Innovation Over Bureaucracy: Why Private Universities Require a Distinct Governi

[Badshah Mamun]

Innovation Over Bureaucracy: Why Private Universities Require a Distinct Governing Structure

The Promise and Paradox of Private Higher Education

Private universities in South Asia and Southeast Asia have evolved over the past three decades as crucial drivers of higher education expansion. They have facilitated access where state universities were unable to keep pace with population expansion, brought competitive learning environments, and injected entrepreneurial energy into schooling systems long controlled by the state. Private universities in countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, India, and Sri Lanka now account for a significant proportion of the student enrollments, especially within the urban centers and professional schools.

But paradoxically, the very institutions created to be agile, creative, and sensitive to the marketplace are constrained by regulatory systems designed for slow-moving public universities. The University Grants Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh—like its counterparts elsewhere—was built to regulate and subsidize public universities. Its structures, processes, and calendars reflect that original intent. By applying the same governance model to private institutions, these commissions unintentionally constrain the very strengths that justify private universities.

This is why the existence of a separate Higher Education Commission (HEC) for private universities is not a matter of administrative expediency, but one of strategic imperative. A separate regulatory agency would enable Innovation, streamline processes, and ensure quality assurance without stifling responsiveness to global academic trends. Comparative experience from Malaysia, India, and Sri Lanka indicates how specialized regulation can stimulate and not stifle academic excellence. This piece marks the opening installment in a ten-part series titled Reimagining Governance: The Case for a Separate Higher Education Commission for Private Universities in Bangladesh.

The Structural Mismatch: Why One Size Doesn’t Fit All

The University Grants Commission (UGC) system of governance, which has been inherited from an era when almost all universities were government-funded, relies on a set of assumptions that once served but no longer are fittingly aligned with the conditions of private higher education. This model, designed for universities that are wholly dependent on public funds and operating in a system of centralized higher education, imposes constraints that eliminate the dynamism and entrepreneurial nature of private universities. To understand this incompatibility, we need first to dismantle the original tenets that inform the UGC’s approach and then contrast them with the operating imperatives of private universities.

APUB President and Board of Trustees Chairman of Daffodil International University, Dr. Sabur Khan, confirmed, “We believe in accountability, because it lies at the heart of quality and trust. But accountability must not be a straitjacket. We will agree to be held accountable to the highest standards—but not to be bogged down by processes of yesteryears, whimsical delays, or regulations that do not factor in the pace at which higher education must move.”. The measure of good governance is not how much it controls, but how much it enables institutions to function, to innovate, and to serve the nation.”

Equal Funding and Governance

The UGC model assumes that all universities share one unified fiscal dependence on state funding, justifying strict budgetary control and centrally mandated controls of governance. This can be justified in the case of public universities, where public tax dollars justify strict audits and compliance with government expenditure standards. But imposing the same bureaucratic structure on private universities—those sustained by revenues from tuition, gift funding, and endowment—engenders unnecessary bureaucratic expense. Private universities must compete for students and funds in a free market and thus require efficient decision-making. Forced to operate under the same administrative structure as state universities, they lose the necessary operational efficiency for their sustained existence and growth.

As NSU Trustee Board Chair A. A. Kaiser Tito aptly put it, “The private university sector was built on speed and vision. But today, we are run by an old system, where speed never was a choice. As a matter of fact, there is no priority. The world is changing so fast, and we are going in the opposite direction.”

Centralized Curriculum Oversight

In the public sector, curricula remain static for many years, subject only to long review cycles designed to permit political supervision, faculty consensus formation, and limited resource allocation. This is compatible with a conservative academic change policy, based on a requirement to offer stability in the national education system. Private universities, however, operate in a climate where curriculum applicability is equated with institutional survival. Their edge lies in being able to design, re-design, and launch programs over a shorter period to respond to new emerging global patterns of knowledge, occupational needs, and technological advancements. If such institutions are forced to adopt the same lengthy approval process of public universities, they risk offering outdated programs that fail to meet students’ and employers’ expectations.

