A Separate Higher Education Commission: The Path to Quality Teaching and Innovation in Bangladesh
Beyond the Comfort of Uniformity
In the realm of higher education, quality is not a decorative ideal—it is the essential foundation upon which nations build intellectual capacity, economic competitiveness, and cultural progress. Yet in Bangladesh, the current regulatory framework treats public and private universities as though they are interchangeable components in a single, uniform academic system.
The University Grants Commission (UGC), designed primarily to oversee and fund public institutions, applies the same accreditation and quality assurance measures to private universities—without regard for the profound differences in their governance models, revenue sources, staffing patterns, and global engagement strategies. The result is a rigid “one-size-fits-all” system that values bureaucratic compliance over meaningful innovation.
Private universities, many of which have pioneered creative teaching models, cutting-edge technology integration, and strong industry linkages—find themselves bound by rules crafted for state-funded institutions with fixed public budgets, slower decision-making cycles, and entrenched faculty hierarchies. This structural mismatch hinders their ability to deliver truly world-class education.
A registrar from a mid-sized private university observed:
“Our faculty members are losing morale. They work hard to design future-ready courses, only to see them stripped of originality in the name of ‘standardization.’ That’s not quality assurance—it’s quality erosion.”
If Bangladesh genuinely wishes to elevate the quality of teaching in its private higher education sector, it must move away from bureaucratic uniformity toward context-sensitive standards. This requires establishing a dedicated Higher Education Commission for Private Universities (HEC-PU) that can create adaptive, evidence-based frameworks that encourage faculty development, continuous training, and pedagogical innovation while respecting the operational realities of private institutions.
This article seeks to achieve three specific goals. First, it will demonstrate why the existing accreditation criteria under the UGC are fundamentally mismatched to the operational dynamics of private universities. Second, it will outline how a separate HEC for private institutions could develop flexible, responsive, and globally aligned quality frameworks that address those mismatches. Finally, it will illustrate how such reforms would directly improve the quality of teaching by fostering faculty growth, enabling ongoing professional development, and encouraging bold pedagogical experimentation.
The Structural Mismatch: When One Template Rules All
Bangladesh’s higher education landscape is sharply divided between public universities, which are state-funded and largely shaped by governmental oversight, and private universities, which are self-financed, entrepreneurial, and often more agile in their governance. Despite these differences, both are judged by the same UGC-mandated criteria, a legacy of regulatory convenience rather than strategic policy thinking.
This uniformity creates significant inefficiencies. In the area of faculty recruitment, for example, public universities often operate within a tenure-based, seniority-driven system that offers long-term job security and state benefits. Private universities, however, function in a competitive marketplace were attracting top talent frequently require flexible contracts, performance-based pay, and international recruitment. Applying the same public-sector criteria to private faculty hiring not only ignores these market realities but actively undermines the ability of private universities to bring in the best educators.
A pro-vice-chancellor from a Chittagong-based private university said:
“Bureaucracy is one thing; discrimination is another. The unspoken rule seems to be: if Dhaka University doesn’t do it, no private university should. This mindset is holding the entire sector back.”
The issue extends to resource allocation. Public universities enjoy predictable government funding, enabling them to plan infrastructure and academic investments without the constant pressure of revenue generation. Private universities, by contrast, depend heavily on tuition fees, philanthropic contributions, and occasional industry partnerships. These different funding structures influence how each type of institution can invest in modern teaching facilities, laboratories, libraries, and faculty development programs. A rigid, uniform standard fails to recognize the resource flexibility—or constraints—that shape teaching quality in private institutions.
Similarly, curriculum innovation cycles differ drastically. Private universities often have the capacity to develop and launch new programs within months to respond to emerging industry needs. Under the UGC’s centralized approval process, however, program accreditation can take years, effectively locking private institutions into outdated offerings and depriving students of timely, relevant learning opportunities.
When Bureaucracy Becomes a Bottleneck: How the UGC Slows Private University Progress
One of the most visible—and most damaging—ways the University Grants Commission (UGC) undermines the growth and quality of private universities is through unnecessary delays in syllabus approval and other bureaucratic processes. These delays are not merely administrative inconveniences; they are educational setbacks with far-reaching consequences for students, faculty, and the nation’s competitiveness.
For example, when a private university develops a new program in a fast-growing field such as artificial intelligence, data science, or climate resilience, the proposal must navigate a lengthy approval chain at the UGC. In theory, this process is meant to ensure academic rigor. In practice, it can take anywhere from several months to over a year before final approval is granted. During that time, industries move forward, global knowledge evolves, and student demand shifts—leaving the eventual program already outdated by the time it is launched.
A vice-chancellor from a leading private university in Dhaka recalled:
“We spent two years developing a multidisciplinary program in sustainable urban development with industry partners. UGC’s response? ‘Dhaka University doesn’t offer this, so why should you?’ Innovation should not need a precedent; it should set one.”
