Adil Najam
Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, one of Pakistan’s pre-eminent intellectuals and someone who I and ATP holds in the highest esteem (here and here), has written a letter to the editors of Nature in response to the recent article (of which I was a co-author) on Pakistan’s higher education reform experiment.
I just wrote to Pervez requesting that in the interest of greater discussion on this important issue, he allow us to reproduce the letter here at ATP. He has graciously agreed.
We reproduce his letter, in full, here:
“Pakistan’s Reform Experiment” (Nature, V461, page 38, 3 September 2009) gives the impression of providing a factual balance sheet of Pakistan’s higher education under General Pervez Musharraf’s former government. Unfortunately, several critical omissions indicate a partisan bias.
Mention of the billions wasted on mindless prestige mega-projects is noticeably absent. Example: nine new universities were hastily conceived and partially constructed, but abandoned and finally scrapped after it became obvious that it was impossible to provide them with the most crucial ingredient – trained faculty. Similarly, fantastically expensive scientific equipment, imported with funds from the Higher Education Commission, remain hopelessly under-utilized many years later. They litter the country’s length and breadth. For instance, my university has been forced to house a “souped-up” Van de Graaf accelerator facility, purchased in 2005 with HEC funds. A research purpose is still being sought in 2009.
The authors conveniently choose not to mention that the 400% claimed increase in the number of publications was largely a consequence of giving huge payments to professors for publishing in international journals, irrespective of actual substance and quality. Not surprisingly these cash-per-paper injections had the effect of producing a plagiarism pandemic, one that is still out of control. In a country where academic ethics are poor and about a third of all students cheat in examinations, penalties for plagiarism by teachers and researchers are virtually non-existent.
Citing Thomson Scientific, the authors claim a large rise in the “relative impact” in some disciplines, based upon citation levels of papers published between 2003 and 2007. But did the authors try to eliminate self-citations (a deliberate ploy) from this count? If they had – as I did using an available option in the Thomson Scientific package – they might actually have found the opposite result.
While the authors laud the increase in the salaries of university professors by the HEC, they pay no attention to the disparities thus created. The salary of a full professor (after the raises) can be 20-30 times that of an average Pakistani school teacher. Money raining down from the skies has created a new dynamic as well. Naked greed is now destroying the moral fibre of Pakistan’s academia. Professors across the country are clamoring to lift even minimal requirements that could assure quality education.
This is happening in three critical ways. First, given the large prospective salary raises, professors are bent upon removing all barriers for their promotions by pressuring their university’s administration as well as the HEC. Second, they want to be able to take on more PhD students, whether these students have the requisite academic capacity or not. Having more students translates into proportionately more money in each professor’s pocket. Third, a majority wants the elimination of all international testing – such as the Graduate Record Examination administered from Princeton. These had been used as a metric for gauging student performance within the Pakistani system.
Pakistan’s failed experiment provides a counter example to the conventional wisdom that money is the most important element. Instead, an enormous cash infusion, used badly, has served to amplify problems rather than improve teaching and research quality. There is much that other developing countries can learn from our experience – and it is opposite to what the authors want us to conclude.
Dr. Hoodbhoy is a leading voice on science and education policy and has been the most prominent critic of the Pakistan Higher Education Commission (HEC) over the years. Personally, I can think of few who have been more committed to Pakistan’s higher education than him. For all of these reasons, I take his opinions very seriously, even when my own assessment might end up to be different from his, as it has been in this case
Since we have made our case in print and he has too, I will not go into rebuttals. Nor is that possible since the co-authors have not yet had a time to carefully and and collectively respond to this (the group was large, spread out across the globe, and deliberately structured to be diverse). But speaking strictly for myself, there are a number of points I would not disagree with (For example, in our article we have also been critical – although maybe not as much as Pervez would have liked us to be – of the domestic PhD program and the consequences of the incentives given). But that would not change my overall assessment. Our goal, as we saw it, was to look at the entirety of Pakistan’s higher education reform effort and, as honestly and as best as we could, to arrive at a collective assessment of the total impact (the good as well as the bad) in the very limited space we had.
Where our assessment does differ from Dr. Hoodbhoy’s, I think, is that while he clearly believes the Pakistan reform experiment to have “failed,” we believe that it is “too early to judge the outcome” but that some aspects of the experiment have and will give much better results than others. Where we do not differ is that like him (and I take the liberty of quoting from his email to me) we too “feel rather strongly on what’s needed for fixing our universities.” Our assessments may differ, but our goal is the same.
Importantly, we also agree that (and, again, I quote from his email), “its important to debate such issues.” It is in that spirit that I had asked Pervez to let us share his response here. A focus on how best to improve higher education in Pakistan is the core of all of our concerns, and was also the core of our recommendation in the paper “for an independent peer review of the HEC’s performance.” I hope that our readers can also help all of us focus much more on this very question which motivates all of us, Dr. Hoodbhoy, myself, and my co-authors: what is it that we have learnt so far and what is it that we should do in the future to strengthen and improve higher education in Pakistan.
