the role of private sector in higher education in …
TRANSCRIPT
THE ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN
ABDUL MAJEED KHAN 02-arid-1150
University Institute of Education and Research
University of Arid Agriculture
Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
2007
THE ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION
IN PAKISTAN
By
ABDUL MAJEED KHAN
(02-arid-1150)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Education
University Institute of Education and Research
University of Arid Agriculture
Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
2007
ii
CERTIFICATION Certified that contents of thesis entitled “The Role of Private Sector in Higher
Education in Pakistan” submitted by Abdul Majeed Khan have been found
satisfactory for the requirements of the degree.
Supervisor: _________________________ (Dr. Lt. Col. ®M.H. Arif)
Member: ___________________________ (Dr. R. A. Farooq)
Member: ___________________________ (Dr. M. Munir Kiani)
Date
Director Director University Institute of Education and Research Advanced Studies
iii
iv
Dedicated to
My Father (late)
and Mother Whose prayers are the assets of my life
and these prayers served as a guideline
and prop during every difficult moment
of my life and made me what I am today
v
CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement x
Abstract xii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
2.1 PRIVATE PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN
PAKISTAN
12
2.2 ISSUES OF QUALITY 25
2.3 ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION
IN PAKISTAN
32
2.4 RELATED STUDIES 40
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 46
3.1 POPULATION 46
3.2 SAMPLE 46
3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 47
3.3.1 Questionnaire For Administrator 49
3.3.2 Questionnaire For Teachers 49
3.3.3 Questionnaire For Students 50
3.4 PRETESTING OF QUESTIONNAIRE 50
3.5 DATA COLLECTION 51
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS 55
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58
DISCUSSION 85
SUMMARY 89
CONCLUSIONS 91
RECOMMENDATIONS 94
LITERATURE CITED 98
APPENDICES 107
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Page
1 Number of public and private sector universities & degree awarding institutions (DAIs) in Pakistan.
15
2 Universities/degree awarding institutions (2005-06)
17
3 Enrollment at universities /degree awarding institutions and constituent colleges by Area and Sector during 2003-04
18
4 Number of students enrolled by sector and level of degree over the years 2003-04
18
5 Number of students produced by public and private sector universities during 2003-04
19
6 Number of full time and part time faculty members by public and private sector universities during 2003-04
19
7 Full time faculty members classified by their highest qualification during 2003-04
20
8 Student-Teacher Ratio for the year 2003-04
20
9 Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall questionnaire for administrators with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency.
58
10 Inter-scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for administrators and its sub-scales/areas.
59
11 Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall questionnaire for teachers with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency
60
12 Inter-scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for teachers regarding role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales
60
13 Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall questionnaire for students with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency.
61
vii
14 Inter scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for students regarding quality of various aspects of higher education
61
15 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students regarding the appropriateness of instructional facilities
62
16 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of equipment to present and future needs of students and society
62
17 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sufficiency of books /periodicals that are available in the library.
63
18 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the availability of internet facility in the institutions”.
63
19 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sound training of teachers in teaching methodology.
64
20 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’ command over the subject matter
64
21 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the encouragement of teachers for students’ class participation.
65
22 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’ ability to create conducive class environment for learning
65
23
Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about teachers’ encouragement in promoting critical and creative thinking among students.
66
24
Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about attitudes of teachers towards their students .
66
viii
25 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about considering the merit and motivation of students during admission .
67
26 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of the subjects and content to present and future needs of the society being taught.
67
27 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the competitiveness of the private sectors graduate with public sector universities
68
28 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the quality research producing in their institutions
68
29 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the provision of quality education
69
30 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the quality of various aspects of higher education
69
31 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female administrators on the quality of various aspects of higher education
70
32 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of permanent administrators and contract based administrators on the quality of various aspects of higher education.
71
33 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators possessing graduate and above academic qualifications on the quality of various aspects of higher education
72
34 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores oadministrators having greater and lesser administrators experiencon the quality of various aspects of higher education
73
35 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female teachers on the quality of various aspect of higher education
74
ix
36 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of
permanent, contract based and visiting teachers’ on the quality of various aspect of higher education
75
37 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of Professors and lecturers on the quality of various aspect of higher education
76
38 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of greater and Lesser teachers’ experience on the quality of various aspect of higher education
77
39 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of three level of education of teachers on the quality of various aspect of higher education
78
40 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female students on the quality of various aspects of higher education
79
41 Significance of differences between mean opinion scores of level of degree of the students on the quality of various aspect of higher education
80
42 Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female administrators, teachers and students about quality of various aspects of higher education.
81
43 Suggestions by administrators to enhance the role of private sector in the promotion of higher education in Pakistan
81
44 Suggestions by teachers to enhance the role of private sector in the promotion of higher education in Pakistan.
82
45 Suggestions by students to enhance the role of private sector in the promotion of higher education in Pakistan
83
46 Students’ enrolment in private and public sector universities during the year 2003-04
84
47 Students produced by private and public sector universities during the year 2003-04
84
48 Number of full time and part time faculty members in private and public sector universities during the year 2003-04
84
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Almighty Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Creator, the Sustainer,
the Builder, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the One Who was the first, the One Who
will be the last, for providing ability to complete this humble contribution with the
stipulated time. All the respects for the greatest educator and the benefactor of mankind,
Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Who advised all of us to continue getting education
from cradle to grave.
I have my heartiest gratitude for my supervisor Dr. Lt. Col..(Rtd.) Manzoor
Hussain Arif Professor, University Institute of Education and Research, for his inspiring
guidance, motivation, encouragement and constructive criticism not only during the
conduct and completion of this research work but in entire course work of Doctorate.
Perhaps I would never be able to do this effort with out his love and guidance. May God
Bless him.
The researcher is also grateful to Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Ch., Director, University
Institute of Education and Research and Dr. R. A. Farooq Ch. Additional Director,
University Institute of Education and Research, for their kind guidance, valuable
suggestions, care and motivation not only during this research work but during whole
programmes of Ph. D. May God Bless them.
The researcher is also highly obliged to Dr. Hamid Khan Niazi, Faculty of
Education, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad and Professor Malik Muhammad
Amir Ex-Chairman, IER, University of the Punjab, Lahore for their guidance,
encouragement and valuable suggestions during this research work.
xi
I have honor to express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to ever-
affectionate Syed Ahsan Abbas Naqvi, Dr. Malik Hukamdad, Dr. Huma, Dr. Sajid
Rehman, Khadim Jan, Asif Iqbal, Ijaz Akram, Sher Afghan Niazi, Imran Niazi, Advocate
Sher Ahmad Niazi, Advocate Malik Hameed Shahzad, Prof. Iftikhar Ahmad and
Mr. Dilnawaz Abbasi for their sincere cooperation and encouragement during the course
of this study.
I am highly thankful to my brothers (Mr. Iqbal Khan, Mr. Asghar Khan, Mr.
Asmatullah Khan), Dr. Muhammad Khan Niazi, my little nephew Amanullah Khan,
Badar Jehangir, Hammad Ahmad, Haseeb Nawaz and my niece Palwasha for their kind
and moral support during my study and also thankful to Mr. Abdul Sattar, University
Composing Centre, Shamsabad, Rawalpindi for his help and cooperation in composing of
this dissertation.
The researcher offers special thanks to my dear uncles Mr. Gul Hameed Khan
Rokkari and Asghar Aziz Khan Rokkari for their kind guidance and advice for work on
private sector in higher education. The researcher also express heartiest thanks to late
Mr. Aslam Niazi (Ph.D. scholar) and Mr. Muhammad Sher Khan Amandi Khel.
I offer my profound thanks to all the administrators, faculty members and students
of private universities for their cooperation rendered to me during this research work.
May Allah Bless all these people.
Abdul Majeed Khan
xii
ABSTRACT
The major purpose of the study was to examine the role of private sector in higher education in Pakistan by adopting descriptive method of research. The main objectives of the study were to compare the views of administrators, teachers and students about the quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the views of administrators both male and female, permanent and contract based, about the quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the views of male teachers and female teachers, permanent, contract based and visiting teaching faculty, about the quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the views of male students and female students about the quality of various aspects of higher education, to determine the share of private sector of higher education in the term of students’ enrolment and teaching faculty and to suggest measures for improvement of private sector universities in Pakistan.
As the study was conducted at national level, the population of the study constituted 270 administrators, 6180 teachers and 61108 students in existing 54 private universities and degree awarding institutions of Pakistan. Method of cluster sampling was used to select the study sample of 840 people, which was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, 12 clusters of universities were randomly chosen out of the total population of the private universities. At the second stage, 60 administrators, 180 teachers and 600 students were selected through random sampling procedure with five administrators, 15 teachers and 50 students from each selected cluster. Three questionnaires (one each for administrators, teachers and students), developed and refined through pre-testing, were used as measuring instruments to collect data. The researcher personally visited each university and collected data from the sample. The collected data was tabulated and interpreted by using t-test and ANOVA.
It was concluded that the role played by private sector in higher education was of considerable value. All respondents were found to have positive opinion about the availability of internet facilities, encouragement of teachers for students class participation, teachers’ ability to create conducive class environment for learning and wholesome attitude of teachers toward their students. Nevertheless, they expressed slightly negative opinion about the appropriateness of instructional facilities, sufficiency of books/periodicals available in the library, professional training of teachers, teachers’ command over the subject matter, teachers’ encouragement in promoting critical and creative thinking among students, relevance of the subjects and the content to present and future needs of society and quality of research. All respondents exhibited fairly negative opinion about selection of students during admission on the basis of their merit and motivation and competitiveness of the private sector graduates with public sector universities. Male respondents exhibited more positive views about the quality of various aspects of higher education. Private sector universities shared the load of higher education to the extent of 15 percent in terms of student community and 16.5 percent in terms of teaching staff.
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Education is broadly viewed as the intellectual and moral training of
individuals through which their potentialities are developed, the traits of the Creator
are inculcated in them and the culture of the people is transmitted to the coming
generations (Khalid, 1998). "Education is a process through which a nation develops
its self consciousness by developing the self consciousness of the individuals who
compose it. It is a social institution which provides mental, physical, ideological and
moral training to the individuals of the society, so as to enable them to have full
consciousness of their mission, purpose in life and equip them to achieve that purpose
(Ahmad, 1984).
Around the world, education is recognized as an important factor for the socio-
economic development of any society. Education today has become the most potent
instrument, not only for the social and cultural changes but also for the economic
development o f the society. Ali (1997) describes that rapid economic development of
a nation lies in the provision of education and skilled manpower. Education generates
not only new ideas and competency; it also accelerates the pace of technological
transformation. Furthermore, education prepares the people for making better choices
and provides them with the opportunities leading a better life.
There is dialectical relationship between education and society. Education is
sub-system of society and it necessarily reflects the main feature of that society. The
development of a nation depends upon the literate society. Without education, social
and economic development cannot be imagined.
1
2
Govt. of Pakistan (1998) states that the type and quality of education imparted
to young ones of today will provide future leadership in various fields that will steer
the country successfully through thick and thin. The developed nations and those
claiming to be the Asian Tiger today, undoubtedly owe all their heights of
achievements to education. Advocacy for education should be a prime concern of a
society and the government simultaneously.
In ancient ages, higher education was a means of acquiring wisdom and
satisfying curiosity. It was not an instrument for achieving economic goals but the new
demands of economic life are such that modern higher education has been inter- linked
with specialization as well as employment.
According to North (1997), in modern times, higher education is considered as
a means of human resource development in a society. In advanced countries,
universities constitute the main- spring of knowledge, ideas and innovation. Today,
the most successful discharge of the university's role as an agent of change is in the
area of science and technology. The priming and grooming of high-level professional
manpower is a matter of vital concern. As a pathway to socio-economic development
in a country, higher education cannot be ignored or given low priority. Higher
education is in state of rapid development everywhere in the world as its benefits to
the social, economic and cultural life of different communities are realizable. This has
led to the worldwide exponential expansion of universities and colleges, as many more
people are encouraged to remain in education. However, there are problems. First,
higher education is expensive, and its expansion requires ample resources. Second,
rapid expansion raises problems of quality assurance and control, as increased
3
numbers could so easily lead to a decline in standards. Third, expansion in the
developing world often draws upon the resources, ideas and expertise to the developed
world, even through these may not always be appropriate for every different economic
and social system.
According to Barnett (1992), Higher Education is to impart the deepest
understanding in the minds of students, rather than the relatively superficial grasp that
might be acceptable elsewhere in the system. In higher education, nothing can be
taken on trust and the students have to think for themselves so as to be able to stand on
their own feet intellectually. Quddus (1979) describes that no country has ever been
able to make rapid progress without a well-developed system of higher education.
Our greatest national asset lies in the potential skill of our people, and our economic
and social progress depends on how we develop them. This implies that all young men
and women, irrespective of their financial or social status, can prove their capacity to
profit from higher education and they must have the full opportunity to acquire it.
Over the past fifteen or more years, private higher education has grown at a
rapid rate in a number of countries and today captures a major portion of student
enrolments in Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin
America. Much of this growth has come about through the expansion of commercial,
sometimes for-profit higher education institutions, rather than traditional non-profit
religious, community or academically based ones (Kelly, 2001).
In Pakistan, at the time of independence, there were only two universities and
almost forty colleges. Government did establish new colleges and universities but the
government alone was not in a position to provide adequate financial and physical
4
resources to undertake the restructuring of the educational system and also its
expansion to meet the demands of the society. So private sector came forward to meet
the formidable demand of the time.
Participation of the private sector in educational development in Pakistan has a
long history. After 1947 till 1971, the private sector contribution expanded
considerably through a variety of non-government organizations but the process of
nationalization by the Peoples Government completely eliminated the private sector
from education. Many higher educational institutions were nationalized in September
1972.
Govt. of Pakistan (1998-2010) states that the system of Grant-in-Aid
introduced before Independence continued till 1972 for attracting the private sector to
participate in the provision of educational facilities to the citizens who were
demanding higher education because expenditure on education is now being
considered as an investment rather than consumption. There is a strong feeling among
the public that private sector should participate actively to supplement the resources of
the government for the development of human resources.
Higher Education in public and private sectors has expanded considerably in
the last few decades. The number of colleges and universities has increased. The
demand for higher education is increasing rapidly due to its high rates of return and
expanding size of middle class. Modern higher education, especially in science and
technology, is highly cost effective. The scarcity of public finance does not allow
5
expansion of this level and therefore, concerted efforts are being made to attract the
private sector through liberal policy to establish higher quality institutions.
An overview of the facts mentioned above reveals that the problem is that of
the availability of resources. Not only ample funds for the establishment of quality
institutions are required, but there is also a need to offer attractive salaries to the
qualified teachers in all the fields especially in the field of science and technology. If
they are not given these incentives, then the others will be quite willing to hire them
on attractive terms. This will require breaking of bureaucratic chain, which is holding
all the fields in its clutches.
However, in spite of all the odds, the private sector is coming up to invest in
the field of higher education and some really quality institutions have been
established. Many colleges and universities are working in the private sector. The
government can indirectly help them by lining up Foreign Aid. The intended foreign
investors can grant some relief in terms of land for building etc.
Private sector universities are funded and supported by individuals, NGOs,
Trusts and foundations. On the other hand, public sector universities are financially
supported by federal or provincial governments and they are managed by syndicates as
governing body.
Both type of universities are duly approved by the higher education
commission and the chartered are given either by the National Assembly or the
concerned Provincial Assembly. Either type of universities functions under the
umbrella of Higher Education Commission and are bound to observe the rules and
6
regulations framed by the higher education commission. The private sector
universities are also managed by the Board of Governor or Board of Management
constituted for the purpose. The private sector universities generated funds through
tuition fee, endowment funds or donations by the local or international agencies.
As few studies in this area at Master and M.Phil. level have been conducted
and, as far as knowledge of the researcher is concerned, no research study at doctorate
level appears to have conducted in Pakistan to see the extent of participation of private
sector in higher education. Hence, this study was intended to investigate the role of
private sector in higher education in Pakistan.
The major objectives of the study were as under:
1. To compare the views of administrators, teachers and students about the
quality of various aspects of higher education
2. To compare the views of administrators both male and female, permanent and
contract based, about the quality of various aspects of higher education.
3. To compare the views of male teachers and female teachers, permanent,
contract based and visiting teaching faculty about the quality of various aspects
of higher education.
4. To compare the views of male students and female students about the quality
of various aspects of higher education.
5. To determine the share of private sector of higher education in the term of
student’s enrolment and teaching faculty.
7
6. To suggest measures for improvement of private sector universities in
Pakistan.
Since Independence, studies have been conducted on different aspects of
higher education in Pakistan. But perhaps no study has so far been conducted in the
area of private sector despite the fact that this aspect deserved some deep
consideration. Privatization has become a controversial issue. There are two opinions
about privatization i.e. public opinion and the government opinion.
Therefore, the present study was undertaken this study would prove helpful to
eliminate the prevailing shortcomings and enable the decision makers and planners to
think in the right direction. This study would helpful in evaluating the functioning and
performance of the private sector in higher education so as to facilitate the policy
makers, planners, educational authorities, decision makers and the various agencies
involved in the education for further planning and management and the development
of private sector in higher education in the country.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter deals with the review of available literature on the private higher
education in Pakistan. In the final section a critical review of the related studies is
presented.
Virk (1998) was of the view that higher education in Pakistan needs urgent
reforms as it is not presently contributing effectively to economic growth of the
country. The standard of higher education is not enviable because the universities in
their present form are neither geared to create new knowledge nor do their graduate
study programs measure up to international standard. The rapid expansion of the
system, limited financial input and student unrest have eroded the teaching/learning
process, despite the modernization of curricula .The supply of funds to universities is
limited, coupled with inefficient use of public funding. The universities are
unresponsive to market trend and are essentially divorced from work of world.