A senior NSU teacher observed, “In research, timing is everything. A delay of one year can mean missing a whole wave of worldwide discovery.”

Congruence with State Priorities

Public universities align their research agenda with national development plans, sectoral priorities, and politically endorsed objectives. While this ensures that public spending on research furthers the overall policy aims of the government, it also diminishes the potential for experimental, cross-disciplinary, or paradigm-shaking research. Private universities, by contrast, have the freedom to pursue research driven by international market imperatives, intellectual interest, and industry interactions. They can invest in new or emerging fields—e.g., artificial intelligence ethics, renewable energy innovation, or indigenous culture studies—without any hope of state endorsement or funding allocation. Forcing them to the exact conformity demands of state universities not only limits intellectual diversity but also stifles Innovation that can grant the nation a competitive edge in the global research landscape.

Private Universities: A Different Operating DNA

Private universities, unlike their public counterparts, are entrepreneurial in nature and self-supporting. They fund their operations from tuition, endowments, and, increasingly today, corporate partnerships, which require efficient administration and aggressive program choices to survive. They possess market-aware curricula that adapt rapidly to emerging industries and global standards and also forecast shifts in student trends. They also value independent research agendas, with the freedom to launch interdisciplinary or specialty scholarly research without interference by national funding cycles. Such features—efficiency, responsiveness, and autonomy—are the lifeline of private higher education.

The Consequence of a Uniform Regulatory Regime

When the same regulations and timeline are imposed by a regulatory body like the UGC on private and public universities, what follows is inevitable: bureaucratic bottlenecks, tardy programme launching, and lost opportunities in research and industry connections. The mismatch between governance structure and institutional purpose not only bars private universities from reaching their optimum potential but also deprives the national education system of a significant source of Innovation, competitiveness, and international orientation.

Bureaucracy in Practice: The Cost of Delay

Private universities in Bangladesh under the current regulatory regime are not abstract arguments about policy-they have actual, tangible impacts on foregone opportunities that affect industries, students, and national competitiveness in the world. Consider an example that, posed hypothetically, captures the truth in much of what currently happens.

One of EWU’s professors stated, “Our students are world-ready—but the system is not world-ready for them. That’s why the reform needs to be done, this urgently.”

Uncovering a Market Opportunity
A forward-thinking private university finds a global surge in demand for cybersecurity professionals driven by mounting cyber risks, business digitalization, and new data protection laws worldwide. Industry forecasts predict a shortage of skilled professionals within the next five years, so this is an area of high-priority workforce development. Recognizing its capacity to meet a national need and position itself as a regional leader, the university is prepared to invest in a creative academic program.

Developing a World Class Curriculum
The institution quickly assembles an international team of industry practitioners, senior faculty, and global subject-matter experts to create a curriculum development team. These experts collaborate to ensure the program effectively combines theory and practice with industry-relevant skills. Courses are designed based on globally accepted cybersecurity frameworks, include hands-on lab simulations, and offer paths to leading professional certifications. The course is not only reactive, but also anticipatory, looking to the future wave of digital security threats so that graduates are a notch above their local and global competition.

APUB Executive Council member and former Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of Eastern University, Mr. Abul Quasem Haider, added, “This is not a cry for fewer rules—it is an appeal for wiser ones. Regulation must be attuned to the pace and realities of private higher education, or risk becoming the very stumbling block to the progress it seeks to safeguard.”

Entering the UGC Approval Pipeline
Once the curriculum is set, it is submitted by the university to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for approval. This is where the momentum gets stuck. The program undergoes numerous committee reviews, each with more paperwork, rewriting, and explanations—sometimes independent of academic content. Ministerial signoffs add more layers of delay because approval hinges on political calendars and shifting administrative priorities. The process also requires compliance with out-of-date template requirements that fail to acknowledge emerging fields like cybersecurity, putting innovative programs into molds appropriate for traditional disciplines.

