of such moves, attempts to force decisions from regulatory bodies upon the universities weaken their capacities of self-management.

Before deciding about a system, a larger understanding of the academic pattern, structure of degree programmes and their objectives must be adequately analysed. It is a fact that differences exist between academic programmes in pure, natural, applied and social sciences.

The status of maturity of different institutions, especially the newly founded universities, is not up to the mark. A change of system can become a drag for them as it would take away the attention of administration from its core work -- consolidation of resources and academic processes. After implementation of semester system, many universities found it difficult to mobilise corresponding human resources.

Similarly, the HEC also supervises the framing and revisions of curricula of different programmes. The aim of this exercise is to provide a yardstick for setting up curriculum in the relevant institutional setup. The approach is good but the process has many shortcomings. Normally, the committees set up by the HEC are randomly chosen. The process of revision is, thus, undertaken with a recycling of pre-existing contents without any addition of knowledge.

The curriculum is revised every three years, which is a very short duration. The application of a curriculum has to run full cycle to adjudge its validity. Since this model curriculum is taken up by statutory bodies of the university, an additional one year is spent which leaves a mere two years time for observing the performance merits or otherwise. Therefore, the cycle of revisions has to be realistically worked out according to the nature of discipline.

The HEC must also review the process of selection and appointment of vice chancellors, which is now done through a search committee. This search committee reviews the applications received for the post and recommends it to the respective provincial government for consideration. The provincial government then sends its own choices to the chancellor/governor of the province for finalisation and notification.

The usual objective of ensuring autonomy in the working setup of a university is to provide optimum freedom to the legislative and executive bodies. In the existing structures, this autonomy is adequately provided -- all it requires is fine-tuning of the provisions and working systems. If a well-meaning professional sits in the vice-chancellor’s seat, he possesses enough working independence to steer the university up with the assistance of the senate, syndicate and other academic bodies.

It makes a rare case that universities have performed badly simply due to the vice-chancellor. It is, therefore, ridiculous to tie the hands of the vice-chancellor and turn him into a glorified registrar which the current practices of our higher education regulator are trying to do. By doing this, the university management will simply become a stringed puppet in the hands of powers in Islamabad and respective provincial capital.

A balance between the use of authority and the institutionalised manner of check and balance in the university setup already exists in the form of statutory bodies. It is a matter of deriving the best benefit out of it.

Around the globe, universities are places where dissent from conventions is respected, status quo of all sorts is academically and intellectually challenged and conditions ensured for free thinking and unhindered expression. It is only after such pre-conditions are met that original contributions to the knowledge are ensured. This promotes academic talent and attracts men of letters from everywhere, especially in social and applied sciences.

Unfortunately, a majority of our institutions/universities show total disregard to such universal characteristics that are pre-requisite to learning. Under influence from regulators, public sector universities lay down an iron framework for the code of conduct of the professors and scholars. Ideas and ideological reference, political affinities, expression, discourse and even professional affiliations all have to conform to the state-based framework.

Teachers in the public sector universities are made to follow a strict code of conduct which is next only to a military drill. As a result, it reduces the university faculty to mere microphones who repeat the undergraduate or postgraduate lessons in robotic performances. This also discourages renowned scholars from abroad to join any public sector university in the country.

Higher education policies must be formulated through a scientific process. Scientific assessment of needs, analysis of contextual conditions, rational outlining of potentials and constraints and the overall benefit to the higher education sector are few vital issues for consideration. A consultative process must be initiated to obtain the feedback of faculty members and university administrations.

The same must be incorporated after critical review into the mainstreaming process. And a scientific impact assessment exercise must be logically applied in the future course of action of the HEC and universities.