Higher education is more supply –oriented than demand-oriented. The research base
in universities is rather weak. However, he adds Centers of Excellence, Center of
Advanced studies, Area Study Centers and mono-disciplinary institutions in the
universities have made substantial advances in a number of research fields. Yet
inadequately equipped libraries and laboratories and a shortage of qualified teachers
continue to hinder the progress of higher education toward achieve.
Clark (1995) states that governments have rarely launched private higher
education sector by specifying what roles private higher education should or would
8
9
play, neither have scholars or other higher education actors drawn up guidance
blueprints or foreseen what and how roles would develop. On the contrary, roles have
more often emerged from a generally uncoordinated multiplicity of choices and
constraints.
Ashforth (2001) views that private configurations are changing rapidly. This is
true even in systems with a continuous private higher education history, such as Japan
and the uniquely longstanding U.S.A. case. Change is much more dramatic in systems
like the Chinese and Turkish, where private higher education re-emerges after a period
of non-existence, and the Russian and Pakistani, where it first emerges.
Levy (2002) states that there is great diversity even within this growth a
diversity that goes beyond the original identification of the third wave (and thus
demands fresh research globally). Some of these private institutions play a “role” of
little more than taking in tuition while dishing out poor education and then award
degrees to those who do not drop out; thus the “role” is perhaps one of making profit.
More positively, many have roles of providing access for those who could not
otherwise get into higher education. This may be seen as an equity role. Others
provide a choice related to access.
Castro and Levy (2000) describe that private institutions rarely assume or
claim to assume academic elite roles complete with doctoral education, basic research,
large laboratories and libraries, or mostly full-time academic staffs. This provides an
opening for critics to belittle these institutions as not “true universities,” not fulfilling
university roles.
10
Boorstin (1958) argues that, in fact, private roles often turn out to depend on
what roles public sectors do not undertake. The public unawareness or purposeful
avoidance allows some groups, including entrepreneurs, to perceive a need or
opportunity for private action. The point is relevant to all types of private higher
education. For “academically light” roles the public sector does not deign to
undertake, there is sometimes a true sense of intentionally leaving roles to private
institutions; one major example concerns the Asian cases where public sectors did not
take on major demand-absorbing access roles. However, even refusal to assume such
an access role has not always been with a keen eye on what the private sector might
do. Instead, refusal is often based simply on what the public sector prefers to do or
thinks it can do well or what government thinks it can do. It is less about refusal and
rejection of potential roles than about the absence of serious consideration of
additional roles. Where public universities in Eastern and Central Europe do not
“lower” themselves to fields such as accounting or business management as new
economies are created, they do not always consider or approve of private institutions
assuming those roles.
Levy (1982) states that a dramatic emergence of private higher education is
also common where major or “neoliberal” economic change occurs in non-communist
settings. Until the 1980s and even 1990s, private higher education was rare in sub-
Saharan Africa and absent in some Asian countries. Sudden change results in part
from powerful global tendencies that limit the financial role of the state, privatize and
internationalize in overall development policy. These are tendencies from beyond
higher education policy. Naturally, no country pursued such political-economic
policies in order to lead to private higher education consequences (or to public higher
11
education consequences, but private higher education is often more shaped by the new
economy). Instead, the consequent private higher education roles have been little
defined, however logical their fit with the new political economy, or their response to
it. Examples include low-cost provision by private suppliers, fees, and emphasis on
fields of study such as English, accounting, and business law.
Bernasconi (2004) concludes that compared to the other types of private
universities, the affiliated ones possess distinctive mission statements and declarations
of principles, consistent with the orientations of their sponsor institutions, tend to be
smaller, and tend to have more full-time and better qualified faculty. Some receive
financial support from their sponsor organizations or its members. Distinctiveness was
not found in student selectivity, nor in tuition levels, program offerings, curriculum
design, the weight of research and graduate programs in their functions, student socio-
economic profile and faculty involvement in governance.
Levy (1992) states that the literature on private higher education
internationally shows that private higher education brings diversity, especially when
compared to the public tertiary education sector, along the dimensions of finance,
control, mission, and scope of functions
Geiger (1986) in turn, in his comparative study of the private sectors of higher
education in eight European and Asian countries, finds that “diversity arises naturally
in private sectors from the varied purposes for which these institutions were founded
and from the independence that private control allows in the pursuit of these ends”.
12
2.1 PRIVATE PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN
The private sector has a checkered history in Pakistan. Soon after the
independence, the importance of education was recognized. Fazal ur Rehman, the first
education minister on the behalf of the father of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam, convened
the First Educational Conference immediately after independence. He read the
message from the Quaid, which provided guidelines for the educational system of the
new country (Govt. of Pakistan, 1947).
Until 1971, it expanded considerably at the school and college level, All
private initiatives were killed in the wake of the nationalization process of the
seventies which eliminated the participation of the sector in education altogether.
However, as a result of the reversal of this policy in 1979, the public /private ratio now
is about 70:30, mostly at school level. It is estimated that this step has resulted in a 14
% saving for the government budget. The private higher education sector had been shy
of investment until the early nineties when the sector began to take effective measures
to expand quickly. During the eighties, only two-mono-discipline private universities
(Agha Khan and LUMS) were established. Within the past few years, many new
universities have been established in the private sector (Isani and Virk, 2003).
Prachayani (2006) states that the Pakistani government has stressed the role of
private sector in promoting higher education in order to help enhance low rates of
higher education enrollment and national literacy in a context of resource constraints.
Research-oriented education and modern teaching methods are the prime foci of such
a promotion. Notwithstanding a view that private institutions have been providing
13
laudable services and quality education, the government will continue to monitor the
performance of both private and public institutions.
Prachayani (2004) states that Pakistani private universities have requested an
extension of the 2007 deadline set by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) on
charter withdrawals for private universities deemed unqualified. The HEC has
announced a list of private universities failing to meet the HEC criteria and thus slated
to lose their licenses. Some of the institutions have been identified seriously deficient.
Additionally, some institutions have been declared illegal and government has warned
parents against enrolling their offspring there. A provincial public division, the Higher
Education Regulatory Authority (HERA), founded in 2002 to oversee and control
private institutions has considered only four out of eleven private universities for
charters and has granted none.
Naqvi (2003) The provisions of the “Education Sector Reforms: Strategic Plan
2001-2004” and the “National Education Policy 1998-2010” of the Government of
Pakistan highlight the importance of higher education and the need for greater
investment by the public and private sectors. It is also realized that the public sector is
unable to cope with the surging demand of higher education from the student
community and there is a need to encourage the private sector. Accordingly, the
Government is pursuing a liberal policy towards this sector.
Higher Education Commission devised a document titled “guideline for the
establishment of new universities and degree awarding institutions”. This document
sets out the revised criteria/norms (Appendix G) as approved by the Cabinet on 27th
February 2002 for the establishment of a new university or a degree awarding
14
institute and lays down the procedures for their establishment and seeking degree
awarding status or the charter of a university by the Federal or the respective
Provincial Governments. It identifies various legal, organizational, financial and
other related formalities/requirements, which need to be fulfilled and adhered to for
submission of feasibility report, inspection and acquiring a charter for the institution.
It also provides a model framework (Appendix F) of governance of a university or an
institution of higher education in private sector.
According to Qazi (2006) presently, there are 57 universities and degree
awarding institution in the public sector and 54 universities and degree awarding
institutions in private sector. In total the number is 111. According to the HEC data
out of 23.27 million eligible students in the age group of 18-26 the total enrolment was
estimated at 1.16%. In 2002-2003, the eligible population rose to 24.19% and the
percentage of enrolment to 1.3%. Similarly in 2002-2004 the percentage of enrolled
students stood at 1.7 million from an eligible population of 24.90 million. This is so
in spite of the participation of private sector, which has contributed up to 65,000
enrolments at university level. It should be mandatory for private sector institutions to
set up undergraduate and graduate study programs in such basic sciences as physics,
chemistry, biology, mathematics, and statistics, among others. Similar initiatives
should be taken by private sector to set up departments in liberal arts and social
science. All this can happen only with help and assistance of the Higher Education
Commission, if it wants to keep an eye on the equality of education in the private
sector.
15
The statistics regarding the number and year of establishment of public and
private higher education universities and degree awarding institutions, male and
female in Pakistan since its independence up to 2006 is given below:
Table 1: Number of public and private sector universities & degree awarding institutions (DAIs) in Pakistan.
Universities Degree Awarding Institutions Public Private Public Private
Year
Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female 1947-48 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1950-51 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1959-60 5 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
1960-61 5 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
1961-62 6 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
1963-64 6 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
1964-65 7 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
1965-66 7 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1970-71 8 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1971-72 8 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1972-73 8 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1973-74 9 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1974-75 12 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1975-76 12 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1976-77 15 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1977-78 15 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1978-79 15 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1979-80 15 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1980-81 19 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1981-82 19 - 0 - 2 - 0 -
1982-83 19 - 1 - 2 - 0 -
1983-84 19 - 1 - 2 - 0 -
1984-85 19 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1985-86 19 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1986-87 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
Contd…..
16
Universities Degree Awarding Institutions Public Private Public Private
Year
Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female 1987-88 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1988-89 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1989-90 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1990-91 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1991-92 20 - 2 - 3 - 0 -
1992-93 21 - 3 - 3 - 0 -
1993-94 22 - 3 - 3 - 0 -
1994-95 25 - 4 - 3 - 2 -
1995-96 25 - 7 - 3 - 3 -
1996-97 27 - 7 - 3 - 4 -
1997-98 27 - 10 1 3 - 5 -
1998-99 28 1 10 1 3 - 5 -
1999-00 31 2 13 1 4 - 6 -
2000-01 32 2 14 1 5 - 8 -
2001-02 36 2 20 1 5 - 13 -
2002-03 45 2 31 1 7 1 13 -
2003-04 47 3 34 1 8 1 17 -
2004-05* 47 3 32 1 8 1 17 -
2004-05 47 3 34 1 8 1 19 -
2005-06** 49 4 36 1 8 1 18 -
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Isani and Virk (2003) states that there was no private degree awarding
institutions for almost 4 decades until 1983 when the first private university namely,
Aga Khan University was established at Karachi. The period of the mid-eighties has
been aground breaking in the establishment of two private sector universities i.e. Aga
Khan University and Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS).The period
of nineties has opened new vistas for the private sector. The Govt. is pursing liberal
17
policy in respect of private sector. The private sector in higher education is opening
new avenues of cooperation.
The number increased to 18 during the period 1967-77, and during the next
decade, between 1977 and 1987, rose to 26.The number increased to 43 between
1987-1997.The period of late nineties has been a period of exponential physical
expansion in the history of Pakistan .In the coming years the number is expected to
grow faster in view of the greater participation of the private sector. From 1998 to
date, a record number of 57 universities/degree awarding institutions have been
established.
There is a rising trend of establishment of universities and degree awarding
institutes in private sector in Pakistan. Now there are fifty-seven public sector
universities and degree awarding institutions and fifty-four private sector universities
and degree awarding institutions in Pakistan. The ratio of the both type of universities
is given as under:
Table 2: Universities/degree awarding institutions (2005-06)
Public Private Total
Number 57 54 111
Ratio 51.35 48.65 100
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc Note: Ratio is self-calculated.
Public and private sector share in higher education, the table 2 shows that
regarding universities, the ratio of public and private sector is 51.35 and 48.65,
respectively.
18
Table 3: Enrollment at universities /degree awarding institutions and constituent colleges by Area and Sector during 2003-04
Sectors Public Private Area
No % No % Federal 31843 12.16 4720 1.79
AJK 2005 0.76 379 0.14
Balochistan 5217 1.98 564 0.21
NWFP 30815 11.67 5865 2.22
Punjab 86032 32.58 16749 6.35
Sindh 46959 17.79 32831 12.44
Total 202871 76.85 61108 23.15
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Table 3 indicates that enrolment percentage at public sector universities
/degree awarding institutions plus constituent colleges by area during the year 2003-04
was 12.16% in Federal, 0.76% in the state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, 1.98% in the
province of Balochistan,11.67% in NWFP,32.58% in Punjab province and 17.79 in
Sindh province. On the other hand enrolment in private sector was 1.79%,
0.14%,0.21%,2.22%,6.35% and 12.44% respectively. Overall, share of private sector
in total enrolment in higher education, other than distance learning, was 23.15%
Table 4. Number of students enrolled by sector and level of degree over the years 2003-04
Sector Public Private Level of
Degree No % No % Bachelor 252841 59.73 42871 10.12
Master 92613 21.88 16054 3.80
M.Phil 6802 1.60 652 0.15
Ph.D 6277 1.48 195 0.04
PGD 3595 0.84 1336 0.31
Total 362128 85.56 61108 14.44
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
19
Table 4 states that the share of private sector in students enrolment for the year
2003-04 was 10.12 % at Bachelor degree level, 3.8% at Master degree level, 0.15% at
M.Phil, 0.04% at Ph.D and 0.31% at PGD (post graduate diploma).
Table 5: Number of students produced by public and private sector universities during 2003-04
Sector
Public Private Gender
No % No %
Male 53064 44.94 8735 7.40
Female 53150 45.02 3107 2.63
Total 106214 89.97 11842 10.03
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Table 5 depicts that the students produced by private sector universities and
degree awarding institutions was 10.03 percent of total students population in
universities and degree awarding institutions of Pakistan
Table 6: Number of full time and part time faculty members by public and private sector universities during 2003-04
Sector
Public Private Faculty
No % No %
Full time 10471 77.87 3963 64.12
Part time 2975 22.13 2217 35.88
Total 13446 68.51 6180 31.49
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Table 6 shows that percentages of full time and part time faculty members in
private sector universities were 64.12% and 35.88% respectively. The overall, share of
20
private sector universities in total number of full time and part time faculty members
was 31.49 percent
Table 7: Full time faculty members classified by their highest qualification
during 2003-04
Sector
Public Private Level of
degree No % No %
Bachelor 1059 10.11 1151 29.04
Master 4525 43.21 1480 37.34
Master(H) 1319 12.59 508 12.81
M.Phil 1019 9.73 284 77.16
Ph.D 2549 24.34 540 13.62
Total 10471 72.55 3963 27.45
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc
Table 7 indicates that in private sector universities, there were 29.04%,
37.34%, 12.18%, 7.16% and 13.62 % faculty members in private universities having
the highest qualification of Bachelor, Master, Master honors, M.Phil and Ph.D degree.
Table 8: Student-Teacher Ratio for the year 2003-04
Faculty Public Private
Full time 19.37 15.42
Part time 68.20 27.56
Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/stat.doc .
Table 8 illiterates that student-teacher ratio for full time faculty and part time
faculty in private sector universities were 15.42 and 27.56 while in public sector these
ratios were 19.37 and 68.20. In private sector student-teacher ratio was quite less than
public sector universities.
21
Govt. of Pakistan (1992) describes about policy statement that new incentives
will be provided to private sector for participation in educational development at all
levels. A liberal and simplified policy will be adopted to enable the private sector,
especially, the philanthropic organizations to undertake the task of educational
development with facility and ease. The major thrust of private participation will be
directed towards the rural areas. A system of matching grants and loans will be
devised to provide financial support to private sector organizations. Education
equipment industry, with a back up of technology transfer to be provided by the
government, will be completely shifted to the private sector and tangible incentives
will be provided for the same. A scheme for progressive disinvestments of higher
education institutions will be introduced. The rights and privileges of private
organizations running educational institutions will be protected through legislation.
Govt. of Pakistan (1992) states that in 1991, the public to private sector ratio
was estimated at 70:30. Had this trend continued, this ratio could easily touch the
50:50 mark. Though the private sector contribution was essentially restricted to school
education, over the period, it started gaining access to technical and vocational
education and degree level education as well.
Govt. of Pakistan (1983) laid emphasis on qualitative improvement of higher
education. Scientific research and technological development allocations were
increased from Rs.2 billion in Fifth Year Plan to Rs.7 billion in the Sixth Year Plan.
The strategy proposed for the realization of objectives of higher education included
induction of the private sector at all levels of higher education for introduction of
22
healthy competition and reducing state liability and control. The Plan proposed to
encourage opening of private institutions imparting education at the degree level.
A privately endowed university for science and technology was planned to be
established with complete freedom to determine contents and duration of courses of
studies, admission criteria, salary and qualification of teachers, rate of tuition fee etc.
It was planned to have linkages with foreign universities and its physical facilities,
teaching faculty, and quality of instruction and output were planned to be comparable
with the best institutions abroad. No new university was to be opened in the public
sector. Selected university departments were planned to be developed into Centers of
Advanced Studies.
Govt. of Pakistan (1988) advocates the private sector saying that the private
sector will be encouraged to establish universities or degree awarding institutions in
new and emerging fields. The universities will be made totally autonomous like the
Agha Khan University, Karachi and the Lahore University of Management Sciences
and will be placed gradually on a self-financing basis. For this purpose, they will also
be able to negotiate foreign assistance like the NGOs and establish private chairs.
Govt. of Pakistan (1988) realizes that the universities were faced with serious
administrative problems, large budget deficits, an outmoded curricula, defective
examination system and a lack of focus on research. During the Seventh Year Plan,
special attention was planned to be paid to bring about improvements in university
education through a series of reforms. Emphasis was laid on improvement in quality
of instruction at college level. Use of computer was to be encouraged. Private sector
was encouraged with various incentives to open quality institutions.
23
The administration of the universities was planned to be streamlined by
transferring the responsibility of university education entirely to the provincial
governments. The following major reforms were envisaged:
Financial position of the universities was planned to be improved by providing
them 20-25 percent of the Iqra (education) fund collections, raising the fees from the
then 1 percent of recurring expenditure to 10 percent, creating endowment funds. The
universities were planned to be made totally autonomous and to be placed gradually
on a self-financing basis. For this purpose, they will also be allowed to negotiate
foreign assistance like the NGOs, and establish private chairs.
Govt. of Pakistan (1993) also laid emphasis on qualitative improvement of
higher education and private sector. The plan stated that the participation of the private
sector was much below the required level. Private sector was permitted to open
educational institutions at almost all levels. Special legislation was to be enacted for
each university. The incentives for noncommercial educational institutions were
mainly in form of normal tax exemptions and, marginal grants for a few of them from
the recently established Education Foundation. During Eighth Year Plan, fiscal
incentives for NGOs and private sector's participation in the educational endeavor
were reviewed and made more attractive.