As one IUB faculty member summed it up, “Our curriculum update process is stuck in the 20th century. The world’s knowledge frontier changes every quarter.”

The Cost of Time in a Fast-Moving Field
When the program finishes all approvals—often 18 to 24 months later—the market environment has altered drastically. Competing institutions abroad have already implemented comparable programs, working intensively to promote them to the same student base. Industry needs, while still strong, may have shifted to emphasize nascent sub-specialties such as cloud security, AI-threat detection, or blockchain-enabled data defense. The university’s once-pioneering curriculum may become outdated even before its first cohort begins.

A DIU professor lamented, “We lose good students to foreign universities every year because of sluggish approvals in our hands.”

Lost Opportunities for Students and the Nation
Students suffer most acutely. With no timely local alternatives, most have to look abroad, denying the nation talent and resources. Others bypass the traditional university track altogether, pursuing instead shorter-term industry certifications that are nearer the target straight away but lack the depth and breadth of a full degree. For the nation as a whole, the deferment is a double loss: it misses the potential to develop homegrown experts in a strategic field and the economic benefit of retaining tuition charges, research initiatives, and educated graduates at home.

Not an Exception, but the Rule
This is not an isolated event or a poor coincidence—but the everyday experience for private universities under regulatory regimes designed for a bygone world. Fields such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy technology, data science, and biotechnology all have the same fate: groundbreaking programs are planned but mired in bureaucratic limbo until their competitive advantage expires. In the modern global knowledge economy, where speed is as important as quality, such delays are not only frustrating—they are crippling.

The Case for a Separate Higher Education Commission for Private Universities

A Higher Education Commission for Private Universities (HEC-PU) with specialized responsibilities would not be more bureaucracy. Still, a specialized body molded to recognize, build on, and oversee the unique strengths of private higher education. Its purpose would be to maintain academic standards while enabling the flexibility and responsiveness necessary to succeed in the knowledge economy. The following functions illustrate how such a commission would transform the private university sector.

Mr. Mohammad Shajahan, esteemed Trustee and ex-Chairman of NSU Trustee Board, challenged the norm with an incisive question: “If an entire industry can be thought of, constructed, and launched in six months, why must two long years be taken to approve and introduce an academic degree program? In a time when knowledge, technology, and the needs of the marketplace evolve at lightning speed, such delays are not merely inefficient—they can render our graduates obsolete even before they get to the workplace.”

Streamline Academic Approvals
One of the most critical challenges facing private universities is the lengthy process of approval for launching new programs. Under a committed commission, approval times can be shortened from years to a matter of months by providing for expedited procedures for institutions possessing well-established quality assurance systems and excellent records. This would pay premiums for excellence in speed, allowing universities to respond in near real-time to emerging academic and professional demands. Rather than see hopes fade through slow bureaucratic approvals, institutions might go from idea to classroom with the nimbleness today’s education requires.

An APUB elected member of the Executive Council, Mr. Qayum Reza Chowdhury, and the former Chair of the Trustee Board of the University of Asia Pacific, pointed out, “The very guidelines that are meant to guide us are the very ones that hold us back. When approval cycles drag along at a snail’s pace, our students pay the highest price—graduating into industries that have already moved ahead, where knowledge that was good yesterday no longer translates into requirements today.”

Facilitate Quick Curriculum Revision
In the era of artificial intelligence, the renewable energy revolution, and rapidly changing global economies, curricula within academies might become outdated within less than a year. A special HEC-PU might create rolling review cycles so programs might be updated annually or every other year without shutting down the entire approval process. This would enable institutions to integrate the latest industry standards, integrate recent research outputs, and maintain global competitiveness. By making it a routine procedure instead of a bureaucratic process, the commission would ensure that students graduate with the skills and knowledge necessary to apply in the world they are entering.

