RANKING OF PAKISTANI UNIVERSITIES
PROF. DR. KHAWAJA AMJAD SAEED*
Nov 06 - 12, 2006
Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan released ranking of universities of the country on September 28, 2006. This was a step in right direction and HEC deserves full appreciation for their initiative and productive effort. We hope that this process will be carried forward with zeal and vigor in future and will provide feedback for consideration by various universities for further improvement to achieve the hallmark of achieving great heights for quality education in Pakistan. The motivation of the above ranking was provided by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The initiative was undertaken by HEC through its Quality Assurance Committee.
A comprehensive questionnaire spread over the following weights was distributed for collecting the information for ranking purpose from the selected universities for ranking.
Table : 1
ASSIGNED WEIGHTS FOR RANKING UNIVERSITIES
A Specialized Ranking Board consisting of eleven persons was set up for deciding and later declaring the ranks. In the above Board two external experts from private sector were also included.
THE SCOPE FOR RANKING
As of October 31, 2006, there were 114 recognized institutes / universities in Pakistan. Their position is tabulated below:
RECOGNIZED INSTITUTES / UNIVERSITIES IN PAKISTAN
A: PUBLIC SECTOR
2. Degree Awarding Institutes
B: PRIVATE SECTOR
2. Degree Awarding Institutes
Out of above 114 recognized institutes / universities, such private sector universities which currently did not meet the minimum Federal Cabinet Criteria for establishment of universities in Pakistan were excluded from the ranking. Their total is 59 (52%). It is apparent that these institutes / universities were granted Degree Awarding Status in good faith and as of today have yet not fulfilled the criteria laid down by the Federal Cabinet of Pakistan. Despite serving notices by HEC, they are not meeting the above referred criteria and enjoy the luxury of extra time to the detriment of high quality standards. One wonders what is their basic objective and how long they will linger on with their current status. The best approach is to be proactive and self driven for meeting the Federal Cabinet criteria at the earliest.
CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSITIES
HEC identified six categories of universities for ranking. These are tabulated below:
Table : 3
CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSITIES IDENTIFIED FOR RANKING
1. General Universities
3. Business / IT
4. Agriculture / Veterinary
5. Health Sciences
6. Art / Design
It is hoped that with the passage of time more refinement will take place and in future we may have an improved identification of the above categories. For the time being, it is an excellent beginning.
In the six categories of ranked Universities, top positions were bagged by three belonging to Punjab, two belonging to Islamabad and one belonging to Karachi. This shows high geographical concentration in Punjab and Federal area. In three ranked ones in Punjab, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. LUMS, Lahore and National College of Arts, Lahore achieved the honour of top ranking. The two belonging to Islamabad were Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Quaid-e-Azam University. The other one category belonged to Karachi and was Agha Khan University.
CRITERIA FOR RANKING
Selection for indicators as criteria for ranking universities continues to be a subject of debate at home and abroad. However room for improvement always exists and search for an excellent criteria is an evolving process. The five components for criteria relating to ranking universities were selected and are tabulated below:
Table : 4
CRITERIA FOR RANKING
On the basis of above criteria, the highest rank was earned by the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (66.44%) and the lowest was earned by City University of Sciences & Information Technology, Peshawar (11.17%). Accordingly, the range is 55.27%. This is too high and shows that there is greater heterogeneity in the quality education in Higher Education in Pakistan.
Averages were worked out on performance basis and these are tabulated below:
Table : 5
AVERAGES AS PERFORMANCE OF RANKED UNIVERSITIES
2. Health Sciences
3. Art / Design
4. Business / IT
AVERAGES OF RANKED CATEGORIES OF UNIVERSITIES
An Analysis of the above reveals the following:
1. The overall performance of the ranked universities is very low i.e 38.40%. Only one category (Agriculture) obtained an average of 53.36%.
The lowest average earned is in the general universities category i.e 26.27%. This is a wake up call for significant homework to be undertaken by the management of these universities for attaining high quality standards. Surprisingly, Engineering is in need to go for a long way for improving their academic and research standards and this category has earned 29.90%. The management must rise to the occasion and get out of the syndrome of Rip Van Winkle sleep.
2. Business / I.T category has earned a low grade (31.43%). They need to meet the quality standards to produce high degree level management executives.
If 50% is taken as a minimum qualifying threshold, only Agricultural Universities, on an average, qualify. The remaining other five categories on an average are all below the above cut-off level.
It is high time that the management of our universities should review for positive feedback for improving their quality standards to meet the challenge of improvement. Institutionalized efforts should be undertaken with breakthrough effort of attaining high quality standards relating to higher education in Pakistan.