Govt. of Pakistan (1993) focuses on the broadening of the resource base for
financing education through increased allocation and encouraging private sector’s
participation in provision of educational facilities at all levels.”
24
Special efforts were made to improve the quality of higher education. The
university courses were transformed to make them demand-oriented. Management
training was made mandatory for all administrators of education from secondary
school level to higher education level. Tuition fees of higher education institutions was
planned to be gradually increased from 1% of the recurring cost per student to 10%
scholarships and “Qarze-e-Hasna" (loan without interest) were introduced. The college
curricula were diversified and made demand-oriented. In services, training courses
were arranged. The university Acts were planned to be revised. No new university
was planned to be established in the public sector. Private sector was encouraged to
establish universities or graduate schools in the newly emerging fields. Private sector
was also be encouraged to establish educational institutions at all levels through tax
exemptions, loan facilities and grants. Special emphasis was laid on the application of
the theoretical knowledge.
Govt. of Pakistan (1998) describes that during the Eighth Year Plan period, the
private sector was encouraged to establish educational institutions at all levels. As a
result, in urban areas, about 25% students at school level were going to private
institutions. At the tertiary level, there were 12 universities/institutions in the private
sector. No mechanism could be developed to ascertain the financial expenditure
incurred by private sector in the provision of educational facilities at different levels.
Iqra surcharge could not be organized. Literacy rate, planned to increase from 35% in
1992-93 to 48% could only reach the 45% mark. Although participation of the private
sector increased, yet the precise increase is not known.
25
Higher education, including Engineering Education and research, still needs
updating to keep pace with advancement at the international level. The Ninth Year
Plan proposes still greater involvement of the private sector in the spread of education.
National Education Policy 1998-2010 says that it is necessary that such institutions
including Deeni Madaris (Religious institutions) be governed under some regulation.
Some of these may be given degree-awarding status. To improve participation of
private sector, it is necessary that a system may be evolved to recognize their
certificate/degrees at par with those of public sector educational institutions. This
policy emphasizes that incentives be provided to those institutions so that they get
themselves registered with education departments and are able to provide low cost
quality education at all levels.
2.2 ISSUES OF QUALITY
According to the UNESCO (1998), quality is inseparable for social relevance.
The implication of the quality requirement and of policies aiming at "quality
safeguard" approach is that improvements should be sought, at the same time, to each
of the components parts of the institution and to the institution as an integral while,
functioning as a coherent system. The quality of higher education depends upon:
• Quality of staff which employees: acceptable social and financial status, a will
to reduce inequalities such as those relating to gender; a concern to manage
staff in accordance with the merit principle and provide them with the in.
service training. They need in order to fulfill their role in changing society; the
establishment of incentives and structures to encourage researchers to work in
26
multidisciplinary teams on thematic projects, thus breaking with the habit of
exclusively solitary scientific work.
• Quality of curricula, which calls for special care in the definition of the
objectives of the training provided in relation to the requirements of the world
of work and the needs of society; an adaptation of teaching methods to make
students more active and to develop an enterprising spirit; an expansion of, and
greater flexibility/ training facilities so as to make full use of the possibilities
afforded by IT and to take the characteristics of the context into account; the
internationalization and networking of curricula, students and teachers.
• Quality of the students who constitute the raw material of higher education,
which requires special attention to their problems of access in the light of
criteria related to merit (abilities and motivation); proactive policies for benefit
of the disadvantaged, exchanges with secondary education and with the
involved in the transition from secondary to higher education, to ensure that
education is an unbroken chain.
• Quality of the infrastructure and of the external environment, not for getting
the infrastructure connected with the use and development of IT, without
which networking, distance education facilities and the possibility of a "virtual
university" could not be envisaged.
• Quality of the management of the institution as a coordinated and coherent
whole, interacting with its environment, being impossible for institutions of
higher education to exist as isolated enclaves.
27
Isani and Virk (2003) states that we dealt with problems of numbers; it is time
to confront the second issue, which is that quality .The process of globalization makes
this an inescapable requirement for any real development in the country. Private
educational institution can survive only if they cater to the demand of the market, both
in terms of type of disciplines and quality. If they ignore either, they will not be able to
survive for very long.
Phongpaichit and Chris (1996) described that it does not give due weightage to
the quality aspects, which is vitally important. The quality can be achieved through
both private and public institutions. But there is an overt and undue attack on
educational institutions owned by the public authority. They are always known and
condemned as inefficient, corrupt, and slow lethargic and ineligible to produce
students effective for the job market. It is widely believed that public ownership is the
cause of inefficiency and non-sustainability. In fact, all private sector institutions are
not efficient nor all public sector institutions are not inefficient.
Consideration towards quality has increased substantially in recent years
(Dotchin and Oakland, 1994, Gupta and Chen, 1995, Kettingner and Lee, 1995
McDaniel and Louagand, 1994). The arrival of total quality management (TQM) in
higher education began slightly in the 1980’s with increasing interest in the early
1990’s. This growing interest in TQM motivates institutions to cope with an
increasingly desperate set of fiscal circumstances, and tremendous pressure from their
customers to update and improve the quality of their services (Brigham, 1994; Zemsky
et al., 1993). The definition of quality has evolved from “quality is excellence”, to
“quality is value”, to “quality is conformance to specifications”, to “quality is meeting
28
and/or exceeding customers’ expectations” (Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Customers can
provided variable information to management for designing service delivery and for
adapting the university environment to the students’ needs (Hampton, 1993). In the
design of quality improvement programs, it is thus the customer definitions of quality
which count, since management may make the wrong assumption as to how customers
actually see the service quality. Assumptions such as these could lead the establish of
improper priorities with regard to quality control standard in business education
(Nightingagle, 1983), taking customer satisfaction into consideration. A knowledge
and better understanding of the process and the various characteristics, qualities and
attributes, which underlie students’ perception of quality, are required. Parasuraman et
al. (1993), therefore proposed that the consumer’s opinion of quality is formed by an
internal comparison of performance with expectation. Gaston and Nguyen (1997),
analyzing the concept of quality in business education with data of 388 respondents
from universities. He identified seven factors which influence students evaluations of
quality: reputation, administrative personnel, faculty, curriculum, responsiveness,
physical evidence and access to facilities. Sneider and Julie (1995) say” if we desire
to be responsive to the community, then we have to understand their expectations and
should borrow ideas from the business community to improve the quality education.
Brenda and Baron (2000) argued that there are many items related to duties carried out
by non academic staff e.g. administrators and faculty support staff, over whom the
academic staff may have no direct control. Academic staff should also take care of
non-academic issues in order that students attain satisfaction in their studies. The
students are not interested in university organizational hierarchies, and accept all
university staff to work together.
29
In his post doctoral study titled as “the contribution of the Private Sector to
Higher Education in Pakistan with particular reference to efficiency and equity” Niazi
(2006) argued that government has indicated that it does not have the resources to
cope with improving the higher education system on its own. It has, therefore, turned
to the private and NGOs sector as partners in this effort, by creating a policy
environment that would allow these two actors to become more involved, particularly
in the creation of new institutions. Some critics of the private higher education in
Pakistan are of the opinion that this sector is totally business oriented. According to
Coffman (1997), owners of private universities have been amassing huge money by
befooling the students in the name of their affiliation with one foreign university or
another. Only a few of the universities imparting postgraduate courses with affiliation
to foreign universities have sought the permission from UGC.
The benefits of higher education are both public and private, and the
contributions from the two sectors are called on to pay for higher education in all
countries of the world. Private benefits of graduates include their earnings and the
status based on their academic qualifications and the public benefits are amount of
taxes paid by them from their total income. The earning may be measured as these are
tangible whereas the status cannot be objectively measured, as this is a non-tangible
benefit. There is a very large range in the shares that different countries assign to the
public and private sectors. Wolanin (2000) states in “Financing Higher Education in
the United States: An Overview”:
In Korea, 84 percent of the total expenditures for higher education come from
private payments and only 16 percent from the public sector. In contrast, in Denmark,
30
0.5 percent of the total expenditures for higher education come from the private sector
and 99.5 percent from the public sector. In the United States, 52 percent of the total
expenditures for higher education come from private payments, which include 38
percent from households and 14 percent from other private contributors. This level of
private payments and household payments is exceeded only by Korea and Japan
among OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) industrial
or developed countries. The average among OECD countries is 20 percent of total
expenditures for higher education from private payments, of which 16 percent is from
households. Conversely, among OECD countries, the average share of higher
education expenditures from public support is 80 percent.
U.K. institutions were completely deregulated with respect to the capping of
tuition fees or chose to exercise their theoretical autonomy and take full control of
their destiny; it would be politically wise to have robust policies place in advance that
would ensure at least the same level of accessibility as at present. Oxford, for example,
must also be able to demonstrate the financial viability of such access and student
financial aid policies, funded (presumably) partly by charging much higher annual
tuition fees (£15K) to “Rich England” and rather higher fees (£10K) to “Middle
England” (taking into account affordability issues), while, of course, charging very
little (if anything at all, in order to maintain access) to “Poor England.”
Higher education in public and private sectors has expanded considerably in
the last few decades. The number of colleges and universities has increased.
According to Isani and Virk (2005) “at present there are 52 universities and degree
awarding institutes in the private sector that have received the charter from the HEC
31
and providing education in the fields of Engineering, Medicine, Management, and
other related technical and general fields”. The demand for higher education is
increasing rapidly due to its high rates of return and expanding size of middle class.
Modern higher education especially in science and technology is very costly. The
scarcity of public finance does not allow expansion of this level and therefore;
concerted efforts are being made to attract the private sector through encouraging
policy which includes financial incentives for acquiring land to establish institutions of
quality higher education in Pakistan.
Levy (2005) urges that higher education is regarded as a very expensive
undertaking and requires a careful analysis of its financial requirements in order to
ensure its sustainability. Since tuition and fees paid by students are the core financial
basis of private institutions, failure to meet enrolment goals or unaccounted expenses
can destabilize financial budgets, and threaten the survival of the institution. Tuitions
dependency also means students ability and or willingness to pay. As a result, this
could cause major issues of equity and access to private institutions. Therefore, if not
properly managed, private institutions could be instrumental in causing major drift in
class and social division
Ruch (2001) states that private institutions are responsible for their own
funding, along with internal governance and management, the relationship and due
diligence to students, parents, government and public authorities. Lessons from other
countries with established private institutions have shown that in the majority of cases,
institutions are financed by tuition payments from students. For example, in the USA,
nearly 95% for the profit colleges’ revenues is generated from tuition and fees in
32
contrast to 42.2% for private not-for-profit and 18.4% for public not-for-profits higher
academic institutions.
Court (1999) states that the management and governance of private higher
education is a complex endeavor. On the one hand, similar to other private ventures,
stakeholders are interested in making good profit, on the other hand; students and
parents want to insure quality academic standards. Achieving both these goals
demands serious analysis and consideration. A large number of research studies on
for-profit- private higher education have lamented on the poor quality of education in
favour of making a profit for the founders and stakeholders.
2.3 ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN
The private sector contribution creates a visible impact on educational
development. Privatization is expanded rapidly in developing countries. In all
developed countries, higher education is supported by private finance.
Kitaev (1999) explains that the most frequent and broad definition of private
education used is, “all formal institutions that are not public, and may be founded,
owned, managed and financed by actors other than the state”.
Kizalbash (1998) states that, in Pakistan, until recently one was not permitted
to start a private university. The only reason that private universities are being
established is that the government has no other choice. All the public universities were
in trouble. They were closed for weeks and months. Examinations were not held. If
you joined in 1996, perhaps you would graduate in 2020. Parents had given up hope in
the public universities and it was they who finally set the stage for the opening of the
33
private sector institutions. Parents, who wanted quality education for their children,
are the real motives for the establishment of private school, colleges and universities.
Private institutions offered a superior standard of education but these were
inaccessible to the poor sections of the society. They depended on their own financial
resources and charged tuition fees. The financial position of some of the private sector
institutions was not good. Private institution that has a little endowment and few
donations, has unfortunately either to charge high tuition fees or to keep its expenses
down, the teachers received less salaries and lacked physical facilities.
Govt. of Pakistan (1998) states about the role of private sector prior to 1972
that privately managed educational institutions constituted a sizeable portion of the
total educational system. Most of these institutions operated at the school and college
levels. Such institutions were administered and managed by voluntary organizations
and apart from generating their own funds through fees, attached property and
donations, the institutions also received grant-in-aid from the government.
Govt. of Pakistan (1989) describes that some private educational institutions
earned high reputation for the academic standards they maintained and for the quality
of their public instruction. However, in a vast majority, the educational conditions
were less satisfactory, the service conditions were poor, the staff salaries were low,
and job security was non-existent. In this situation, when the private educational
institutions were pursuing a faulty educational process, and the teachers were
dissatisfied, the Government in 1972 decided to take over the entire private managed
educational institutions. This was done through martial law Regulation No.118 which
proclaimed that “as from first day of September, 1972, all private managed colleges
34
together with all property attached to them shall vest in the government”. This brought
an end the long era of private managed institutions.
Govt. of Pakistan (1989) states that in pursuance of this policy, the Punjab
Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation), Ordinance No.11 of 1984
was passed in 1984. Similar Ordinances were adopted by the governments of NWFP
and Sindh. These ordinances provide for the registration of all private institutions with
a Registration Authority with the constitution of a managing body for each institution,
and spelling out the conditions for registration. Under these conditions, the
government approval was considered mandatory for the adoption of a fee structure by
each private institution. As a consequence of the promulgation of these ordinances in
the provinces, a second wave of community participation in education had been
energized. It is estimated that more or less 30,000 private educational institutions at all
levels with approximately 3 million students are functioning in the country.
Govt. of Pakistan (1989) describes about private institutions that the issue of
fees has been the subject of severe criticism by the society. These institutions,
whatever their medium of instruction, are not developing as institutions of equal
opportunity. Because of the high fee charged, the access of poor talented students to
these institutions remains evasive. There is nothing in the provincial ordinance, which
may prevent the private institutions from charging high fee. It is also important to
consider that in the absence of Grant-in-Aid from the government, fees remain the
only major source of income. On the other hand, most of the institutions are being
established with a profit motive.
35
Khan (1997) describes about nationalization that this was retrogressive step,
which literally ruined the excellent private educational institutions run by extremely
dedicated foreign missionaries and Pakistani NGOs like the Anjuman-e-Hamayat-e-
Islam. The standard in privately run institutions was generally higher than in
government institutions. Moreover, these institutions were self-financing and
supplementing in a very effective way the inadequate Governments efforts in the field
of education. This decision was taken without any consultation with educationists and
was taken purely on political grounds.
Govt. of Pakistan (1979) reviewed the consequences of nationalization and
concluded that in view of poor participation rates at all levels of education, the
government alone cannot carry the burden of the whole educational process and it was
considered necessary to encourage once again the participation of the community in
educational development. To do so, the following policy measures were adopted:
1. Private enterprise was encouraged to open educational institutions
particularly in rural areas.
2. Permission to set-up educational institutions was granted by the
Ministry of Education or respective Provincial Education
Departments.
3. The existing legislation on nationalization of privately managed
educational Institutions was suitably amended to allow opening of
private educational institutions and to ensure that such institutions set-
up with the permission of Government will not be nationalized in
future.
36
Baqir (1998) describes about the role of private sector that since the
government was not able to meet the educational needs of the population with its
given resources, the private sector continued to play an important role in providing
education. One important change that took place was the greater role of the private
sector in providing education at higher level, and the increased involvement of
government in primary and middle level education.
Hoodbhoy (1998) explains that before 1972, the private sector operated 51% of
colleges. Due to nationalization of educational institutions in 1972, the role of private
sector and NGOs for provision of education was briefly interrupted. But they resumed
their functioning in 1979 with the result that by 1990, 5000 educational institutions
were being run by non-government enterprises and organizations to provide education
from the primary to university level.
In view of the inability of our government to finance the public sector
universities in Pakistan fully, the need to encourage the private sector for establishing
universities in the country was felt seriously and the government, in its National
Education Policy, 1992-2002, clearly outlined the need for establishing universities
and institutions of higher learning through the private sector. The revival of
privatization is considered a useful activity for the much needed expansion of higher
education. Generally, the participation of the community in educational development
is viewed favourably “burden sharing” with the government.
Edelenbosch (1992) states that educational programmes are more likely to be
successful when there is significant community involvement and participation.
37
Parental involvement allows the programme to reflect the needs or concerns of the
community and gives parents more of a stake in the programmes overall success.
Muhammad (1988) describes that private sector had been playing an important
role in development of education. The government alone cannot achieve the targets.
However, he was of the opinion that the private sector also created the problems and
that the owners of the private institutions were not serving the nation. Most of the
private institutions are working on commercial basis and they did not recognize the
importance of national language.
Khalid (1991) concludes that private institutions are not working for the
benefits of the nation. They do not follow the policies of the government and they
design their own curriculum. Some institutions are spreading the Western education
and thoughts. Almost all private institutions have monopolized. Often they increase
their fees and funds and also get money in the name of uniform and books. The
expenses of such private institutions are not within the approach of a common man.
On the other hand, the condition of government institutions is very bad. They are
deteriorating day by day. Parents prefer to admit their children in private institutions
due to the deteriorating standard of the government institutions. Basically, the
development of private sector is not against the benefits of the country, but there
should be a check on it.
Verman (1992) states that there is a craze for management education and
getting the Master in Business Administration degree. The MBA programmes are
conducted by the university departments, affiliated colleges and institutes and by the
private organizations. But only a few of the university-affiliated colleges and institutes
38
are well equipped to conduct the courses for MBA. Their infrastructure, facilities,
faculty resources, libraries, research and other activities are not adequate to run the
management courses. Generally, an affiliated college appoints one full time director,
one or two full time faculty members and the visiting faculty members are taken from
the industrial field and nearby affiliated colleges for the conduct of management
courses. The faculty members who teach B.A. and B.Com courses start teaching
management courses without any orientation, without exposure to decision making in
the field of management operation.