APUB Executive Council Member and NSU Board of Trustees Member, Mr. Benajir Ahmed, said, “Private higher education is not a peripheral player, it is a national engine of Innovation, talent, and competitiveness. If regulation cannot keep pace with its dynamism, it will choke the very progress it seeks to nurture. We need governance that empowers excellence, not bureaucracy that punishes it.”

Encourage International Collaborations
International outreach is no longer an option for universities seeking top-tier status. HEC-PU could proactively encourage and expedite partnerships with foreign universities, industry groups, and research networks. Joint degrees, exchange of faculty, and collaborative research programs would be approved with ease, free from political or procedural hindrances. This would not only enhance the international status of private universities but also prepare students for cross-cultural abilities, global connections, and familiarity with a diversity of intellectual traditions that are increasingly important in today’s globalized world.

Mr. Towhid Samad, Trustee and former Chairman of IUB’s Board of Trustees, captured the frustration with striking clarity: “As President Warren G. Harding once observed, there should be less government in business and even less business in government—a lesson our lawmakers would do well to embrace. Education, like any other offering, is packaged and presented by universities as a product, and it is parents, guardians, and students who act as discerning buyers, determining which institution offers good, better, or best value. The government’s role should be akin to that of a rating agency—assigning clear, transparent grades such as A, AA, or AAA to guide informed choices. Ultimately, only market forces can hold delinquent providers accountable. The UGC neither funds private universities nor should it interfere with their innovation and research activities.”

Enhance Quality without Stifling Innovation
The most effective regulatory frameworks guard quality without stifling Innovation. An energetic HEC-PU could establish quality assurance mechanisms attuned to the circumstances of private universities, which usually have entrepreneurial organizational structures and diverse funding arrangements. Rather than imposing rigid, prescriptive requirements, the commission could monitor outcomes—such as graduate employability, research impact, and intellectual creativity—while giving institutions the freedom to experiment with new pedagogies, transdisciplinary curricula, and technology-enabled learning models. This three-way balance between regulation and freedom of action would create a space that enables Innovation without compromising academic standards.

An NSU professor also stated, “In the global race for knowledge, one month is a considerable margin. We cannot lag behind in seeking programs for emerging fields.”

Encourage Research Agility
Private universities can pioneer areas that are slow to act on the part of public institutions, particularly in niche and interdisciplinary research. An engaged commission would provide these institutions with the freedom to define their research agendas, both by world possibility and national need, without waiting for state funding cycles or political fiat. From front-line climate adaptation studies to culturally embedded AI models to the seeking of indigenous knowledge forms, private universities could be labs of Innovation, going at the speed of the best-of-the-best to confront both societal demand and market potential.

In summarizing the prevalent mood, as APUB President Dr. Sabur Khan stated: “The cost of delay is not measured in paperwork—it is measured in lost futures.” Across NSU, IUB, DIU, EWU, AIU, EU, and all other private universities, the message is clear: a standalone commission is not about shirking standards; it is about making a system where high standards and quick response are compatible.

Learning from the Region: Case Studies

Malaysia: The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA)

Perhaps the best example of a specialized quality assurance and accreditation system is that of Malaysia, with both private and public institutions, but also with space for Innovation by the private sector.

Key Feature: MQA has strict standards but is independent of the budget mechanisms that prevail in public universities.
Impact: Private universities such as Monash University Malaysia and Sunway University have introduced innovative courses in data science, hospitality, and biomedical sciences much more quickly than their public counterparts.
India: National Accreditation and Specialized Councils

While India’s University Grants Commission (UGC) continues to oversee most of the higher education, professional courses in fields like engineering, management, and law are under the purview of specialized councils (such as AICTE for technical education, BCI for legal education).

Key Feature: The councils allow private schools to propose and implement programs more rapidly, provided they are capable of meeting specified levels of quality.

Effect: ISB, a private school, has become an internationally recognized brand for management education by applying flexible program architecture and industry engagement, something that a public-sector model of approval would have placed on hold.
Sri Lanka: Non-State Higher Education Directorate

Sri Lanka created a Non-State Higher Education Directorate under its Ministry of Higher Education to regulate and assist specifically private higher education.