Range determines the difference between the highest and the lowest average within each category. Range has been calculated for each of the above category, in the descending order and is tabulated below:
RANGE AMONGST THE RANKED UNIVERSITIES
CATEGORY OF UNIVERSITY
PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO AVERAGE
1. Business / IT
4. Health Sciences
6. Art / Design
Some of the research conclusions are as under:
1. The highest range as percentage is in Business / I.T category (48%).
2. The second highest range is in general and engineering universities categories and is around 46%.
The above research analysis reveals that considerable homework needs to be undertaken by stakeholders in general and management of universities in particular for achieving the goal of high quality in higher education.
TWO CRITERIA COMPONENT ANALYSIS
The two critical indicators in the criteria carry 53% weight (faculty (27%) and research (26%)). Indicators selected for research components are tabulated below:
Table : 7
INDICATORS FOR RESEARCH AS CRITERIA
1. Number of research papers published by faculty members & students during 2001-02 to 2003-04
2. Research papers / faculty
3. Number of International collaborative research projects
4. Ph.D produced / faculty
5. University organized conferences symposia/seminars/workshops at International level sponsored by other Agencies
6. Number of patent designs / formula approved varities
7. Gross score of all faculty members as determined by PCST
8. Gross score point / faculty members
9. Other aspects*
*(one point each for number of journals published by the university, number of books published by the faculty members, number papers presented and published at referred national conferences by faculty members and students university organized/conferences/symposia/seminars/workshops/at national level sponsored by other agencies and M. Phil produced/faculty)
The above presents guidelines and challenges to be met by various universities. If the management of universities begin with KAISAN spirit and institutionalize it, significant improvements will follow. KAISAN is a Japanese Management Model which ensures continuous improvement as an active agenda.
Seven indicators shown in the descending order were used and their position is tabulated below:
Table : 8
INDICATORS FOR FACULTY AS CRITERIA
1. Ratio of Ph.D faculty to total faculty
2. Student teacher ratio
3. Amount of funds obtained through competitive grants For research projects / faculty
4. Full time Ph.D faculty 3
5. Full time faculty having M. Phil / 16+years of education
6. National & international awards won by faculty
7. Trainings received by faculty
Improvements on each of the above indicators should be pursued as an active agenda.
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
1. A long way is needed to achieve a level playing field to be compared in the Ranking Process. Steps may be initiated in a phased program by all the stakeholders.
2. The criteria needs improvement for including some other factors such as expansion in new disciplines to meet market driven needs, innovations in curriculum development activities, and greater weightage for sports and co-curricular activities.
3. The management of various universities should undertake research work to identify gaps for improvement with a breakthrough approach as a continuing agenda across the detailed indicators constituting approved criteria of Higher Education Commission against which the universities have been ranked.
* Principal, Hailey College of Banking & Finance, University of the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan.
Member Governing Council, International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) (1997-2000) President, South ASIAN Federation of Accountants (SAFA) (1997) President, Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan (1997-2000) PRESIDENT, Association of Management Development institutions of South Asia (AMDISA) (1993-96) Pro Vice-Chancellor University of the Punjab, Lahore (1994-1996) Founder Director, Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of the Punjab, Lahore (1973-1996).
Academic achievements of students of institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Sindh, Jamshoro (Sindh), Pakistan
Miss. Ambreen Mushtaque completed six weeks State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) summer Internship program 2006.
Ms. Ambreen Mushtaque D/o Mushtaque Ali Nangore Rajper is resident of village Mukhtiarabad, Mehrabpur, Distt: Naushehro Ferozue, (Sindh), Pakistan.
She is enrolled on MBA (Final) for Hons morning program of studies at Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Sindh, Jamshoro (Sindh) Pakistan.
Ms. Ambreen Mushtaque worked on project "BACK OFFICE OPERATIONS" in Accounts Department of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi.
She obtained 94 marks out of 100.
She has passed BBA (Hons) Part ñ III with C.G.P.A. 3.69 during the year 2005.
Mr. Abdul Manan Memon completed six weeks State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) summer Internship program 2006.
Mr. Abdul Manan Memon S/o Abdul Samad Memon is resident of city district Hyderabad, (Sindh), Pakistan.
He is enrolled on MBA (Final) for Hons morning program of studies at Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Sindh, Jamshoro (Sindh) Pakistan.
Mr. Abdul Manan Memon worked on project "REVOLUTION OF FIXED ASSETS OF STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN" at State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi.
He obtained 85 marks out of 100.
He has passed BBA (Hons) Part ñ III with C.G.P.A. 3.68 during the year 2005.
Mr. Adeel Asif completed six weeks State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) summer Internship program 2006.
Mr. Adeel Asif S/o Asifullah Khan is resident of Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan.
He is enrolled on MBA (Final) for Pass morning program of studies at Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Sindh, Jamshoro (Sindh) Pakistan.
Mr. Adeel Asif worked on project "OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT THROUGH INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM" at State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi.
He obtained 85 marks out of 100.
He has passed B.com in 2nd division from Govt. College Quetta, Balochistan in 2003.