Ahmed (1993) mentioned the drawbacks of private institutions. Firstly: the
heavy funds and fees, have deprived the poor sections of society to educate their
children in such institutions. Secondly: the system of private institution is harmful as
they have developed the system of different civilizations and offer foreign curriculum.
Some institutions are affiliated with foreign countries and producing new kind of
slavery. The institutions affiliated with foreign countries are even producing sub-
standard quality of education. There is also a complaint that some Govt. employees
have established the private institutions as a side business and earning the profit. As a
result, they cannot pay attention to the govt. institutions.
Khan (1997) states that the encouraging sign in the field of higher education is
the establishment of prestigious private sector universities like the Agha Khan Medical
University at Karachi, the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Technology at Topi and the
Lahore University of Management Sciences at Lahore. The most disturbing
development in the field of the higher education is the mushroom growth of private
universities affiliated with non-recognized foreign universities, working within a
39
single room and offering degrees in many applied subjects. The government needs to
have a regulatory mechanism for granting affiliation and monitoring their academic
standards and performance.
Ali (1997) concludes that privatization is, however, highly divisible and
controversial policy politically because it calls for redistribution of income and
changes in employment patterns. By relaxing controls and by deregulating the
economy, privatization helps the developing countries to crawl out of the economic
plagues. The privatization is in operation in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia,
Pakistan, England, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Eastern Europe, Mexico, Brazil and
Chile.
Coffman (1997) states that the growth of private higher education has had
some positive impacts. Private universities generally pay much higher salaries, and the
best ones offer quality libraries and research facilities. They tend to respond to the
public demand for modern, hands-on practical training in business and technology.
The schools are free to offer innovative curricula, unconstrained by bureaucratic
demands, to adhere to an outdated, set program. They usually offer more appealing
learning environments that are free of political conflict and physical decay. And they
have caused public universities to take a closer look at their own responsiveness to the
needs of students and the market.
Sanyal (1998) narrated the problems of privatization by saying that
privatization faces financial problems because, in most cases, laws usually do not
allow incentives for private contributions. There is a lack of donors in developing
countries and the business sector is too weak to support higher education. Fees being
40
the major source, institutions are equipped with low quality inputs, resulting in low
quality outputs, especially in excess-demand driven privatization.
Hoodbhoy (1998) concludes that the present thinking of the government is that
the university system is fatally ill and the only solution proposed is to let the private
sector build universities. But, privatization is not a panacea. True, the efficiency of
private organizations is higher than government ones. There is less wastage, more
accountability, greater attention to the quality of services provided, and more
responsiveness to the demand of the consumer (i.e., the student). On the other hand,
there are serious problems of equity and opportunity. Unlike education at lower level,
higher education requires huge capital input and, in order to make up the costs, high
fees must necessarily be charged.
Virk (1998) states that the private sector of higher education is opening up new
avenues of operation. The most important change is seen in their national outlook in
terms of appointment of faculty and student intake. Public sector universities have
traditionally been confined to their regions as far as the intake of students and teachers
is concerned. In terms of tuition fee and salary to the staff, new grounds are being
broken. A newly recruited lecturer, for example, in a private sector university gets
more pay than a professor of a public sector university. This new development in the
private sector is being watched with interest.
2.4 RELATED STUDIES
Niazi (2006) research on” the contribution of private sector to Higher
Education with particular reference to efficiency and equity”. The major objectives of
the study were to examine research activities, physical facilities, quality of faculty,
41
quality of students, annual output, fee structure and nature of jobs of faculty in private
universities. A case study of 10 universities/ higher education institutions within the
twin cities Rawalpindi and Islamabad was conducted. In order to collect the data 3
questionnaires were delivered to the administrators, faculty members and students of
the private higher education institutions and senior management of these institutions
were interviewed. Percentage and Pearson chi-square were used to find the results.
The major findings of the study were the sample universities were established in the
early nineties, but expanded with in twin cities Rawalpindi and Islamabad between
2001 and 2005.Amojority of privately managed higher education institutions were
offering programmes from B.A to Ph.D. level in various disciplines. The findings
show that students enrolled in these institutions were studying Management sciences
followed by Computer sciences, Telecommunication, and Software Engineering.
Seventy percent of the targeted institutions were following the semester system.
Majority of faculty in these institutions were full time lecturers and assistant
professors and they were well qualified. Majority of the faculty was between the age
of 26 to 40 years and they had 1 to 10 years teaching experience. But they delivered
well-prepared lectures and encouraged creative thinking. Internet facilities among
administrators, faculty members and students were available. Likewise latest journals
were also available in libraries of these institutions. A large majority of these
institutions were running in rented building and were owned by their trusts. The
targeted area institutions had well equipped science and computer laboratories,
playgrounds and adequate number of room, which were according to the need of
subjects being taught in targeted higher education institutions. These institution hold
annual sports, 40 percent of the institutions were availing hostel facilities 60 percent
42
student were provided with transport facility while medical facilities were not
available. Talented students were given scholarships while needy (poor) students were
given fee concession as well as loan. The degree awarded by these institutions was
recognized by the Higher Education Commission. The system of examination adopted
in these institutions was comparable with other national universities. Tution fees were
the main source of revenue in these institutions. Majority of the students were paying
tuition fee from Rs.25, 000 to Rs. 60,000 per semester. These institutions were mainly
monitored by their respective board of governors.
Hamidullah (2004) conducted a study on “comparison of the quality of higher
education in public and private sector institutions in Pakistan”. The objectives of the
study were to compare the quality of staff, quality of student, quality of infrastructure
of higher education in public and private institutions. The sample was twenty
universities/degree awarding institutions, ten each from public and private sectors. The
major findings of the study were that the teachers in private sector were confident and
competent than the public sector; the quality of students was better in private sector
than in public sector, private sector universities were far better than public sector
whereas playgrounds, common rooms, cafeteria, hostels, dispensaries and transport
facilities were better to a greater extent in public sector universities and lastly as far as
quality of management was concerned both sectors were weak.
“A Field Study on the state of education in Pakistan” was conducted by PEP
Foundation, Inc., U.S.A. in April – September 1999. This report was a product of
interviews and discussions with officials of the Ministry of Education and Higher
Education Commission (then University Grants Commission) Islamabad and with
43
university vice chancellors, college/university professors and students, and executives
of medium to large size businesses of major cities in Pakistan.
According to this report the education, especially higher education in Pakistan,
needs massive improvement both in quality and quantity. Currently less than 3% of
young Pakistanis in the age group of 17–24 are enrolled in college or university. At
present, there are only 30 universities in Pakistan. According to the study the standard
of education, especially in the public sector, and in science and technology is quite
modest. The quality education is limited to only a few institutions. Most of these
institutions are private, profit making and were beyond the reach of all except a very
small richer class. Thus, there is both a strong and an urgent need in Pakistan for
opening of new universities where quality education can be made available to young
men and women, especially from the economically disadvantaged families.
In 2002, the World Bank and UNESCO jointly conducted a study titled,
“Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise”. In this study efforts
were made to explore the future of higher education in majority of the developing
countries including Pakistan. In the report it was concluded that:
the endpoint of investment of the country on human resource development in
student’s time is that the existing system of higher education neither educates
learners to participate adequately in the income, social or political life of the
country nor creates the good society envisaged in the vision statement by the
Task Force. (Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise
2002;).
44
The report underlies that government needs to develop a new role regarding
higher education and should look into setting up the parameters for quality of
higher education. As a result of the report, in 2001, the government constituted
a task force to look into higher education with a view to its implementation. It
is notable that for the first time stakeholders from both public and the private
sectors were involved in this activity.
A study was conducted by the Boston Group for a contribution to the Task
Force on the Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan in 2001. The authors of the
report held a series of meetings with the key personnel of higher education in Pakistan
and benefited from their ideas at these forums. The report suggested the structural
reforms necessary to address problems facing Pakistani universities today. The report
focused on the institutional reforms, curriculum reforms, and fiscal reforms in the
higher education system of Pakistan. The report asserts its analysis as follows:
The lack of accountability in Pakistani universities is a direct consequence of
the flawed nature of the administrative structures in place. Several of the most
positions in the university management have responsibilities inappropriate to their
role, with limited authority and for which the position holders are not directly
accountable. The most problematic among these are the appointment of the vice-
chancellor by the chancellor with a nominal consultative process.
The theoretical framework of this study substantiates the vital and much
needed role of private sector in all tiers of education, especially in higher education.
The issue regarding the quality of education in private institutions is the main focus of
the study. It is a fact that quality of education cannot be enhanced in isolation. It has to
45
be coordinated with quality of management, quality of teaching staff, quality of
curricula, quality of infrastructure and quality of research, ultimately resulting in
quality graduates. The literature reviewed reveals that there is much controversy about
different aspects of privates sector. One group of authors’ view that in private sector
institutions, education is very costly which make students’ access difficult. Foreign
universities curricula are being taught in these universities. These institutions have
well qualified faculty. Their infrastructure meets the needs of students. These
institutions are providing quality education. But some authors reject this view about
the role of private sector institutions of higher education. Foreign experts conduced of
the studies, they made valuable contribution to the debate of higher education. They
report generalize the view of higher education without any empirical evidence.
Moreover, most of these studies carried out in that period when the number of private
higher education institutions was not enough. The study, which was carried out
recently, focused on the investigation of research activities, physical facilities, quality
of faculty, quality of students, annual output, fee structure and nature of jobs of
faculties in private universities. This study was delimited to the universities in twin
cities of Pakistan. It should not be generalized to know the entire role of private sector
in higher education in Pakistan. The present study was designed to investigate the
overall views of private sector universities in Pakistan.
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The major aim of the study was to examine the role of private sector in higher
education in Pakistan. The study was descriptive in nature. For this purpose, two
sources of data were used, namely, the primary sources and secondary sources. The
literature on private higher education in Pakistan was extensively reviewed. The
primary data were collected from the individuals directly engaged in the private
universities of Pakistan. Following methods and procedures were adopted for study:
3.1 POPULATION
All administrators, teachers and students of privately managed universities and
degree awarding institutions in Pakistan constituted the population from which
samples were drawn for the study. Population of the study constituted 270
administrators, 6180 teachers and 61108 students studying in 54 private universities
and degree awarding institutions in Pakistan (Appendix ‘D’).
3.2 SAMPLE
Method of cluster sampling was used in order to select the study sample of 840
people which was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, 12 clusters of
universities (Appendix ‘E’) were randomly chosen out of the total population of the 54
private universities. At the second stage, 60 administrators, 180 teachers and 600
students were selected through random sampling procedure with five administrators,
15 teachers and 50 students from each selected cluster.
46
47
3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The researcher prepared three separate questionnaires on the basis of literature
review. Three questionnaires - one each for administrators, teachers and students were
developed as instruments for data collection of primary data. The questionnaires
comprised of items mainly about the quality of various aspects of higher education.
These quality aspects are described by UNESCO (1998).
The main reason for selecting this method of collecting data from the
respondents was that they were all educated enough to understand questions in the
printed form. The other reasons for using questionnaire were the following:
1. Questionnaire as a tool for data collection is more appropriate than other
methods when the respondents are more in number and widely dispersed.
2. The use of questionnaire for collection of data is relatively cheaper
compared to other methods.
3. Questionnaire can easily be coded and analyzed. They were more amenable
to statistical analysis.
4. They can be quick to administer, enabling feedback on many things to be
gathered in a few minutes.
5. They can be used anonymously, allowing learners the chance at least of
giving negative feedback without the embarrassment of giving it publicly.
6. The chance of bias would be minimal because the respondent would free of
any pressure of being observed through these tools.
48
Some limitations of the use of questionnaires, according to Ellington et al.
(2003) are generated by the somewhat casual way that learners may address them,
particularly if confronted by too many questionnaires, too often. The limitations
include:
1. The Ticky Box syndrome: People become conditioned to make instant
responses to questions. Getting through the questionnaire quickly becomes
a virtue. Responses are made on a surface level of thinking rather than as a
result of reflection and critical thinking.
2. The Performing Dogs syndrome: Many people filling in questionnaires
tend to please the researcher. They can usually tell which responses will
please the people giving them the questionnaire and the people whose work
is involved in the issues covered by the questionnaire. If they like the
people, they are likely to comment favourbly on things.
3. Lost Learning opportunities syndrome: Questionnaires are often used after
the event rather than during it. This tends to minimize any real learning
outcomes of the process of completing questionnaires.
4. The ‘wysiwyg’ syndrome: ‘What you see is what you get’. Questionnaires
produce feedback on the particular issues covered but often not on other
important issues. There is a tendency to design questionnaires which will
give positive feedback.
5. Blue, Rosy and Purple, questionnaire: A major limitation of most
questionnaires is that responses are coloured by how people feel at the
moment of filling them in. If the same questionnaire were used a few days
49
later, some responses may be completely different. Yet the results are often
statistically analyzed as though they reflected permanent reactions to
questions and issues rather than fleeting, transient reactions.
Following three types of questionnaires (one for administrator, teachers and
students) were prepared:
3.3.1 Questionnaire for Administrators
The questionnaire (Appendix ‘A’) consisted of total 38 items out of which 30
were based upon 5 point likert scale. First part of the questionnaire was regarding the
personal history of administrators. Second part consisted of 7 items dealing with
management aspects. Third part consisting of 8 items, sought information from the
administrators regarding the infrastructure. Fourth part of the questionnaire contained
9 items in which information was asked about the quality of teachers. Fifth part of the
instrument consisting of two items asked about quality of students. One item was
asked about the curriculum and 3 items related to check the quality of the institutions.
The last item of the questionnaire was open-ended in which the administrators were
asked to write down some suggestions which could enhance the role of private sector
in promotion of higher education in Pakistan.
3.3.2 Questionnaire for Teachers
This questionnaire (Appendix ‘B’) consisted of total 43 items among which 36
items were based upon five point likert scale. The questionnaire developed for
teachers asked for the information regarding their academic qualification, gender,
experience and their suggestions to enhance the role of private sector in higher
education. Apart from it, questions about the management system consisted of 8
50
items. Second part of the questionnaire consisted of 6 items in which information was
asked about quality of infrastructure. Third part of the questionnaire related to the
quality of teachers which comprised 12 items. The forth part of the questionnaire was
about the curriculum which consisted of only one item. The fifth part of the
questionnaire comprised of 2 items about quality of students. The sixth part of the
questionnaire consisted of 7 items about quality of the institutions.
3.3.3 Questionnaire for Students
This questionnaire (Appendix ‘C’) consisted of total 29 items among which 25
were based upon five point likert scale. The questionnaire developed for students
asked for information regarding their gender, degree programme and their suggestions
to enhance the role of private sector in higher education. The first part of the
questionnaire dealt with the infrastructure and comprised of 8 items. Second part of
the questionnaire about the quality of teachers consisted of 10 items. Third part of the
questionnaire was about quality of students which comprised 2 items. Fourth part of
the questionnaire about the quality of institutions consisted of 4 items. In the last part
of the questionnaire, only one item was related to the curriculum. About one-third
items were common in the questionnaires meant for teachers, students and
administrators.
3.4 PRETESTING OF QUESTIONNAIRE
The pretesting of questionnaire was conducted in March, 2005. The researcher
personally visited two local private universities and administrated questionnaires
among ten members of administrators (five from each university), twenty members of
51
teaching faculty (ten from each university) and thirty students (fifteen from each
university). They were asked to complete the questionnaire carefully and give their
opinion about the items which were not clear and needed further improvement.
After a period of one week, the investigator collected the questionnaires from
the respondents and examined them carefully in consultation with the study
supervisor.
Keeping in view of the suggestions by the administrators, teachers and
students, the researcher refined the questionnaires.
The items of three questionnaires vary to some degree due to the following
reasons:
• Some items were common that had direct relevance the three categories of
respondents who could equally give their informed opinion on these aspects.
• Some items were uniquely relevant to one group of respondents only who were
competent enough to give their views on specific aspects.
3.5 DATA COLLECTION
The procedural steps followed in data collection are described below:
1. The investigator started data collection process on 6th of April, 2005 by
visiting each university and administering the questionnaire in person. He first visited
the University of Lahore. On the first day, he met two administrators and administered
them the questionnaires and got those questionnaires completed. On the next day, he
again paid a visit to the university and met with other three administrators. They
52
declined to provide information immediately due to their official commitment. They,
however, promised to return the completed questionnaires after four days.
Accordingly, they returned the questionnaires on appointed date.
In the meantime, the investigator got the questionnaires filled in from 25
students who were randomly selected first day and 25 were selected randomly on the
next day and students’ data collection was completed in two days. Researcher spent
rest of two days in receiving the questionnaire filled in by the teachers. The whole
process was thus completed in four days.
2. During the second phase of data collection, the research went to the University
of Central Punjab Lahore on 11th of April .He initiated the data collection process. On
the first day, he met three administrators and administered the questionnaires to them.
They filled in the questionnaires on the same day. On the next day, he was able to
contact with only one administrator and administered questionnaire to him. Due to his
preoccupation, he promised to return the questionnaire after three hours. He handed
over it to researcher in time. Similarly, on the third day, researcher was able to get the
questionnaire filled in by one administrator.
The investigator felt unusual difficulty in getting the questionnaires filled in
from the teachers and students because most of the time teachers were involved in
taking their classes and the problem with the students was that of their low attendance.
Fifteen teachers and 50 students were selected as sample. Whole process of data
collection from the administrators, teachers and students was completed in six days.
53
3. In the third phase of data collection, the researcher went to Hajvery University
Lahore on the 20th of April to administer the questionnaires to administrators, teachers
and students. Five administrators, 15 teachers and 50 teachers were selected as a
sample. The investigator took 10 days in getting the questionnaires filled in from the
administrators, teachers and the students because all of them were involved in
academic tasks.
