Email a copy of 'Pakistani University Rankings' to a friend

* Required Field

Your Name: *

Your E-Mail: *

Your Remark:

Friend's Name: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.

Friend's E-Mail: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.

Image Verification: *

 Loading ...

984 responses to “Pakistani University Rankings”

1. Bilal Zuberi says:

   October 5, 2006 at 9:55 am

   Owais,
   All my siblings studied at NED, and only the youngest has recently moved to KU for his Ph.D. work. So I can tend to have a natural bias as well.
   But I think this discussion could also focus a bit on the general state of higher education in Pakistan, and how deplorable it is despite the sheer talent in students that pass through them. I have had the privilege of visiting a few departments in Pakistani universities, and I have been utterly disappointed at the lack of motivation (or even ability) in the faculty’s ability to teach and/or conduct research. Infact, a group of us have already proposed to HEC to establish a faculty training academy which essentially re-teaches undergraduate level stuff to all the existing faculty. It is unfortunate that most faculty in Pakistan (and I stress, not all) don’t even know their basic subject matter as well as a good undergraduate student in their fields from good universities in the US or Europe or Japan would. I know people who studied at NED and are doing terrifically well, but its probbaly because they were geniuses themselves, not because their institutions developed them.

2. Yahya says:

   October 5, 2006 at 9:33 am

   [quote comment=”3713″]Owais few days back I emailed to Adil bhai with some links about same issue. NED did react back strongly. Dr. Shamsul Haq and Dr.NOman wrote a lengthy article on last Sunday’s dawn.[/quote]

   Link????

3. Sohail says:

   October 5, 2006 at 8:57 am

   On the student ranking, if you look at teh details on the page it is quite clear that, no, places liek PU will not have an advantage because of what you say. The 17 points reserved for student are further distributed as follows:

   Student produced having 16 years of education (2)
   Student produced having M.Phil/16 + years of education (3)
   Number of Ph.D. Produced (4)
   Student Selectivity (5)
   % of students getting admission having 60% and above marks (3)

   The last two are clearly about student quality. The first focusses only on ‘university’ eductaion, so even a BA degree will not count. And number 2 and 3 focus on research aspects, which is what universities are for.

   The methodology section is very good because of the openness and transparency. Well done HEC.

4. Yahya says:

   October 5, 2006 at 8:46 am

   [quote comment=”3719″]Look at the ranking criteria they underlined under the heading of “student”. Do they mean the number of students who graduate from the lot that is inducted by the institute? Or is it the number of students produced by the institute vis-a-vis the complete pool of students nationally?! But what about the the quality of students produced? Is that not taken into account at all?

   Secondly, what about premier places like KEMC? A top medical school, yet it does not even fare in the rankings – simply because it has not been accorded the status of a university? [/quote]

   My concerns too. If we consider total student pool then unis like PU have a big advantage for issuing degrees in masses for zillions of years.

   Re KEMC, HEC says (and I confirmed) it is not in the list as it only got chartered after 2001. Once such institutions come “online” there would be another upheaval. Perhaps a few more surprises like NED. Is KE better or Agha khan? ;)

5. Farrukh says:

   October 5, 2006 at 5:14 am

   Rankings are a very good idea. Even if they are slightlly wrong – they nearly always are – they allow institutions to know what to shoot for when the methodology is open.

   To argue that NED should be higher you nneed to make a case not only that it is good but that those above it are worse. And how would one make that case. Rankings are supposed to be in points of time. Not over time. At THIS POINT this is the ranking. It should NOT take into account students it produced in the past. I am sure other institutions also produced good students.

6. ayesha says:

   October 5, 2006 at 2:24 am

   I was somewhat surprised by these rankings as well. NED was the big surprise and then I was also surprised to learn that FAST Islamabad campus was included in the rankings above the Lahore one. As far as my understanding goes, the Lahore campus is the best one for the university.

   Moreover, I found the ranking system somewhat weird. Look at the ranking criteria they underlined under the heading of “student”. Do they mean the number of students who graduate from the lot that is inducted by the institute? Or is it the number of students produced by the institute vis-a-vis the complete pool of students nationally?! But what about the the quality of students produced? Is that not taken into account at all?

   Secondly, what about premier places like KEMC? A top medical school, yet it does not even fare in the rankings – simply because it has not been accorded the status of a university? The eligibility criteria needs to be rethought.

   But having said all that, it is a commendable effort. It just needs to be fine tuned.

7. shirazi says:

   October 5, 2006 at 2:12 am

   But why are all private sector universities doing far better than all public sector universities; no exception whatsoever?

8. Adnan Siddiqi says:

   October 5, 2006 at 12:28 am

   Owais few days back I emailed to Adil bhai with some links about same issue. NED did react back strongly. Dr. Shamsul Haq and Dr.NOman wrote a lengthy article on last Sunday’s dawn.

   You can get all links from Adil bhai via Email.