A dean of business added:
“The UGC sat on our curriculum revision for 14 months. By the time they approved it, the case studies we had included were outdated, and our graduates missed out on the skills employers were asking for that year.”
The bias is even more visible when proposals are compared directly to Dhaka University’s syllabus. A head of curriculum in public health noted:
“Our program on epidemic preparedness and response—developed after COVID-19—was delayed because it did not mirror Dhaka University’s public health syllabus. Ironically, they didn’t even offer one.”
The situation is even more restrictive when private universities attempt to update existing curricula to keep pace with new research, technological advances, or employer expectations. The UGC’s rigid review cycles, coupled with limited staffing for timely evaluations, mean that such updates are often delayed or watered down to fit legacy templates designed for public universities. The result is a slow erosion of relevance, as students graduate with degrees that are theoretically sound but practically misaligned with job market realities.
Beyond syllabus approval, private universities face bureaucratic hurdles in several other critical areas. Recruitment of foreign faculty—a common practice in globally competitive universities—is often bogged down by prolonged vetting and approval steps that discourage international experts from committing to Bangladeshi institutions. Even the introduction of short-term professional certification programs, which could quickly enhance employability, requires multiple levels of clearance that drain time, energy, and resources from academic leadership.
These bottlenecks reveal a fundamental flaw: the UGC’s processes are calibrated for state-run institutions with stable funding and slower change cycles, not for market-responsive, self-financed universities that thrive on agility. Instead of serving as a quality catalyst, the UGC becomes a gatekeeper—limiting innovation, delaying progress, and unintentionally disadvantaging the very institutions that are trying to raise Bangladesh’s higher education profile.
It is precisely this environment that makes the case for a separate Higher Education Commission for Private Universities—one with streamlined processes, digital review systems, and transparent timelines that enable innovation to flourish without compromising quality.
When Bureaucracy Becomes a Bottleneck: How the UGC Slows Private University Progress
One of the most visible—and most damaging—ways the University Grants Commission (UGC) undermines the growth and quality of private universities is through unnecessary delays in syllabus approval and other bureaucratic processes. These delays are not merely administrative inconveniences; they are educational setbacks with far-reaching consequences for students, faculty, and the nation’s competitiveness.
For example, when a private university develops a new program in a fast-growing field such as artificial intelligence, data science, or climate resilience, the proposal must navigate a lengthy approval chain at the UGC. In theory, this process is meant to ensure academic rigor. In practice, it can take anywhere from several months to over a year before final approval is granted. During that time, industries move forward, global knowledge evolves, and student demand shifts—leaving the eventual program already outdated by the time it is launched.
The situation is worsened by an implicit but powerful benchmark bias: many UGC members, drawn predominantly from Dhaka University, evaluate proposals by asking whether similar courses exist in Dhaka University’s curriculum. If the answer is “no,” the innovation is often questioned or delayed. This practice effectively places Dhaka University—a public institution with slower curriculum cycles—as the yardstick for approving private university syllabi. It is a model ill-suited for a competitive, globally connected higher education sector, yet it permeates the UGC’s decision-making process.
Beyond syllabus approval, private universities face bureaucratic hurdles in other critical areas. Recruitment of foreign faculty—a common practice in globally competitive universities—is often bogged down by prolonged vetting and approval steps that discourage international experts from committing to Bangladeshi institutions. Even the introduction of short-term professional certification programs, which could quickly enhance employability, requires multiple levels of clearance that drain time, energy, and resources from academic leadership.
Instead of serving as a quality catalyst, the UGC becomes a gatekeeper—limiting innovation, delaying progress, and unintentionally disadvantaging the very institutions that are trying to raise Bangladesh’s higher education profile. This entrenched bias toward Dhaka University’s model makes the case for a separate Higher Education Commission for Private Universities all the more urgent.
When One University Becomes the Yardstick: The Dhaka University Benchmark Problem
Another structural obstacle faced by private universities is the way in which the UGC, dominated by members with academic roots in Dhaka University, uses that single public institution as the default benchmark for every step of syllabus approval. While Dhaka University has a long and respected academic history, it was designed to serve the public sector’s mission, pace, and governance structure—not the dynamic, market-responsive needs of private higher education.
This bias manifests most clearly in syllabus approval. UGC reviewers often ask: “Dhaka University doesn’t have this—why do you?” rather than assessing relevance or innovation.
A department chair in computer science shared:
“We had a cutting-edge AI and Data Analytics syllabus ready to launch. It was reduced to a generic computer science degree because Dhaka University hadn’t yet introduced similar courses. We lost our competitive edge before we even started.”