4. The scholar next visited University of Faisalabad on 2nd of May for data
collection. On the first day, researcher got questionnaires filled in from two
administrators. On the next day, three other administrators filled in questionnaires. It
took six days in getting responses from five administrators, 15 teachers and 50
students.
5. The next institution visited by the investigator was Gandhara University of
Peshawar on 24th of May. On the first day, he tried to contact with administrators,
teachers and students but the researcher could not have an access to them. The
administrators promised to provide data after two days. Accordingly, the
questionnaires to five administrators, 15 teachers and 50 students were administered
who returned the same after five days. Students took most of time. But administrators
and teachers extended full cooperation.
6. The scholar reached Preston University Kohat on 28th of May. He came to
know that exams were being conducted in the university. By taking approval from the
vice chancellor, researcher contacted the students by visiting the hostel and took time
54
from teachers and administrators. The teachers and the administrators returned the
completed questionnaires after about five days.
7. After collecting data from Universities located in NWFP, the researcher visits
Isra University Hyderabad on 5th June. The administrators were hesitant to provide the
needed information. They suspected that information could be used against the
university. After great deal of persuasion, the researcher was allowed to administer
questionnaires to teachers, administrators and students. After hectic efforts, the author
managed to get data from the required sample in about three days.
8. The scholar then visited the Agha Khan University on 10th of June. The
administrators declined to provide the information. He, however, managed to get the
questionnaire completed only from 15 teachers and 50 students.
9. The investigator then visited the Hamdard University on 20th of June. He met
the administrators and administered questionnaires to five of them. They returned the
questionnaires after three days. The questionnaires were then given to 50 students who
delayed filling in the questionnaires and returned back questionnaires in ten days. 15
teachers returned the questionnaires within five days. Whole process was thus
completed in ten days.
10. The researcher visited the Jinnah University for Women on 2nd of July. The
administrators refused to cooperate while the author collected data from 15 teachers
and 50 students.
11. The scholar visited the Iqra University, Quetta on 14th of July and
administered questionnaires to teachers, administrators and students at the same time.
55
All showed positive response and cooperation and data were collected in four days
from administrators, teachers and students.
12. The author went to Foundation University Islamabad on 28th of July. He also
had to face many hardships in the beginning due to strictness of rules and regulations
of university. He had to visit many a time to get approval from the Rector. After
getting approval, The questionnaires were administered to teachers, administrators and
students. All of them returned the questionnaires after 15 days and researcher went
time and again to collect the data.
The response rate was 100 percent from the teachers and students while 83
percent administrators responded.
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS
The responses obtained through the above-mentioned research instruments
were scored before statistical analysis and interpretation.
The following scoring procedure was adopted:
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Un-decided 3
Disagree 2
Strongly disagree 1
The data collected were analyzed by using computer software SPSS version
11.0 by adopting the following procedures:
56
1. The researcher feeded the data into computer.
2. After the data feeding, the researcher checked the data values for any error
or abnormal value or out of range value for particular variable. This step is
called data clinic.
3. The data transformation technique was applied to compute the total scores
of three questionnaires and its subscales.
4. The frequencies of all demographic variables were taken. The statistics on
the scores of the questionnaires were computed, as cited below:
i) To determine the reliability of three questionnaires and its sub scale
Cronbach Alpha and Inter-scale correlation matrix were calculated
ii) t-test was applied to find the mean difference on the scores of three
questionnaires and its sub scales between two groups, on the
variable of gender, experience and nature of job etc.
iii) One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to find the
mean difference on the scores of three questionnaires and its sub
scales between three groups.
5. The suggestions given the administrators, teacher and students in response
to the open-ended questionnaire categorized in term of number of
responses in each category of suggestions and prioritized on the basis of
more frequent suggestions in descending order.
57
6. In order to interpret the findings obtained as a result of ANOVA, the mean
scores below 2.5 on five point likert scale were considered as negative
opinion and those above 2.5 were termed as positive opinion. The negative
and positive opinions were further graded as slightly below ±3.5, fairly
±3.5 and above and highly above ±4.0.
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the descriptive data.
The responses of the respondents on the quality of various aspects of higher education
in private universities, are tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in this chapter.
Table 9: Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall
questionnaire for administrators with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency.
Scales No. of Items Alpha Co-efficient
Overall Scale 30 .887
Quality of Management 7 .786
Quality of Infrastructure 8 .806
Quality of Faculty 9 .732
Quality of Students 2 .675
Quality of Institutions 3 .788
The above table shows the alpha reliability of the questionnaire for
administrators regarding role of private sector in higher education and its sub-
scales/areas. The figures indicate that there is moderate to high internal consistency
between the overall questionnaire and its subscales. The questionnaire appears to be
reliable measuring the role of private sector in higher education.
59 Table 10: Inter-scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for
administrators and its sub-scales/areas.
Scales Manag Infra Faculty Students Curr Inst Total
Quality of Management 1.0
Quality of Infrastructure .456** 1.0
Quality of Faculty .223 .434** 1.0
Quality of Students .376** .422** .676** 1.0
Quality of Curriculum .502** .375** .313* .385** 1.0
Quality of Institutions .418** .309* .547** .494** .187 1.0
Total .701** .779** .768** .712** .539** .677** 1.0
*p < .05; **p <.01
The above table states the correlation between the questionnaire for
administrators and its sub-scales/areas. All the values are positively correlated to each
other. There is a positive significant correlation among quality of infrastructure;
quality of faculty and quality of students i.e. .676 reflect that quality of students
increased with the increase of quality of faculty. Similarly, quality of the institutions is
significantly correlated with quality of management (.418), quality of faculty (.547)
and quality of students (.494). The total score of the questionnaire is highly correlated
with all its subscales at p < .01
60 Table 11: Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall questionnaire for
teachers with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency.
Scales No. of Items Alpha Co-efficient
Overall Scale 36 .743
Quality of Management 8 .462
Quality of Infrastructure 6 .448
Quality of Faculty 12 .515
Quality of Students 2 .421
Quality of Institutions 7 .481
The above table shows the alpha reliability of the questionnaire for teachers
regarding role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales/areas. The
figures state that there is moderate to high internal consistency between the overall
questionnaire and its subscales. The questionnaire appears to be reliable measuring
the role of private sector in higher education.
Table 12: Inter-scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for teachers regarding role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales
Scales Manag. Infra Faculty Cur Students Inst Total
Quality of Management 1.0
Quality of Infrastructure .265** 1.0
Quality of Faculty .216** .163* 1.0
Quality of Curriculum .265** .310** .196** 1.0
Quality of Students .310** .174* .186* .413** 1.0
Quality of Institutions .418** .425** .271** .283** .214** 1.0
Total .701** .624** .622** .499** .475** .742** 1.0
*p < .05; **p <.01
The above table illustrates the correlation between the questionnaire for
teachers regarding role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales/areas.
All the values are positively correlated to each other. There is a positive significant
61 correlation among quality of institutions, quality of students and quality of curriculum.
The total score of the questionnaire is highly correlated with all its subscales at p < .01
Table 13: Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the overall questionnaire for students with its subscales as a measure of its internal consistency.
Scales No. of Items Alpha Co-efficient
Overall Scale 25 .629
Quality of Infrastructure 8 .477
Quality of Faculty 10 .423
Quality of Students 2 .551
Quality of Institutions 4 .501
The above table indicates the alpha reliability of the questionnaire regarding
role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales/areas. The figures show
that there was high internal consistency between the overall questionnaire and its sub-
scales. The questionnaire is reliable for measuring the role of private sector in higher
education and its scales/areas and also provides satisfactory evidence of the reliability
of the scales.
Table 14: Inter-scale correlation matrix between the questionnaire for students regarding quality of various aspects of higher education
Scales Infra Faculty Students institution curri Total
Quality of Infrastructure 1.0
Quality of Faculty .150** 1.0
Quality of Students .156** .206** 1.0
Quality of Institution .219** .173** .232** 1.0
Quality of curriculum .260** .227** .184** .210** 1.0
Total .693** .696** .447** .572** .446** 1.0
*p < .05; **p <.01
62
The above table indicates the correlation between the questionnaire regarding
role of private sector in higher education and its sub-scales/areas. All the values are
positively correlated to each other. There is a positive significant correlation between
the quality of infrastructure, quality of faculty, quality of institutions, quality of
curriculum and quality of student. The total score of the questionnaire is highly
correlated with all its subscales at p < .01.
Analysis of common items of three questionnaires
Table 15: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students regarding the appropriateness of instructional facilities.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.00 1.44
Teachers 180 2.63 1.35
Students 600 2.31 1.43
Total 830 2.48 1.47
34.376**
**p<.01
The above table illustrates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students regarding the
appropriateness of instructional facilities at .01 level. The attitude of administrators
was more positive as compared to teachers and students whose views were slightly
negative.
Table 16: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of equipment to present and future needs of students and society
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.22 1.33
Teachers 180 2.74 1.53
Students 600 2.76 1.59
Total 830 2.84 1.60
20.615**
**p<.01
63
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of
equipment to present and future needs of students and society at .01 level. The
attitude of administrators was highly positive whereas that of teachers and students
was slightly negative.
Table 17: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sufficiency of books /periodicals that are available in the library.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.12 1.30
Teachers 180 2.24 1.07
Students 600 2.50 1.43
Total 830 2.54 1.41
38.605**
**p<.01
The above table illustrates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sufficiency of
books /periodicals that are available in the library at .01 level. The attitude of
administrators was found to be highly positive as compared to teachers and students.
Teachers viewed the sufficiency of books /periodicals in the library most negatively
Table 18: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the availability of internet facility in the institutions”.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.56 0.93
Teachers 180 4.18 1.07
Students 600 4.04 1.14
Total 830 4.10 1.12
5.618**
**p<.01
64 The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the availability of
internet facility in the institutions at .01 level. The attitude of administrators, teachers
and students was highly positive about availably of internet facilities in the
institutions.
Table 19: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sound training of teachers in teaching methodology.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.90 1.40
Teachers 180 3.33 1.20
Students 600 2.35 1.31
Total 830 2.66 1.39
63.963**
**p<.01
The above table indicates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the sound
training of teachers in teaching methodology at .01 level. The attitude of
administrators was more positive as compared to teachers and students whose views
were slightly negative.
Table 20: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’ command over the subject matter.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.72 1.35
Teachers 180 4.42 0.76
Students 600 1.83 1.00
Total 830 2.51 1.47
523.094**
**p<.01
65 The above table indicates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’
command over the subject matter at .01 level. The attitude of teachers was highly
positive as compared to administrators whereas that of students was fairly negative.
Table 21: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the encouragement of teachers for students’ class participation.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.74 1.27
Teachers 180 4.47 0.59
Students 600 3.92 1.20
Total 830 4.03 1.13
18.827**
**p<.01
The above table describes that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students concerning the
teachers’ encouragement for students’ class participation at .01 level. The attitude of
teachers was more positive as compared to administrators and students.
Table 22: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’ ability to create conducive class environment for learning .
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.58 1.31
Teachers 180 4.50 0.62
Students 600 2.75 1.53
Total 830 3.05 1.59
139.699**
**p<.01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the teachers’ ability to
66 create conducive class environment for learning at .01 level. Teachers’ attitude was
highly positive as compared to administrators whereas student’s views were slightly
negative.
Table 23: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about teachers’ encouragement in promoting critical and creative thinking among students.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.92 1.36
Teachers 180 4.43 0.68
Students 600 2.31 1.35
Total 830 2.87 1.53
220.557**
**p<.01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about teachers’ encouragement
promoting critical and creative thinking in students at .01 level. The attitude of
teachers was highly positive as compared to administrators and students whereas that
of students was slightly negative.
Table 24: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of
administrators, teachers and students about attitudes of teachers towards their students .
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.87 1.38
Teachers 180 4.34 0.69
Students 600 3.17 1.57
Total 830 3.46 1.50
47.981**
**p<.01
The above table illustrates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about attitudes of
67 teachers towards their students at .01 level. The attitude of teachers was highly
positive as compared to administrators and students.
Table 25: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about considering the merit and motivation of students during admission .
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.52 0.71
Teachers 180 2.37 1.21
Students 600 2.07 1.22
Total 830 2.28 1.32
97.165**
**p<.01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about considering the merit and
motivation of students during admission at .01 level. The attitude of administrators
was highly positive as compared to teachers and students whose views were most
negative.
Table 26: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of the subjects and content to present and future needs of the society being taught.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.30 1.19
Teachers 180 2.49 1.36
Students 600 2.06 1.14
Total 830 2.29 1.31
84.470**
**p<.01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the relevance of the
subjects and content to present and future needs of the society being taught at .01
68 level. The attitude of administrators was highly positive whereas that of teachers and
students was slightly negative.
Table 27: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the competitiveness of the private sectors graduate with public sector universities.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 3.92 1.41
Teachers 180 2.36 1.13
Students 600 1.90 1.04
Total 830 2.12 1.19
85.267**
**p<.01
The above table describes that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the
competitiveness of the private sector’s graduate with public sector universities at .01
level. The attitude of administrators was more positive as compared to teachers whose
views were slightly negative whereas that of students was found to be fairly negative.
Table 28: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators, teachers and students about the quality research producing in their institutions .
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 2.34 1.31
Teachers 180 2.77 1.38
Students 600 2.24 1.29
Total 830 2.36 1.33
11.151**
**p<.01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the quality research
producing in their institutions at .01 level. The attitude of administrators, teachers and
students was slightly negative about producing quality research.
69 Table 29: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of
administrators, teachers and students about the provision of quality education.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 4.20 1.17
Teachers 180 2.20 1.14
Students 600 2.27 1.30
Total 830 2.37 1.34
56.007**
**p<.01
The above table indicates that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of administrators, teachers and students about the provision of
quality education at .01 level. The attitude of administrators was more positive as
compared to teachers and students whose views were slightly negative
Table 30: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of
administrators, teachers and students about the quality of various aspects of higher education.
Category N Mean SD F-value
Administrator 50 58.82 10.32
Teachers 180 49.47 7.07
Students 600 38.30 7.07
Total 830 41.96 9.61
303.166**
**p<.01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
means scores of administrators, teachers and students at .01 level. However, figures
show that the administrators had most positive perceptions as compared to teachers
and students who expressed less and least positive opinion about the quality of various
aspects of higher education.
70
Table 31: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female administrators on the quality of various aspects of higher education.
Male(N=34) Female(N=16) Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 30.06 3.428 22.94 6.708 4.946**
Quality of Infrastructure 34.97 5.277 28.94 7.407 3.303**
Quality of Faculty 33.97 6.018 33.94 8.362 .016
Quality of Students 9.18 .936 8.63 1.996 1.338
Quality of Curriculum 4.79 .410 3.25 1.612 5.286**
Quality of Institutions 10.79 2.805 9.75 4.139 1.050
Total 123.76 11.510 107.44 24.536 3.223**
**p < .01
The above table indicates that there is statistically significant difference
between mean opinion scores of male administrators and female administrators on the
quality of management, quality of infrastructure, and quality of curriculum. Male
administrators had more positive opinion on these dimensions. However, no
significant difference in mean scores of male and female administrators existed on
quality of faculty, quality of students and quality of institutions.
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of male and
female administrators about the overall quality of higher education, the mean opinion
scores of male and female administrators was significantly higher than their female
counterpart.
71 Table 32: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of permanent
administrators and contract based administrators on the quality of various aspects of higher education.
Permanent (N=20) Contract (N=30) Scale Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 30.05 5.889 26.27 5.265 2.374*
Quality of Infrastructure 36.35 5.613 30.83 6.363 3.145**
Quality of Faculty 37.35 5.050 31.70 6.889 3.143**
Quality of Students 9.35 .933 8.77 1.569 1.493
Quality of Curriculum 4.75 .444 4.00 1.438 2.254*
Quality of Institutions 11.30 2.515 9.90 3.642 1.495
Total 129.15 15.301 111.47 16.714 3.788**
*p<.05; **p < .01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinion scores of permanent administrators and contract-based administrators on
the quality of management, infrastructure, faculty and quality of curriculum. The
figures indicate that permanent administrators had more positive opinions as compared
to contract-based administrators. However, no significant difference in mean scores of
permanent administrators and contract-based administrators existed on quality of
students and quality of institutions.
There was significant difference in the mean opinion scores of permanent
administrators and contract based administrators on the overall quality of higher
education, the mean opinion scores of permanent administrators being significantly
higher than contract based administrators.
72 Table 33: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators
possessing graduate and above academic qualifications on the quality of various aspects of higher education.
Scales Education Level N Mean SD F–Value
Graduate 9 21.78 4.711
Master 25 29.44 4.073 Quality of
Management M.Phil & above 16 28.56 6.613
7.688**
Graduate 9 27.56 7.350
Master 25 34.60 5.066 Quality of
Infrastructure M.Phil & above 16 33.69 7.078
4.417*
Graduate 9 29.44 9.029
Master 25 32.96 5.609 Quality of
Faculty M.Phil & above 16 38.06 4.892
6.358**
Graduate 9 7.67 2.236
Master 25 9.12 .927 Quality of
Students M.Phil & above 16 9.56 .814
7.133**
Graduate 9 2.33 1.323
Master 25 4.72 .678 Quality of
Curriculum M.Phil & above 16 4.75 .447
35.585**
Graduate 9 9.78 4.353
Master 25 10.28 2.951 Quality of
Institutions M.Phil & above 16 11.13 3.222
.550
Graduate 9 98.56 23.522
Master 25 121.12 9.884 Total
M.Phil & above 16 125.75 18.146
9.217**
*p < .05; **p<.01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinion scores of administrators possessing graduates and above academic
qualifications on the quality of management, infrastructure, faculty, students and
quality of curriculum. The administrators with M.Phil and above level of education
had more positive opinion on the sub scales. However, no significant difference in
73 mean scores of possessing graduates and above academic qualifications existed on
quality of institutions.
