KARACHI:
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa’s introduction of its first provincial university ranking system is a welcome attempt to bring greater accountability and performance orientation to higher education. By evaluating universities against multiple indicators, the initiative can provide policymakers with a clearer picture of institutional strengths and weaknesses. Yet rankings should be a diagnostic instrument, not an end in themselves.
The real test is what happens after the rankings are published. If an institution performs poorly in research, governance, innovation or student services, will it receive targeted support, leadership intervention and a measurable improvement plan? Or will the ranking simply become another annual scoreboard?
As an educator and research scholar, I believe K-P’s universities require more than comparative labels. Many institutions face structural constraints involving research capacity, faculty development, academic leadership, funding and institutional governance. A ranking system can identify these deficiencies, but it cannot rectify them on its own. The Higher Education Commission should therefore link rankings with a structured performance-improvement mechanism. Low-performing universities should receive targeted technical assistance, research mentorship and leadership development, while consistently strong performance should be rewarded through transparent, performance-linked funding.
Manzar Hassan
Peshawar