Though it’s still early, it appears that Pakistan has begun to reap some of the benefits of the large talent pool created by 5X higher HEC funding, the creation of the high speed Internet and digital library etc. as part of the higher ed reform.
According to oDesk, Pakistan experienced 328% growth in its outsourcing business in 2007-8, second only to the Philippines (789%) on a list of seven top locations that include US (260%), Canada (121%), India (113%), the Ukraine (77%) and Russia (43%).
Pakistan ranks number one in value for money for developers and data entry and number two overall behind the Philippines where the cost of answering calls is about half of the cost in Pakistan. Pakistan is well ahead of India and just behind the number 1 ranked United States in customer satisfaction.
Because of the robust economic growth in the last few years and the creation of millions of jobs, Pakistan’s poverty rate declined significantly (from 22% in 2005-06 to 17% in 2007-8, although poverty seems to be rising again in 2008-09) partly due to the FDI brought in to take advantage of the larger number of college grads.
You can read more at http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/01/pakistan-ranks-amon g-top-outsourcing.html
and http://southasiainvestor.blogspot.com/2009/09/paki stan-poverty-down-to-17-in-2007.html
I have never found Dr. Hoodbhoy actually praising anything at all in or about Pakistan. I understand that my country has many failings, but here we have a man who claims to be a loyal citizen but cannot for the life of him, find one thing right with Pakistan. This constant criticism is essentially destroying his own credibility. I’ve always found it interesting that Dr. Hoodbhoy is a physicist, who, over the last 10+ years, has hardly done any physics at all. Yet he does seem to find the time to use every platform – whether it be Nature, or our own local TV channels – to criticise government, army, education, religion… the list goes on. What does the man NOT criticise (about Pakistan, that is. I am sure his summers in Boston are most pleasurable…)? Perhaps if he were actually spending his time teaching Physics properly and encouraging his students to do meaningful research, he would have less to crib about?
Coming to his opinions on higher education and his letter to nature, I completely disagree. Money is absolutely essential for institutions of higher learning. Yes, initially when the HEC uplifted budgets so drastically, there was bound to be inefficient usag… but that’s ok. If 30 students at QAU now know what a Van de Graaf Accelerator is, even if they don’t yet know what to do with it, that in of itself serves a purpose. Exposing students and faculties to “plenty” is improvement in its own right. I remember when computers used to be bought and allocated sparingly, with extreme care. Students were made to feel like if they did anything at all outside of strict instruction, the machine would blow up and they would be responsible. That does not inspire creativity. Let there be plenty in our universities, let ideas develop, let students feel like money is being spent on them… if 2 or 3 out of a hundred can find inspiration, we are all the richer and better for it.
Now, having said all the above, yes, of course, primary education needs funds too, we need better faculty and many other ingredients to truly improve our educational system. However, to simply write letters to international publications and constantly whine about what all is WRONG in Pakistan, doesn’t help anyone. I’ve had enough of this man. Change the channel, would ya!
Hi,
Well first of all I think HEC under Musharraf (not a fan of his) and Dr Atta-ur-Rehman (certainly a fan of us) started to grow and it really did show a huge potential but since the two have left, its wings a clipped and it will simply die in some time to come.
Tragedy of HEC is not that there was something sinister in package, the main tragedies were:
1. No backup system: Students are coming in from a pathetic primary education system. How do you make scientists out of people who have come to that stage via “rattafication”? So yes we need even now another Dr Atta-ur-Rehman for the Primary education.
2. No proper culture for returning students: I recently in University of Glasgow met a guy (will not take his name or highlight his institute back in Pakistan) and he really made me confused and sad. He told me that he is doing Phd here on funds from Govt of Pakistan, he is being paid for his job back in Pakistan and that he is not “an idiot” to go back to Pakistan once his Phd is done!
At the moment there are thousands of Pakistanis which we have exported worldwide on very expensive equations who do not wish to return because they do not find any future for themselves back in Pakistan.
This is in itself a two tired problem, one with their selfishness and second with the country’s inability to have a system which can cash their “this investment”!
I don’t disagree with the main argument that some good things have also happened and yes overall the higher education system is better than it was before, but the question that is real is that because SO MUCH money was spent was it well spent and could it have gotten better results. In that I am with the critics that we could and should have done better and more than the HEC did.
Some of the posts have been critisizing the lack of investment in the primary education. Although I fully agree that there is a dire need to improve the salary structure and overall infrastructure of primary education system in Pakistan; I feel that it is unfair to blame HEC for negligence of primary education because I think that primary education is not the responsibility of the “Higher” Education Commission.