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of administrators
possessing graduate qualifications and those possessing above graduate academic
qualification on the overall quality of higher education. The mean opinion scores of
administrators possessing M.Phil and above qualification being significantly higher
than administrators possessing graduate and master academic qualification.
Table 34: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of administrators having greater and lesser administrators experience on the quality of various aspects of higher education
Upto 10 years experience (N=28)
Greater than 10 years experience (N=22)
Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 26.00 6.538 30.05 3.539 -2.599*
Quality of Infrastructure 31.96 7.341 34.41 5.387 -1.309
Quality of Faculty 32.46 7.010 35.86 6.073 -1.803*
Quality of Students 8.64 1.592 9.45 .858 -2.155*
Quality of Curriculum 3.93 1.464 4.77 .429 -2.613*
Quality of Institutions 9.32 3.507 11.91 2.238 -2.980**
Total 112.32 20.181 126.45 11.640 -2.921**
*p<.05; **p < .01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinion scores of greater and lesser administrators’ experience on the quality of
management, quality of faculty, quality of students, quality of curriculum and quality
of institutions. The figures indicate that administrators who had greater than 10 years’
experience expressed positive opinion on these dimensions. However, no significant
differences in mean scores having greater and lesser administrators’ experience
existed about quality of infrastructure.
74
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of administrators
with greater and lesser experience about the overall quality of higher education, the
mean opinion scores of experienced administrators being significantly greater than
administrators with less experience.
Table 35: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and female teachers on the quality of various aspect of higher education.
Male(N=113) Female(N=67) Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 27.43 4.450 24.13 4.352 4.848**
Quality of Infrastructure 17.27 4.027 15.90 3.372 2.340*
Quality of Faculty 43.68 5.179 41.87 4.609 2.367*
Quality of Curriculum 2.61 1.312 2.28 1.433 1.561
Quality of Students 6.41 1.916 5.63 1.841 2.679**
Quality of Institutions 21.35 4.462 17.96 3.226 5.445**
Total 118.75 13.829 107.76 10.159 5.660**
*p<.05; **p < .01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
mean perception scores of male teachers and female teachers on the quality of
management, quality of infrastructure, quality of students and quality of institutions.
Male teachers had more positive opinion on these dimensions. However, no significant
difference in mean scores of male teachers and female teachers existed on such area as
quality of curriculum.
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of male and
female teachers on the overall quality of higher education, the mean opinion scores of
male and female teachers was significantly higher than their female counterpart.
75 Table 36: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of permanent,
contract based and visiting teachers’ on the quality of various aspect of higher education
Scales Nature of job N Mean SD F–Value
Permanent 39 27.10 5.418
Contract 75 27.56 3.239 Quality of
Management Visiting 66 24.14 4.933
11.504**
Permanent 39 17.54 5.046
Contract 75 16.92 2.954 Quality of
Infrastructure Visiting 66 16.11 3.879
1.836
Permanent 39 46.69 6.096
Contract 75 42.84 3.417 Quality of
Faculty Visiting 66 41.02 4.764
18.723**
Permanent 39 3.05 1.317
Contract 75 2.59 1.295 Quality of
Curriculum Visiting 66 2.05 1.341
7.505**
Permanent 39 6.36 2.242
Contract 75 6.51 1.446 Students
Visiting 66 5.53 2.070
5.160**
Permanent 39 22.56 4.919
Contract 75 20.60 2.918 Quality of
Institution Visiting 66 18.05 4.504
16.479**
Permanent 39 123.31 17.464
Contract 75 117.01 3.751 Total
Visiting 66 106.88 14.333
24.958**
**p<.01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
mean perception scores of permanent, contract based and visiting teachers on the
quality of management, quality of faculty, quality of student, quality of curriculum and
quality of institutions at .01 level. On all these scales permanent teachers have more
positive opinion as compared to contract based and visiting teachers. However, on the
scores of quality of infrastructure there is no mean difference.
76 Table 37: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of Professors
and lecturers on the quality of various aspect of higher education
Prof(N=115) Lecturer(N=65) Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 28.10 3.908 22.85 4.024 8.579**
Quality of Infrastructure 17.68 3.607 15.12 3.731 4.509**
Quality of Faculty 44.47 4.818 40.42 4.359 5.609**
Quality of Curriculum 2.81 1.330 1.92 1.241 4.393**
Quality of Students 6.63 1.597 5.22 2.118 5.045**
Quality of Institutions 21.70 4.040 17.25 3.354 7.531**
Total 121.38 10.110 102.77 10.659 11.63**
*p < .05; **p<.01
The above table states that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinion scores of professors and lecturers on the quality of management,
infrastructure, faculty, curriculum, students and quality of institutions. However, the
trend shows that professors have more positive perception as compared to lecturers on
these sub scales.
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of professors and
lecturers on the overall quality of higher education, the mean opinion scores of
professors is significantly higher than lecturers.
77 Table 38: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of greater and
Lesser teachers’ experience on the quality of various aspect of higher education
Greater than 5 years
(N=85) Upto 5 years (N=95)
Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Management 27.12 4.368 25.39 4.825 2.508**
Quality of Infrastructure 16.62 3.967 16.87 3.748 -.435
Quality of Faculty 44.07 5.268 42.05 4.648 2.730**
Quality of Students 2.80 1.343 2.21 1.328 2.957**
Quality of Curriculum 6.54 1.900 5.74 1.869 2.860**
Quality of Institutions 20.98 3.786 19.29 4.695 2.626**
Total 118.13 12.448 111.56 13.975 3.315**
*p<.05; **p < .01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinions scores of greater and lesser teachers’ experience on the quality of
management, faculty, student and quality of institutions. The figures state that overall
teachers who have greater than five years experience having more positive opinion on
these dimensions. However, no significant differences in mean scores of greater and
lesser teachers’ experience existed on area as quality of infrastructure.
78 Table 39: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of three level
of education of teachers on the quality of various aspect of higher education
Scales Education Level N Mean SD F–Value
Above Master 31 28.68 4.339
Master 129 26.08 4.491 Quality of
Management Graduate 20 23.20 4.629
9.270**
Above Master 31 18.68 4.316
Master 129 16.53 3.487 Quality of
Infrastructure Graduate 20 15.20 4.360
6.047**
Above Master 31 47.65 4,903
Master 129 41.88 4.154 Quality of
Faculty Graduate 20 43.05 6.428
19.764**
Above Master 31 3.32 1.222
Master 129 2.40 1.345 Quality of
Curriculum Graduate 20 1.80 1.056
9.463**
Above Master 31 7.13 1.708
Master 129 6.00 1.879 Quality of
Students Graduate 20 5.30 1.976
6.759**
Above Master 31 23.61 4.326
Master 129 19.52 3.969 Quality of
Institutions Graduate 20 18.30 4.194
14.918**
Above Master 31 129.06 9.416
Master 129 112.41 11.536 Total
Graduate 20 106.85 16.721
29.390**
*p < .05; **p<.01
The above table indicates that there is statistically significant differences
between mean perception scores of graduates, masters and above master level of
education on the quality of management, infrastructure, faculty, curriculum, students
and quality of institutions. On all these scales the teachers with above master level of
education have more positive opinions on all these scales.
79 Table 40: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and
female students on the quality of various aspects of higher education
Male(N=314) Female(N=286) Scale
Mean SD Mean SD
t-value
Quality of Infrastructure 26.33 4.336 19.88 4.311 18.260**
Quality of Faculty 29.55 4.982 24.79 5.061 11.595**
Quality of Students 4.35 2.107 3.55 1.514 5.328**
Quality of Institutions 11.44 3.435 8.77 2.811 10.360**
Quality of Curriculum 2.39 1.229 1.69 .908 7.831**
Total 74.06 8.572 58.68 6.734 24.281**
**p < .01
The above table shows that there is statistically significant difference between
mean opinion scores of male students and female students on the quality of
infrastructure, faculty, students, institutions and quality of curriculum at .01 level. The
trend states that male students having more positive perception as compared to female
students.
Significant difference was found in the mean opinion scores of male and
female students on the overall quality of higher education, the mean opinion scores of
male students being significantly higher than female students.
80 Table 41. Significance of differences between mean opinion scores of level of degree
of the students on the quality of various aspect of higher education
Scales Level of degree N Mean SD F–Value
BCS/BIT 180 20.07 4.822
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 25.55 4.924 Quality of
Infrastructure MA&above 125 22.43 4.630
74.204**
BCS/BIT 180 23.76 4.878
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 29.80 5.249 Quality of
Faculty MA&above 125 26.42 3.919
87.651**
BCS/BIT 180 3.37 1.273
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 4.39 2.154 Quality of
Students MA&above 125 3.82 1.715
17.757**
BCS/BIT 180 8.83 2.890
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 11.37 3.500 Quality of
Institutions MA&above 125 9.25 2.931
41.293**
BCS/BIT 180 1.66 .841
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 2.34 1.273 Quality of
Curriculum MA & above 125 1.96 .995
22.292**
BCS/BIT 180 57.69 8.029
MBBS/MCS/MBA 295 73.45 9.803 Total
MA & above 125 63.88 4.479
205.109**
**p<.01
The above table shows that there is statistically mean differences between level
of degree of the students on the score of students questionnaire and its subscale. The
figure shows that there is a significant mean difference between three level of degree
of the students on the quality of infrastructure, quality of faculty, quality of student,
quality of curriculum, quality of institutions and overall scores. On all these scales the
students who enrolled in Master degree perceived more positive about the role of
private sector in higher education in Pakistan as compared to others. This mean
difference is statistically highly significance as p<.01.
81 Table 42: Significance of difference between mean opinion scores of male and
female administrators, teachers and students about quality of various aspects of higher education.
Gender N Mean SD t-value
Male 461 45.75 8.77
Female 369 37.22 8.44
14.56**
**p<.01
The above table describes that there is statistically significant difference
between means scores of male and female administrators, teachers and students on
common items of the questionnaires at .01 level. However, figures state that the male
administrators, teachers and students expressed more positive views as compared to
female administrators, teachers and students on the quality of various aspects of higher
education.
Table 43. Suggestions by administrators to enhance the role of private sector in the promotion of higher education in Pakistan.
Sr.No Suggestions Frequency
1 HEC should encourage private sector by providing guidance and
financial support
11
2 HEC should offer scholarships to both the teachers and students like
public sector universities
9
3 There should be highly qualified teachers in private sector
universities
8
4 Teaches’ salaries in private sector should be enhanced 7
5 There should be a collaboration/coordination between public and
private sector universities for the enhancement of research oriented
studies
6
N=50
As the above table indicates, the suggestions that to improve the role of private
sector in promotion of higher education as viewed by the administrators include,
according to the order are HEC should encourage private sector by providing guidance
82 and financial support, Higher Education Commission should offer scholarships to both
the teachers and students like public sector universities, there should be highly
qualified teachers in private sector universities teachers’ salaries in private sector
should be enhanced, there should be a collaboration/coordination between public and
private sector universities improve of research studies.
Table 44. Suggestions by teachers to enhance the role of private sector in the promotion of higher education in Pakistan.
Sr.No Suggestions Frequenc
y
1 Higher Education Commission guide as well as the Govt
should help financially to improve the infrastructure such as
laboratories and training
41
2 Research oriented study should be encouraged 35
3 Merit should be strictly followed 33
4 Higher Education Commission should play its role to check
private universities
30
5 Education should promote intellectual excellence, not
business alone
26
N=180
As the above table indicates, the suggestions that to enhance the role of private
sector in promotion of higher education as viewed by the teachers include, according
to the order are Higher Education Commission should guide as well as the Govt
should help financially to improve the infrastructure such as laboratories and training,
research oriented study should be encouraged, merit policy should be strictly
observed, HEC should play its role to monitor private universities and education
should promote intellectual development, not business alone.
83 Table 45. Suggestions by students to enhance the role of private sector in the
promotion of higher education in Pakistan.
Sr.No Suggestions Frequency
1 Fee should be less 120
2 Higher Education Commission must keep a check on private
universities
78
3 The Govt should give respect to the private sector 55
4 Co-curricular activities should be arranged in private sector 50
5 Talented students should be awarded scholarships 35
N=600
As the above table indicates, the suggestions that to enhance the role of private
sector in promotion of higher education as viewed by the students include, according
to the order are Fee should be less, Higher Education Commission must keep a check
on private universities, the Govt. should give regard to private sector, co-curricular
activities should be arranged in private sector universities and talented students be
awarded scholarships.
84 Table 46. Students’ enrolment in private and public sector universities
during the year 2003-04
Private Public
no % no %
Enrolment 61108 14.44 362128 85.56
Source: Higher Education Commission, 2005
Above table shows that the enrolment of students in private sector universities
was 14.44 percent of the total students population in universities of Pakistan.
Table 47. Students produced by private and public sector universities during the year 2003-04
Private Public
no % no %
Students produced 11842 10.03 106214 89.97
Source: Higher Education Commission, 2005
Above table indicates that the students produced by private sector universities
was 10.03 percent of the total students population in universities of Pakistan.
Table 48. Number of full time and part time faculty members in private and public sector universities during the year 2003-04
Private Public
no % no %
Faculty members 6180 16.51 31248 83.49
Source: Higher Education Commission, 2005
Above table depicts that the teaching faculty in private sector universities was
16.51 percent of the total teaching faculty in universities of Pakistan.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, it was found that all administrators responded more
positively as compared to teachers about the quality of higher education on all the
dimensions. On the contrary, students expressed negative reactions on almost all facets
of higher education. Responses of administrators and students were thus found to be
conflicting. Administrators supported the system perhaps because they designed and
implemented the policies of their institutions. It seems evident that they were less
likely to accept failure. On the other hand, students are keen and sharp observers of the
system being tested and implemented upon them who were being charged heavy fees.
Therefore, their opinion may be considered as more balanced, fair, realistic and closer
to the ground realities. It was revealed in the study that male administrators, holding
richer experience, higher qualification and enjoying permanent job with fringe
financial benefits expressed greater satisfaction with quality of management and
curriculum. This finding may also be subjective because this category of
administrators forms the central core of the administrative machinery who are virtually
responsible for running the system.
It was found in the present study that male professors and teachers possessing
higher qualification, longer experience and job security strongly backed up the quality
aspects of higher education in their institutions. The reasons for such optimistic view
may also be more personal than professional.
This was also revealed in the study that male students enrolled in master
degree programs expressed more positive opinion concerning such quality components
of higher education as infrastructure, standard of teaching faculty and curriculum of
85
86 higher level courses. It may be due to the fact that male students feel themselves to be
more adjusted to the system due to nature of Pakistani society that tends to be male
dominated. All the respondents were found to have positive opinion about provision of
Internal facilities. This finding is in the line with Niazi (2006) who reported
availability of Internet facilities in private universities. All the categories of
respondents were also in agreement on teacher’s attitudes toward students by ensuring
class participation and task oriented approach to teaching. All respondents, on the
contrary, expressed slightly negative opinion about the suitability of instructional
facilities and consideration of present and future societal needs. This finding partially
supports Khalid (1991) who expressed that curriculum being offered in private
universities was not fully responsive to the demand of the society. Kizbalbash (1998)
was also of the same opinion. Paucity of books in the library, lack of expertise in the
subject matter and lack of focus on development of students creative and critical
thinking skills also surfaced as the weak areas in the private sector of higher
education. Quality of research was adjudged to be poor by all respondents. Verman
(1992) also held that research activities in private universities and degree awarding
institutions were inadequate and insufficient.
It is generally acknowledged that most of private universities were established
keeping in the view financial gains whose administration has not much do with the
needs and aspirations of people. The administrators running universities have their
vested interests to protect instead of providing quality education.
It was found in the study that all respondents expressed fairly negative opinion
about considering motivation and merit as the sole admission criteria. Bernasconi
(2004) supported this finding who held that there is no difference in students selection
87 in higher education in private universities. Sanyal (1998) also supported the response
who found that poor inputs in private universities result in incompetent output. The
study also found that graduates of the private sector universities were lagged much
behind in competition as compared to the graduates of public sector universities. Levy
(2002) also supported this finding. He held that private sector universities play little
role in quality enhancement of higher education. Hamidullah (2004) however, found
contrarily by indicating that students of private universities were far better and highly
skilled as compared to the graduates of public universities. The reason of difference in
results may be that questionnaire administered by the researcher consisted of items in
which private universities respondents have an edge over public sector universities
respondents.
Although the researcher made an effort to obtain views of the stake holders
about actual state of functioning of private universities and identify problems and
prospects of private universities, yet the results of the study may be erroneous. Ground
realities regarding the issue of genuineness of conducting credible research in Pakistan
are still debatable because the respondents did not give sufficient time for filling in the
questionnaires or concealed true opinions about reality due to a variety of personal
reasons. They only tended to tick the columns or rows in a questionnaire without
giving much thought and attention to the statements. It would have better to interview
the respondents involved in the system of private sector. Moreover, parents of the
students could also be contacted about existing facilities and flaws of the private
sector. Teaching system, methodology and technology being used in the classroom
could be directly observed for assessment and evaluation of daily classroom teaching.
Moreover, achievement test could be developed and administered to the students of
88 the institutions of private sector for the assessment and evaluation of their actual
performance.
In addition to the above, other possible flaws of the study might be the
inadequate sample of the study. The present study was conducted at national level and
the study population comprised all administrators, teachers and students of universities
and institutions of higher learning in the private sector. The sample was delimited to
only 840 comprising 60 administrators, 180 teachers and 600 students which was not
representative enough because of using the cluster sampling technique. Had random
sampling been used and instead of cluster sampling more authentic results would have
been obtained.
SUMMARY
Pakistan is a developing country, which is far behind other countries in every
field of life, especially in higher education. Major reason of lagging behind is the lack
of human and capital resources. Since the government is not able to meet the
educational needs of the population with its limited resources, the private sector is a
playing a vital role in providing higher education in various disciplines. In order to
meet the challenges of new era, there is great need of significant role to be played by
the private sector in providing and promoting education, especially higher education,
as the entire history of rise and fall of nations reveals that human resources of a nation
determine the character and pace of its socio-economic development. The experience
of advanced countries shows that progress and prosperity owes a lot to the promotion
and growth in education, especially higher education.
