Building great varsities: what LUMS, IIT and NUS teach us

In conversations about world-class universities, Pakistan often looks outward, yearning for a simple answer to a complex question: how do we build academic excellence? When we examine three of the most influential universities in our broader region - the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT), and the National University of Singapore (NUS) - we do not see clones of the same institution. Instead, we observe three distinct models of excellence, shaped by context, choices and constraints. For a country like Pakistan, where we are seeking better teaching standards, stronger learning outcomes for students, and graduates ready to lead and innovate, the understanding of these differences matters deeply.

NUS stands today among the world's elite universities. Its position in the global top ten reflects scale, ambition and sustained state-backed vision. What sets NUS apart is not only the quality of its research but its breadth. It performs strongly across engineering, medicine, sciences, business and social sciences. Research at NUS is generously funded, interdisciplinary and aligned with global challenges – from climate change to AI. This did not happen by chance. Singapore made a clear national decision that a world-class university was central to its future and then provided autonomy, resources and long-term policy support to deliver on that ambition.

The IITs represent a different story. Their excellence is concentrated rather than comprehensive. IIT Bombay and IIT Delhi have become global symbols of engineering and technological talent. Their graduates power Silicon Valley firms, global consultancies and fast-growing start-ups. The strength of the IIT model lies in deep technical rigour, intense peer competition and a powerful alumni network. IITs were designed to serve India's development needs at scale, and they have done so with remarkable consistency.

LUMS operates in yet another reality. It is smaller, private and resource-constrained compared to NUS or IIT. Yet within Pakistan, it stands clearly at the top. Its strongest contributions lie in business, management, economics, law, engineering and the social sciences. LUMS has built a culture of serious scholarship, strong employer engagement and liberal arts education in a national environment that offers limited public funding and a thin research ecosystem. It has achieved more than its scale would suggest by being selective and strategic in where it invests its energy, talent and reputation.

Industry linkages further reveal these different models. NUS has institutionalised employability. The IITs rely less on institutional machinery and more on brand power. Employers come because they know what IIT graduates can do. LUMS, within Pakistan, dominates employer confidence. Its graduates are absorbed quickly into banking, consulting, development, technology and entrepreneurship.

Internationalisation is another dividing line. At NUS, international faculty and students are part of daily academic life. Research collaborations span continents, and global exposure is the norm. The IITs remain deeply national in composition, even though their alumni networks are global. LUMS has taken important steps by attracting foreign-trained faculty and forging international research partnerships. Each approach is rational within its context, but each produces a different learning experience for students.

Resources and governance explain some of the deepest differences. NUS benefits from sustained public investment, policy stability and institutional autonomy. It can hire globally, build advanced laboratories and pivot quickly. The IITs are well funded by national standards but operate within large bureaucratic systems that slow decision-making. LUMS enjoys flexibility as a private non-profit, but faces constant financial pressure, reliance on tuition and exposure to economic volatility. Excellence achieved under such constraints deserves recognition rather than dismissal.

None of these institutions is without limitations. NUS operates under relentless pressure to maintain global rankings, often at high cost to students and faculty. The IITs face uneven quality across campuses, limited internationalisation and an admissions system that creates extreme stress. LUMS grapples with scale, affordability and national constraints that limit its research breadth and global reach. Honest comparison requires acknowledging these imperfections rather than hiding them behind glossy narratives.

For students, these differences matter. Choosing NUS means entering a globally competitive, resource-rich environment with international exposure built in. Choosing LUMS means opting for strong employer outcomes within Pakistan, a liberal arts ethos and leadership development in a familiar cultural setting. None of these paths is inherently superior. They reflect different ambitions, risk appetites and life plans.

Why does this matter for Pakistan's universities? Because copying rankings without understanding models is a recipe for failure. A new institution like the National Institute of Technology (NIT) in Lahore cannot become NUS by declaration, nor should it try. What it can learn instead is clarity of mission, disciplined governance, industry relevance and focused academic investment - lessons visible, in different ways, across all three institutions.

For institutions such as the Karachi School of Business and Leadership (KSBL) which are ready for their second leap, the lesson is similar. It requires renewed investment in faculty quality, deeper industry integration and governance systems that reward discipline, performance and innovation. Regional examples show that take-off is possible, but only with honest self-assessment and the courage to reform.

Pakistan's higher education debate often swings between despair and imitation. We either lament what we lack or attempt to copy global models without the necessary conditions. The real lesson from LUMS, IIT and NUS is more demanding. Excellence grows when institutions understand who they are, whom they serve, and what they can realistically do well and then pursue that mission with discipline and integrity over time.