Chasing random numbers

Back in the dot-com bubble of the late ’90s there were a lot of internet-based companies that promised everyone the moon and some more. Some had employees who owned thousands of promised stocks in their new ventures, worth millions of dollars. A lot of those stocks doubled in their presumed value overnight — but in the end, a lot of it was just hype. The riches for many were just on paper and in their hollow portfolios. It didn’t matter whether the stocks were 100 or a 100,000 — multiplying by a net value of zero yielded the same result.

Large numbers can be enticing, but incredibly misleading if the fundamentals aren’t quite solid. The recent number of inducting 38,000 PhD faculty members by 2025 seems to follow the exact pattern of fixing absurd targets that are poised to do little good. Without the foundation of quality and rigour, the number of new PhD scholars could be 38,000 or three million, yet it will do little to change our development fortunes.

First, let us analyse the ground realities. There is little doubt the country’s path to development has to go through innovation, research and robust higher education. There is also broad agreement that our universities need more solid research that meets the high-bar of scrutiny, integrity and quality. But increasing the number of PhD scholars by 400 per cent (the current number is 9,253) is hardly the prudent way. In fact, it is outright dangerous.

The reality is that there are serious quality issues among many of our existing faculty. There is little doubt that the number of faculty members producing research of highest international calibre in the country (per capita) is very few. There are a myriad of reasons for this, including a lack of motivation, initiative, capacity or incentives. Emphasis should be in ensuring that quality is improved, not in increasing the numbers by 400 per cent.

Second, the existing funding climate is already making it difficult for faculty to conduct research that is getting ever more expensive. In my area of biomedical engineering, there are almost no local companies that are able to provide essential supplies and international markets are extremely expensive given the rupee to dollar conversion. With limited funds, the departments and individual faculty are unable to buy essential equipment to carry out their research and hence, are constantly struggling to keep up with their peers. By bringing 38,000 new faculty members, the existing funds would become even scarcer and cause further harm to the fragile research enterprise of the country.

Third, at least in the sciences and engineering, our universities don’t have physical and infrastructural capacity to accommodate that many faculty members. Departments and universities are struggling with minimal resources and lab space, and a fourfold increase will create tension, conflict and damage the overall atmosphere.

But perhaps the biggest argument is neither about the funds nor about the numbers, but about the spirit. The transformation of higher education won’t come from chasing an absurd number that was put in a plan, but by carefully thinking about improving quality of scholarship, building a strong sense of ethics and emphasising rigour among faculty and students. It will also come from having ethical leadership at our institutions by people who are widely respected for their scholarship and their integrity, and not by people who have no training in higher education, faced disciplinary action of financial embezzlement in their current or prior careers and spend most of their days harassing colleagues.

I am all for growth, but one that is organic, structured, evidence-based and methodical. Growth in higher education should be based on fixing the existing problems and improving quality and not on a number that appears in a bureaucratic plan.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 6^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.