The major purpose of the study was to examine the role of private sector in
higher education in Pakistan by adopting descriptive approach to research. The main
objectives of the study were: to compare the views of administrators, teachers and
students about the quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the
views of administrators both male and female, permanent and contract based about the
quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the views of male teachers
and female teachers, permanent, contract based and visiting teaching faculty, about
the quality of various aspects of higher education, to compare the views of male
students and female students about the quality of various aspects of higher education,
to determine the share of private sector of higher education in the term of student’s
89
90
enrolment and teaching faculty and to suggest measures for improvement of private
sector universities in Pakistan.
As the study was conducted at national level, the population of the study
constituted 270 administrators, 6180 teachers and 61108 students in existing 54
private universities and degree awarding institutions of Pakistan. Method of cluster
sampling was used to select the study a sample of 840 people which was carried out in
two stages. At the first stage,12 clusters of universities were randomly chosen out of
the total population of the private universities. At the second stage, 60 administrators,
180 teachers and 600 students were selected through random sampling procedure with
five administrators, 15 teachers and 50 students from each selected cluster. Three
questionnaires (one each for administrators, teachers and students) developed and
validated through pre-testing were used as research instrument to collect data. The
researcher personally visited each university and collected data from the sample. The
collected data was tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using t-test and ANOVA.
Conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made in the light of the
objectives and findings of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions were drawn in the light of findings of study:
1. All respondents were found to have positive opinion about the availability of
internet facilities, encouragement of teachers for students class participation,
teachers’ ability to create conducive class environment for learning and whole
some attitude of teachers toward their students.
2. All respondents expressed slightly negative opinion about the appropriateness
of instructional facilities, relevance of the equipment to present and future
needs of students and society, sufficiency of books/periodical available in the
library, sound training of teachers in teaching methodology, teachers’
command over the subject matter, teachers’ encouragement in promoting
critical and creative thinking among students, relevance of the subjects and the
contents to present and future needs of society and quality of research.
3. All respondents exhibited fairly negative opinion about considering the merit
and motivation of students during admission and competitiveness of the private
sector graduates with public sector universities.
4. Male, experienced, permanent and more highly qualified administrators
indicated favourable opinion about the quality of higher education, particularly
quality of management and quality of curriculum.
91
92
5. Male professors, teachers with higher levels of degree, teachers possessing
greater experience and permanent teachers evidenced more favourable opinion
about the quality of higher education, especially the quality of institutions.
6. Male students and those who enrolled in master degree programmes expressed
more favourable opinion about the quality of higher education, especially
about dimensions of quality of infrastructure, quality of faculty, quality of
students, quality of curriculum and quality of institutions.
7. All administrators had highly positive opinion as compared to teachers about
the quality of all aspects of higher education whereas students rated almost all
aspects of higher education negatively.
8. Male respondents exhibited more positive views about the quality of various
aspects of higher education.
9. All administrators included in the sample suggested that Higher Education
Commission should encourage the private sector by extending them financial
assistance and guidance so that scholarships be offered to the students and
well-qualified faculty be hired. They also stressed mutual collaboration and co-
operation between public and private sector universities to ensure quality of
research.
10. The teachers included in the sample viewed that private sector institutions of
higher learning should improve their infrastructure such as laboratories and
libraries to ensure better research oriented studies and Higher Education
Commission should provide financial help in this regard. They also stated the
93
Higher Education Commission should play its supervisory role effectively to
encourage merit and intellectual excellence and discourage pure
commercialism in private sector universities and degree awarding institutions.
11. The students included in the sample demanded that Higher Education
Commission should keep a check on the private sector universities so that
reasonable fees are charged. Government should subsidize the private sector
institutions. They also suggested promotion of co-curricular activities in these
institutions and awarding of scholarships to the talented students.
12. Private sector universities shared the load of higher education to the extent of
15 percent in terms of student community and 16.5 percent in terms of
teaching staff. The output of the private sector was 10.3 percent as compared to
the public sector. The contribution of private sector universities in promoting
higher education in Pakistan is therefore quite visible. The performance and
share of private sector is likely to have improved further by now because above
mentioned statistics pertained to the year 2003-04.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of conclusions, following recommendations are made:
1. The study results show that the curriculum being taught at private universities
was not up to the mark which was not meeting the demands of the changing
world. It is recommended that curricula be revised and upgraded to the
international level. The curricula should be according to the present and future
needs and demands of the society. Due to ever-changing world, the curricula
be continuously updated to ensure that recent developments are incorporated
and the national needs regarding manpower training are appropriately taken
into account. The syllabi be given need orientation in consultation with the
organizations of commerce and industry to be duly represented in university
bodies so that the graduate students are well equipped with the knowledge and
skills required in the job market.
2. As revealed by the study results, the research facilities in private universities
were not adequate enough. Basic and applied research, being the essence of
higher learning, be given as much importance as teaching by striking.
3. The study indicates that due consideration was not given to merit in student
admission procedure. Merit should be the sole consideration for entry to
private universities. Access to higher education, therefore, be based on entry
tests that measure the aptitude and ability of suitable candidates for higher
learning. For construction of valid and reliable aptitude/ability tests, the
services of National Testing Service be fully utilized.
94
95
4. The results of the present study reveal that the libraries of private universities
need to be comparable with international standards. These libraries be
equipped with latest books, journals, periodicals and reference material related
to the courses. Furthermore, audio-visual aids and multi-media system be made
available in the libraries. Information technology should be introduced in every
private sector university and facilities for internet, e-mail etc. be provided.
5. Teacher is the central log in the machinery of any educational system. It is
universally acknowledged that no system of education can be better than its
teachers. It was found that due consideration was not given to meritorious
teachers in recruitment procedure. There should be standardized criteria for
selection and recruitment of teachers in private universities. There should be
regular in-service teacher-training programme for professional development of
teachers serving in private universities.
6. The deterioration of quality and main emphasis given to quantitative expansion
in private universities is the current trend in Pakistan. There must be no
compromise over quality of higher education in privately managed
universities. Quality and quantity should go together.
96
RECOMMANDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In the light of the lessons learnt while conducting the study, the following
recommendations are made for future studies in this area:
1. The present study was conducted at national level but the sample was limited to
only 840 persons comprising 60 administrators, 180 teachers and 600 students.
The future studies may be conducted with larger samples.
2. The questionnaire was used as the tool to collect data. Taking into account the
inherent flaws of a questionnaire survey, observational studies are also necessary
to replicate the present study and verify the results obtained there from.
3. Comparative studies between private and public sector of higher education may be
launched on the similar topics in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses in
both the sectors of higher education. Such studies may generate useful data for the
policy makers and administrators to improve the quality of both these sectors.
4. In order to examine the role of private sector in higher education, surveys may be
carried out to discover the contributions of private sector in providing skilled
manpower to the job market.
5. In order to bring the graduates of local universities at par with international
standards, standardized achievement tests in various disciplines be developed and
administered by the National Testing Service to the out-going students and their
97
performance on the standardized achievement tests be also incorporated while
determining their over all great point average.
6. The study was conducted at tertiary level of private education. Similar studies may
also be carried out at primary and secondary levels.
LITERATURE CITED
Ahmad, K.1984. Principles of Islamic Education. Islamic Publications Ltd. Lahore.
P.2.
Ahmad. 1993. Pakistan Main Taleem aur Niji Shouba. In Mujalla Taleem. Institute of
Policy Studies, Islamabad. pp. 228-231.
Ali, A. 1997. Pakistan Today 1947-1997. 2nd edition, Sethi Books. Lahore. pp. 38-173.
Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role Transitions in Organizational Life. Mahwah, N. J.;
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baqir, F. 1998. The Role of NGOs in Education. In: Hoodbhoy, P. (ed.) Education and
the State. Fifty years of Pakistan. Oxford University Press. Oxford. pp. 177-
178.
Barnett, R. 1992. Improving Higher Education. Buckingham Society for Research in
Higher Education and Open University Press. London. pp.27,52.
Bernasconi. 2004. External Affiliation and Diversity :Chile ’s Private universities in
International Perspective. Dean of the Law School, Universidad de Talca,
Chile. www.albany.edu/dept/easps/prophe/pulication/paper.html last search
date 20-11-2006
Boorstin, D. 1958. The Americans: The Colonial Experience. New York: Random
House.
98
99
Brenda, M. and O. Baron. 2000. Student Perceptions of Service Quality in a UK
University Business and Management Faculty. Quality Assurance in
Education. 8-2:85-95.
Brigham, S. 1994. 25 snapshots of a Movement: Profiles of Campuses implementing
CQI, American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC.
Castro, Cláudio de Moura, and D. C. Levy. 2000. Myth, Reality, and Reform: Higher
Education Policy in Latin America. Washington D. C.: Inter-American
Development Bank: Distributed by The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Clark. 1995. Burton R. Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in
Modern Universities. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.
Coffman, J. 1997. Private Higher Education in Pakistan. The need of order U.S.
Educational Foundation, Islamabad. p. 3.
Court, D. 1999. Challenge and response in African Higher Education. International
Higher Education, No. 15. The Boston College Centre for International Higher
Education.
Dotchin, I. A. and J. S. Oakland. 1994. Total Quality Management in Services, Part
III: Distinguishing Perceptions of Service Quality. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management. 11-4.
Edelenbosch, G. 1992. Female Literacy and Education through Non-Formal Sector
Literacy and Basic Education in Pakistan. Report of the Seminar, organized by
National Education and Training Commission in Collaboration with UNICEF.
P.55
100
Ellington, H., F. Percival and P. Race. 2003. Handbook of Educational Technology.
3rd edition. Kagan Page Ltd. Nichols Publishing Company, New Jersey, USA.
pp. 157-158.
Gaston, A. and P. Nguyen. 1997. Searching for excellence in Business Education: an
Exploratory Study of Customer Impressions of Service Quality, International
Journal of Educational Management 11(2):72-79.
Geiger, R. L. 1986. Private Sectors in Higher Education: Structure, Function and
Change in Eight Countries. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1998. National Education Policy Draft. Ministry of Education.
Islamabad. P.1.
Govt. of Pakistan, 1992. National Education Policy 1992. Ministry of Education,
Islamabad. P.30-34
Govt. of Pakistan. 1947. Proceeding of the Pakistan Education Conference. Ministry
of Interior Education Division. Karachi. p. 9.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1979. National Education Policy and Implementation Programme.
Ministry of Education. Islamabad. pp. 26-92.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1983. The Sixth Five Year Plan. 1983-88. Ministry of Education
Islamabad. P. 395, 397.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1988. The Seventh Five Year Plan. 1988-93. Ministry of Education
Islamabad. pp. 192-193.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1989. National Education Conference. Ministry of Education.
Islamabad. pp. 53-54.
101
Govt. of Pakistan. 1993. The Eighth Five Year Plan. 1993-98. Ministry of Education,
Islamabad. pp. 303-320.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1998. The Ninth Five Year Plan. 1998-2003. Ministry of Education.
Islamabad. pp. 4,27,28.
Govt. of Pakistan. 1998. National Education Policy. 1998-2010. Ministry of
Education. Islamabad. pp. 65,108.
Gupta, A. and I. Chen. 1995. Service Quality: Implications for Management
Development. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
pp.28-35.
Hamidullah, M. 2004 Comparison of the Quality of Higher Education in Public and
Private Institutions in Pakistan (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University
Institute of Education And Research, University of Arid Agriculture,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Hampton, G. 1993. Gap Analysis of College Students Satisfaction as a Measure of
professional Service Quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing,
9:115-127.
Higher Education Commission. 2005. Statistics on Higher Education. http://www.
hec.gov .pk/htmls/stat .doc last updated on 10.12.2005.
Hoodbhoy, P. 1998. Education and the State. Fifty Years of Pakistan. Oxford
University Press. New York. pp. 178-282.
102
Isani U.A.G. and M. L. Virk. 2005. Higher Education in Pakistan: A Historical and
futuristic Perspective” Second Edition; National Book Foundation Islamabad.
pp. 25-26, 155-156.
Isani, U.A.G. and M. L. Virk. 2003. Higher Education in Pakistan: A historic and
futuristic perspective. National book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan. pp. 4-8,
169-312.
Kelly. 2001. Meeting needs and making profits: the rise of for-profit degree granting
institutions. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States. P. 25.
Kettinger, W. I. and C.C. Lee. 1995. Perceived service quality and users Satisfaction
with the Information Services Function. Decision Sciences. 25(5/6):737-766.
Khalid, M. 1991. Literacy and Basic Education in Pakistan. Taleem-o-Tahqeeq
Session 1990-91. Institute of Education and Research Punjab University,
Lahore. P. 43.
Khalid, T. 1998. Education: An Introduction to Educational Philosophy and History.
National Book Foundation, Islamabad. P. 83.
Khan, A. 1997. Education in Pakistan, Fifty years of Neglect. In. Qureshi, S. (ed). The
Pakistan Development Review. 36(4). Pakistan Society of Development.
Economists. Islamabad. pp. 650-659.
Kitaev, I. 1999. Private Education in Sub-Saharan Africa a re-examination of theories
and concepts related to its development and finance. International Institute for
Educational Planning. Paris. P. 43.
103
Kizalbash, H. 1998. Higher Education in Pakistan. The Private Sector. In. Talati et. al.
(eds.) Higher Education, A Path Way to Development Oxford University
Press. Karachi. pp. 48-49.
Levy, D. C. 1982. The Rise of Private Universities in Latin America and the United
States In Margaret Archer ed. Sociology of Education Expansion: Take- Off
Growth, and Inflation in Educational Systems. London.
Levy, D. C. 1992. Private Institutions of Higher Education. Vol. 2. In Burton Clark
and Guy Neave ed. The Encyclopedia of Higher Education. New York City:
New York Pergamon Press.
Levy, D. C. 2002. Profits and Practicality: How South Africa Epitomizes the Global
Surge in Commercial Private Higher Education. Paper delivered at the
Understanding Private Higher Education in South Africa, Benoni. South
Africa.
Levy, D. C. 2005. Legitimacy and private higher education in Eastern Europe.
International Higher Education. No. 38. The Boston College Centre for
International Higher Education.
McDaniel, I. R. and M. A. Louargand. 1994. Real Estate Brokerage Service Quality:
an Examination, the Journal of Real Estate Research, 9(3):339-351.
Muhammad, M. 1988. Pakistan main Primary Taleem. Tahkiki-o-Tajziati Mutalia,
Beacon Books, Multan. pp. 205-206.
104
Naqvi, S.H. 2003. Guidelines for The Establishment of a New University or an
Institution of Higher Education. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad,
Pakistan. P. 1
Niazi, H. K. 2006. The contribution of the Private Sector to Higher Education in
Pakistan with Particular Reference to Efficiency and Equity. Post-Doctoral
Study (unpublished) at Institute of Education, University of London, UK.
Nightinagle, M. 1983. Defining Quality for a Quality Assurance porgramme. As study
of perceptions. PQCS Management Consultants, London.
North, P. 1997. Higher Education, Ills & Hopes, European Journal of Education.
P.192.
Parasuraman, A., L. Berry and V. Zeithaml. 1993. More on Improving Service Quality
Measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69: 140-147.
PEP Foundation. 1999. The State of Education in Pakistan. PEP Foundation Inc. USA,
www.pepfoundation.com, searched date 15-04-2004.
Phongpaichit, P. and Chris B. 1996. Thailand’s Boom, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai,
Thailand. P.236
Prachayani, P. 2004. Pakistani Private Universities Request Deadline Extension on
License Withdrawals. www.albany.edu/dept/easps/prophe/publication/news/
summary pakistan1.html. last updated October 29, 2006.
Prachayani, P. 2006. Private Sector Helps Promote Pakistani Higher Education.
www.albany.edu/dept/easps/prophe/publication/news/ summary pakistan2.
html. last updated October 29, 2006.
105
Qazi M. H. 2006. Education with the state and with out state. The Daily “Jang” (July
17), Lahore. Pakistan. P 7.
Quddus, A. 1979. Education and National Reconstruction of Pakistan. S.I. Gillani.
Lahore. P.137.
Reeves, C. A. and D. Bednar. 1994. Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications.
Academy of Management Review. 19(3): 419-445.
Ruch, R. S. 2001. The rise of the for profit university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Sanyal, C. 1998. HEP Contributions No. 30. Diversification of Sources and the Role
of Privatization in Financing Higher Education in the Arab States Region.
International Institute of Education Planning. Paris. pp. 14-37.
Sneider, G. and Y. Julie. 1995. Schools Beginning to Treat Students as Customers.
The Business Journal. Milwaukee: Nov. 13(5):23-42
The Boston Group’s Report: 2001. Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform
Agenda, A Contribution to the Task Force on Improvement of Higher
Education in Pakistan.
The World Bank. 2002. Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise.
http://www.tfhe.net/resources/pakistan.htm., searched on 11-10-2005
UGC. 1998. Handbook: Universities of Pakistan. University Grants Commission
Islamabad, Pakistan. P. 5.
UNESCO, 1998. Higher Education in Twenty First Century: Vision and Action. Paris.
pp. 5-23.
106
Verman, 1992. Management Education in India. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd. New Delhi. p. 105-106.
Virk, M. 1998. Universities of Pakistan. 1998. Hand Book. University Grants
Commission. Islamabad. P. 6.
Wolanin, T. R. 2000. Financing Higher Education in the United States: An Overview.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/author_index.htm Searched
date 07-2-2005
Zemsky, R., W. F. Massy and P. Oedel. 1993. On Reversing the Ratchet. Change,
May/June, 56-72.