Keystone Feature: Private university departments handle program approval, accreditation, and monitoring as individual entities apart from public university administration.

Impact: This has enabled private universities to expand in specialized areas such as maritime studies and tourism management—areas critical to Sri Lanka’s economy—without being bogged down by bureaucracy from the public sector.
Global Knowledge Trends Demand Agility

The knowledge economy of the 21st century has no room for slow bureaucracies:

• Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning – Curricula need to be revised annually, if not every quarter.
  Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – Institutions of higher learning must align instruction and research with shifting global sustainability agendas.
  Interdisciplinary Learning – The pace of convergence of STEM with social sciences and humanities necessitates structural agility.
  Government department administrative models were built to provide stability, not to be agile.
  

Agility in the knowledge economy is not a luxury; it is the minimum to be competitive.

Addressing Quality and Oversight Concerns

Critics of autonomous regulatory institutions, of course, brandish “dilution of quality” or profit-for-lucrative-interest motives fatal to scholarship in academia. Though these are real concerns, they can be addressed short of shooting back at the choking bureaucracy.

An autonomous HEC for private universities could be implemented:

Tiered Accreditation – Provide greater autonomy to high-performing institutions.
Transparent Review Panels – Include international scholars, business leaders, and student representatives on them.
Annual Public Reporting – Compel all institutions to publish audited academic and financial performance measures.
By focusing on results rather than procedural uniformity, an independent commission can ensure accountability along with Innovation.

Economic and Social Imperatives

In Bangladesh and the northeast region, higher education is now not just a social good but an economic imperative. Countries that align higher education management with market and technological conditions see:

Reduced Brain Drain – Students favor local institutions with competitive products.
Industry-Academia Synergy – Companies work with universities on research, internships, and pipelines for talent.
Global Competitiveness – Nations position themselves as knowledge hubs, attracting international students and research funding.
Malaysia’s 2015–2025 Education Blueprint aimed at the country’s emergence as an education hub in the region—a path made easier by loose accreditation and governance structures. Bangladesh could take a similar path with a dedicated private-sector higher education commission.

Roadmap for Implementation

Legislative Framework
Pass a Higher Education Commission for Private Universities Act defining mandate, scope, and governance structure.

Stakeholder Engagement
Involve private universities, industry leaders, students, and foreign advisors in policy formulation for the commission.

Phased Transition
Begin with pilot schools in the new commission, followed by pilot procedures, and then scale across the country.

Alignment with Global Standards
Harmonize accreditation systems with global bodies like the Quality Assurance Agency (UK) or Council for Higher Education Accreditation (US).

Digital Governance
Utilize online portals for program submissions, evaluation, and reporting compliance to avoid administrative delay.

Conclusion: Innovation Needs the Right Environment

In the global race for dominance in knowledge, responsiveness, and speed are as important as quality. Private universities were founded to be fast, innovative, and responsive—but current governance structures incline towards the slow lanes of public-sector bureaucracy.

The solution is not deregulation—it is wise regulation by an independent Higher Education Commission for Private Universities. As Malaysia, India, and Sri Lanka have proved, targeted regulation can preserve quality while unleashing Innovation. For Bangladesh and others like it, the reform is not just welcome—it is an imperative of economic development, social mobility, and global competitiveness.

By embracing a governance structure that recognizes the unique contribution of private universities, we can ensure that they realize their potential: producing graduates who can confront tomorrow’s challenges, carrying out research in emerging areas, and driving their nations to the head of the world knowledge economy.

Merely renaming the UGC as the Higher Education Commission, without seeking earnest restructuring and establishing autonomous governance mechanisms for private and public universities, would be no change whatsoever. It would amount to nothing less than offering old wine in a new bottle.

Source: https://southasiajournal.net/innovation-over-bureaucracy-why-private-universities-require-a-distinct-governing-structure/