119
Appendix F FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNANCE
1.1 The model framework of the governance of a university or an institution of higher education in the private sector has been provided for the information of the concerned. 1.2 Salient features of the framework 1.2.1 An institution with a minimum of four or more departments (out of which one should be in basic sciences) will be eligible for the charter of a university. An institution having less than four departments will be eligible for grant of charter as a degree awarding institution. 1.2.2 The Senate of a private/public sector institution should consist of the following: i) the Chancellor who shall be the Chairperson of the Senate; ii) the Vice-Chancellor; iii) one member of the Government not below the rank of Additional Secretary from
the Ministry of Education or any other department relevant to the special focus of the University;
iv) four persons from society at large being persons of distinction in the fields of administration, management, education, academics, law, accountancy, medicine, fine arts, architecture, agriculture, science, technology and engineering such that the appointment of these persons reflects a balance across the various fields: Provided that the special focus or affiliation of the University, to be declared in the manner prescribed, may be reflected in the number of persons of distinction in an area of expertise relevant to the University who are appointed to the Senate;
v) one person from amongst the alumni of the University; vi) two persons from the academic community of the country, other than an
employee of the University, at the level of professor or principal of a college; vii) four University Teachers; and viii) one person nominated by the Commission.
120
Appendix-G
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ISLAMABAD
Adviser (A&C)
No. 15-01/UGC/AA&C/2002/720 March 22, 2002
Notification
Subject: Revised criteria/norms for the establishment of a new university or a
degree awarding institute in the public and private sectors
In substitution to the earlier criteria/norms and the guidelines issued by the UGC (in the year 2000) for the establishment of a new university or an institute, the revised criteria/norms on the subject as approved by the Government are hereby notified as follows:
2. The revised criteria/norms on the subject are at Forms PU-02 and PI-02. 3. Some of the salient parameters of the criteria/norms are as under:
i) The criteria shall also apply to the public sector universi-ties/institutions. ii) The revised criteria shall also be applicable in case of those universities, which
have already been granted charter in the private sector. They can be allowed a grace period of up to five years to meet the standard requirements.
iii) The power to grant affiliation to any institution shall be available to a university/institute which has built-in quality criteria, judged by the UGC/Higher Education Commission (HEC).
iv) Institutions already established shall have their affiliation powers withdrawn through amendment in their Acts.
v) Affiliated institutions shall not be allowed to admit students after a grace period of five years. Students already admitted in affiliated institutions would be allowed to complete their degree programmes.
vi) There shall be flexibility in applying the condition of land to existing universities. The Virtual Universities shall be excluded from the condition of land.
vii) The expression “Higher Education Commission” where ever appearing in the criteria shall be read as “Higher Education Commission/University Grants Commission”.
viii) The condition of Ph.D. would not be pre-requisite in case of Professors and Associate Professors of professional colleges (such as Law Colleges) functioning as faculties of the universities.
121
ix) Internet connection of 256 Kbytes shall be one of the criteria for grant of charter to the universities.
x) The criteria may be adopted by all the Provincial Govern-ments. 4. The revised/norms criteria inter alia determine the basic standards and conditions, which will have to be fulfilled by the sponsors. 5. The revised criteria/norms have been incorporated in the guidelines available at UGC’s website www.ugc.edu.pk under “Guidelines for Establishing a New University/Institute”.
122
Form PU-02
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION
Sector H-9, Islamabad URL : www.hec.gov.pk
General Criteria/Norms for the Establishment of a New University
University: Any degree awarding institution of higher education having four or more departments will be eligible for grant of charter for a university.
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Departments (Physics, Chemistry etc.)
Minimum 4 departments (out of which one should be in Basic Sciences) in case of general university
1:12 Maximum for Science subjects involving lab. work
Teacher: Student ratio (desirable)
1:20 For others
Departments
No. of administrative staff including laboratories, library & other staff for miscellaneous duties
Equal to teaching staff
Teaching Faculty
Teachers
At least 24 teachers (full time). Six full time teachers (out of which two must be holder of Ph.D. degree) in case of opening a branch campus other than the main campus of the university
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Professor 1 Associate Professor 1 Assistant Professors 2
No. of teachers (full time) required (cadre-wise) per department
Lecturers 2
Associate Professor and Professor
Must be holder of Ph.D Degree. This condition would not be pre-requisite in case of professional colleges (such as law colleges) functioning as faculties of the universities
123
Journals Subscription to at least 15 current journals of international repute with impact factor of at least 100. Access to electronic journals to be provided
Libraries
Books required At least 1500 books from major international publishers in the relevant field
Hall/Lecture theatres (desirable)
12 to 15 sq. ft. per student
Facilities
No of rooms required (desirable)
2 lecture rooms per Department, 1 seminar room, 1 Library cum Reading room, 1 committee room
Teaching and Administrative Staff Offices
Required for each University (desirable)
1 Staff room 1 Faculty office for each department
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
No. of laboratories required (desirable)
At least 1 Lab. per department with appropriate space
Workshops (desirable)
35 to 45 sq ft. per student
PC (desirable) 1 for 3 students in case of IT courses
Laboratories/ Workshops/ PC/Internet service (Desirable)*
Internet service (desirable)
256 Kbytes access rate shall be provided
Area in acres 10 acres at least (depending upon the location having potential for further development). There shall be flexibility in applying the condition of land to the existing universities. Virtual universities shall be excluded from the condition of land
Built-in/covered Area (desirable)
Minimum 100 sq ft. per student.
Gross Area
General facilities: office, staff rooms, cafeteria, reading room, auditorium, committee room, conference room, housing for staff, parking space, and toilets etc.
Basic facilities for staff and students
Min. Max.
Cubicles (desirable)
80 120
Dormitories (desirable)
50 80
Dining (desirable) 8-10 12-15
Hostels (Desirable)
Gross space (desirable)
200 250
124
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Scholarships
Scholarships and freeships
At least 10% of the students to be given scholarships
Research Funding of research
10% of the institutional budget to be specified for research
Inspection Peer review One scientist having an impact factor of at least 100 will be associated in the inspection of the institution for NOC clearance
Rating Star system Higher Education Commission (HEC) shall carry out rating exercise of private universities and grant star system based on their performance and excellence. The information shall be made public for general awareness
Endowment Fund (Se-cured in the name of Trust/Society)
Rs. 50.0 million (not applicable in case of public sector university)
Tangible assets in the form of land/building etc.
Rs. 100.0 million
Working Capital Rs.50.0 million (not applicable in case of public sector university)
Finance
Total: Rs. 200.0 million
*The standardization of the laboratories shall be in accordance with the specifications of the HEC.
125
Component Standards/Norms
Senate 1) The body responsible for the governance of the University/Institute shall be described as the Senate, and shall consist of the following, namely:–
(a) the Chancellor who shall be the Chair-person of the Senate;
(b) the Vice-Chancellor;
(c) one member of the Government not below the rank of Additional Secretary from the Ministry of Education or any other department relevant to the special focus of the University/Institute;
(d) four persons from society at large being persons of distinction in the fields of administration, management, education, academics, law, accountancy, medicine, fine arts, architecture, agriculture, science, technology and engineering such that the appointment of these persons reflects a balance across the various fields:
Provided that the special focus or affiliation of the University/Institute, to be declared in the manner prescribed, may be reflected in the number of persons of distinction in an area of expertise relevant to the University/Institute who are appointed to the Senate;
(e) one person from amongst the alumni of the University/Institute;
(f) two persons from the academic community of the country, other than an employee of the University/Institute, at the level of professor or principal of a college;
(g) four University/Institute Teachers; and
(h) one person nominated by the Commission.
Component Standards/Norms
(2) The numbers of the members of the Senate described against clauses (e) to (h) of sub-section 1 may be increased by the Senate through Statutes subject to condition that the total membership of the Senate does not exceed twenty-one, with a maximum of five University/Institute Teachers, and the increase is balanced, to the extent possible, across the different categories specified in sub-section (1).
(3) All appointments to the Senate shall be made by the Chancellor. Appointments of persons described in clauses (e) to (f) of sub-section (1) shall be made from amongst a panel of three names for each vacancy recommended by the Representation Committee and in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed.
(4) Members of the Senate, other than ex officio members, shall hold office for three years. One-third of the members, other than ex officio members, of the first restructured Senate, to be determined by lot, shall retire from office on the expiration of one year from the date of appointment by the Chancellor. One-half of the remaining members, other than ex officio members, of the first restructured Senate, to be determined by lot, shall retire from office on the expiration of two years from the date of appointment and the remaining one-half, other than ex officio members,
126
shall retire from office on the expiration of the third year:
Provided that no person, other than an ex officio member, may serve on the Senate for more than two consecutive terms:
Provided further that the University/Institute Teachers appointed to the Senate may not serve for two consecutive terms.
Component Standards/Norms
Safeguards 1. The President of Pakistan or Governor of the province as the case may be should be Patron of the University.
2. The Patron shall have the powers to cause a visitation to be made on the request of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the University and shall, from time to time, direct any person or persons to inquire into or carry out inspection of the University.
3. The powers to grant affiliation to any institution shall be available to a University which has built in quality criteria, judged by the HEC.
4. Institutions already established shall have their affiliation powers withdrawn through amendment in their Acts.
5. Affiliated institutions shall not be allowed to admit students after a grace period of five years. Students already admitted in affiliated institutions would be allowed to complete their degree programmes.
6. Campuses located in one city of a private university/institution will be considered collectively as one unit for the application of the new criteria. However, the campus of a private university located in other cities would be treated as a new institution and the same criteria will be applicable to each campus.
7 The HEC would be the competent authority to grant accreditation, validate courses and syllabi of the University which shall be subject to quality standards set by the HEC. The accreditation will be withdrawn if found that the institution is unable to satisfactorily demonstrate its ability and commitment to achieve and maintain national academic standards. 8.
Component Standards/Norms
8. The University shall be liable to provide facilities to the representatives of the Higher Education Commission, the Pakistan Engineering Council, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council or such similar relevant organizations for visitation to enable them to verify that the University is maintaining appropriate academic standards.
9. The HEC shall be competent to carry out periodic inspections and monitoring of the institution.
10. The University shall have to work within the framework of the Education Policy and other law or policy framed/amended by the Government of Pakistan/HEC/Provincial Governments from time to time.
11. The University shall be required to strictly comply with the constitutional provisions and law and abide by social, religious, ethical and cultural
127
ethos and values. 12. Activities of the University shall be restricted to teaching, research and
services only. 13. Double entry system accounts shall be maintained by the University. 14. Each University shall have its annual accounts audited by the competent
auditors.
Note
• The criteria shall also apply to Public Sector Universities.
• The above criteria shall also be applicable in case of those universities, which have already been granted charter in the private sector. They can be allowed a grace period of up to five years to meet the standard requirements from the date of approval by Federal Cabinet i.e. 27 February, 2002.
• Other conditions as specified by the HEC in the “Guidelines for the Establishment of a New University or an Institution of Higher Education” will remain valid.
128
Form P1-02
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION
Sector H-9, Islamabad URL : www.hec.gov.pk
General Criteria/Norms for the Establishment of a New Institute of Higher Education
Degree awarding Institute: Any degree awarding institution of higher education having less than four disciplines will be eligible for grant of charter as a degree awarding institute.
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Departments (Physics, Chemistry etc.)
Minimum 1 department in case of an institute
1:12 Maximum for Science subjects involving lab. work
Teacher: Student ratio (desirable)
1:20 For others
Departments
No. of administrative staff including laboratories, library & other staff for miscellaneous duties
Equal to teaching staff
Teaching Faculty
Teachers
At least six full time teachers per department.
Professor 1 Associate Professor 1 Assistant Professors 2
No. of teachers (full time) required (cadre-wise) per department Lecturers 2
Associate Professor and Professor
Must be holder of Ph.D Degree.
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Journals Subscription to at least 15 current journals of international repute with impact factor of at least 100. Access to electronic journals to be provided
Libraries
Books required At least 1500 books from major international publishers in the relevant field
129
Hall/Lecture theatres (desirable)
12 to 15 sq. ft. per student
Facilities
No of rooms required (desirable)
2 lecture rooms per Department, 1 seminar room, 1 Library cum Reading room, 1 committee room
Teaching and Administrative Staff Offices
Required for each University (desirable)
1 Staff room 1 Faculty office for each department
No. of laboratories required (desirable)
At least 1 Lab. per department with appropriate space
Workshops (desirable)
35 to 45 sq ft. per student
PC (desirable) 1 for 3 students in case of IT courses
Laboratories/ Workshops/ PC/Internet service (Desirable)*
Internet service 256 Kbytes access rate shall be provided Gross Area Area in acres 3-1/3 acres at least (depending upon the location
having potential for further development)
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Built-in/covered Area (desirable)
Minimum 100 sq ft. per student
General facilities: office, staff rooms, cafeteria, reading room, auditorium, committee room, conference room, housing for staff, parking space, and toilets etc.
Basic facilities for staff and students
Min. Max.
Cubicles (desirable)
80 120
Dormitories (desirable)
50 80
Dining (desirable) 8-10 12-15
Hostels (Desirable)
Gross space (desirable)
200 250
Scholarships Scholarships and free-ships
At least 10% of the students to be given scholarships
Research Funding of research
10% of the institutional budget to be specified for research
Inspection Peer review One scientist having an impact factor of at least 100 will be associated in the inspection of the institution for NOC clearance
130
Rating Star system HEC shall carry out rating exercise of private institutes and grant star system based on their performance and excellence. The information shall be made public for general awareness
Component Nature of Requirement Standards/Norms
Endowment Fund (Se-cured in the name of Trust/Society)
Rs. 15.0 million
Tangible assets in the form of land/building etc.
Rs. 25.0 million
Working Capital Rs.10.0 million
Finance
Total: Rs. 50.0 million
*The standardization of the laboratories shall be in accordance with the specifications of the HEC. Component Standards/Norms
Senate 1) The body responsible for the governance of the University/Institute shall be described as the Senate, and shall consist of the following, namely:–
(a) the Chancellor who shall be the Chair-person of the Senate;
(b) the Vice-Chancellor;
(c) one member of the Government not below the rank of Additional Secretary from the Ministry of Education or any other department relevant to the special focus of the University/Institute;
(d) four persons from society at large being persons of distinction in the fields of administration, management, education, academics, law, accountancy, medicine, fine arts, architecture, agriculture, science, technology and engineering such that the appointment of these persons reflects a balance across the various fields:
Provided that the special focus or affiliation of the University/Institute, to be declared in the manner prescribed, may be reflected in the number of persons of distinction in an area of expertise relevant to the University/Institute who are appointed to the Senate;
(i) one person from amongst the alumni of the University/Institute;
(j) two persons from the academic community of the country, other than an employee of the University/Institute, at the level of professor or principal of a college;
(k) four University/Institute Teachers; and
(l) one person nominated by the Commission.
Component Standards/Norms
(2) The numbers of the members of the Senate described against clauses
131
(e) to (h) of sub-section 1 may be increased by the Senate through Statutes subject to condition that the total membership of the Senate does not exceed twenty-one, with a maximum of five University/Institute Teachers, and the increase is balanced, to the extent possible, across the different categories specified in sub-section (1).
(3) All appointments to the Senate shall be made by the Chancellor. Appointments of persons described in clauses (e) to (f) of sub-section (1) shall be made from amongst a panel of three names for each vacancy recommended by the Representation Committee and in accordance with procedure as may be prescribed.
(4) Members of the Senate, other than ex officio members, shall hold office for three years. One-third of the members, other than ex officio members, of the first restructured Senate, to be determined by lot, shall retire from office on the expiration of one year from the date of appointment by the Chancellor. One-half of the remaining members, other than ex officio members, of the first restructured Senate, to be determined by lot, shall retire from office on the expiration of two years from the date of appointment and the remaining one-half, other than ex officio members, shall retire from office on the expiration of the third year:
Provided that no person, other than an ex officio member, may serve on the Senate for more than two consecutive terms:
Provided further that the University/Institute Teachers appointed to the Senate may not serve for two consecutive terms.
132
Component Standards/Norms
Safeguards 1. The President of Pakistan or Governor of the province as the case may be should be Patron of the Institution.
2. The Patron shall have the powers to cause a visitation to be made on the request of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the Institute and shall, from time to time, direct any person or persons to inquire into or carry out inspection of the Institute.
3. The powers to grant affiliation to any institution shall be available to an Institute which has built in quality criteria, judged by the HEC.
4. Institutions already established shall have their affiliation powers withdrawn through amendment in their Acts.
5. Affiliated institutions shall not be allowed to admit students after a grace period of five years. Students already admitted in affiliated institutions would be allowed to complete their degree programmes.
6. Campuses located in one city of a private institution will be considered collectively as one unit for the application of the new criteria. However, the campus of a private institution located in other cities would be treated as a new institution and the same criteria will be applicable to each campus.
7. The HEC would be the competent authority to grant accreditation, validate courses and syllabi of the Institute which shall be subject to quality standards set by the HEC. The accreditation will be withdrawn if found that the institution is unable to satisfactorily demonstrate its ability and commitment to achieve and maintain national academic standards.
Component Standards/Norms
8. The Institute shall be liable to provide facilities to the representatives of the Higher Education Commission, the Pakistan Engineering Council, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council or such similar relevant organizations for visitation to enable them to verify that the Institute is maintaining appropriate academic standards.
9. The HEC shall be competent to carry out periodic inspections and monitoring of the institution.
10. The Institute shall have to work within the framework of the Education Policy and other law or policy framed/amended by the Government of Pakistan/HEC/Provincial Governments from time to time.
11. The Institute shall be required to strictly comply with the constitutional provisions and law and abide by social, religious, ethical and cultural ethos and values.
12. Activities of the Institute shall be restricted to teaching, research and services only.
133
13. Double entry system accounts shall be maintained by the Institute. 14. Each Institute shall have its annual accounts audited by the competent
auditors.
Note
• The criteria shall also apply to Public Sector Institutions.
• The above criteria shall also be applicable in case of those institutes, which have already been granted charter in the private sector. They can be allowed a grace period of up to five years to meet the standard requirements from the date of approval by Federal Cabinet i.e. 27 February, 2002.
• Other conditions as specified by the HEC in the “Guidelines for the Establishment of a New University or an Institution of Higher Education” will remain valid.