A professor of engineering described the experience vividly:
“Every innovative lab course we propose gets questioned: ‘Where is this in Dhaka University’s curriculum?’ It’s like being told to drive a race car but only if it moves at the speed of an ox cart.”
The problem with this approach is twofold. First, it assumes that Dhaka University’s curriculum represents a universal gold standard, rather than one of many possible models. In reality, public universities like Dhaka often revise curricula more slowly due to procedural constraints, faculty consensus requirements, and limited responsiveness to industry demands. Private universities, by contrast, operate in a competitive environment where timely curriculum updates can mean the difference between producing graduates who are employable and those who are not.
Second, the Dhaka University benchmark often stifles pedagogical innovation in fields where private universities are ready to lead. For instance, a private university might design a course integrating artificial intelligence, business analytics, and sector-specific applications—a combination increasingly demanded by employers worldwide. If Dhaka University’s syllabus in that field has not yet incorporated these elements, UGC reviewers may pressure the private university to remove or water down the content to match the “accepted” model. This not only slows the evolution of academic offerings but also sends a demoralizing message to faculty: innovation will be punished, conformity rewarded.
When Poor Planning Hinders Syllabus Approval
It is also important to mention that not all private universities are rejected by the UGC due to sheer prejudice or bureaucratic inaction. In most instances, institutions submit syllabi and curricula that are incompatible with standard academic benchmarks or lack adequate facilities to execute the intended programs effectively. For example, a university may recommend a laboratory-oriented course in engineering that lacks actual laboratories, trained personnel, or equipment for experimentation and learning. In such situations, the UGC is justified in withholding approval until such lacunae are filled. The problem, however, is that these justified refusals get muddled with instances where innovative, well-thought-out curricula are turned down based on outdated standards or discriminatory comparison with Dhaka University. This is an important distinction—assuring that quality assurance is difficult and, simultaneously, removing the structural barriers keeping forward-looking, well-funded private universities from achieving their programs.
A Lost Opportunity: The AI & Data Analytics Program That Never Was
A telling example comes from a leading private university in Dhaka that, in 2019, developed a groundbreaking B.Sc. in Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics. The program was meticulously designed with input from industry leaders, included mandatory internships with tech firms, and featured interdisciplinary modules linking AI with healthcare, agriculture, and supply chain management.
An assistant professor in business analytics reflected:
“We are not asking for lower standards—we’re asking for relevant standards. The UGC’s yardstick is so outdated that our students risk graduating into a job market that no longer exists.”
When the proposal reached the UGC, reviewers acknowledged the program’s relevance but insisted on aligning its core courses with Dhaka University’s Computer Science syllabus—despite the fact that Dhaka University at the time had no dedicated AI major and offered only two elective courses in the field. The UGC required the removal of several industry-partnered courses, the reduction of applied lab work, and the replacement of innovative capstone projects with traditional theoretical modules.
By the time the program was approved—nearly 18 months later, it had lost much of its original edge. Competing universities in India and Malaysia had already launched similar programs with full industry integration, and Bangladeshi students eager for advanced AI training had enrolled abroad. What could have been a flagship, globally competitive program became a watered-down version that neither excited employers nor positioned Bangladesh as a leader in AI education.
An assistant professor in business analytics reflected:
“We are not asking for lower standards—we’re asking for relevant standards. The UGC’s yardstick is so outdated that our students risk graduating into a job market that no longer exists.”
As a senior English faculty member put it:
“We tried to introduce a creative writing track with modules in digital storytelling and podcasting. UGC reviewers told us to remove them, saying they were ‘non-standard.’ But the world we teach in now is anything but standard.”
Similarly, a journalism program coordinator noted:
“When I proposed adding social media analytics to our journalism degree, the UGC panel dismissed it as ‘unnecessary.’ Six months later, major employers told us it was the top skill they wanted.”
This real-world example illustrates the core problem: when the curriculum of one public university becomes the measuring stick for all, private universities are forced to slow down, scale back, and settle for mediocrity. A dedicated Higher Education Commission for Private Universities could break this cycle by evaluating programs on their own merits—measuring
The Case for Context-Sensitive Standards
A dedicated Higher Education Commission for Private Universities could address these issues by creating accreditation frameworks that reflect the operational realities, ambitions, and strengths of the private sector.
First, such a commission could recognize institutional diversity by setting benchmarks that account for each university’s unique mission. A research-intensive private university should be evaluated differently from a teaching-focused institution, and both should have the flexibility to innovate within their specializations. Recognition should be given to novel teaching models such as blended learning, flipped classrooms, and competency-based education—approaches that may not fit neatly into UGC’s traditional evaluation templates but are proven to enhance learning outcomes.
Second, it could integrate global linkages into national quality frameworks. Many private universities in Bangladesh already pursue international accreditations such as AACSB for business programs, ABET for engineering, or QS Stars ratings for overall excellence. A private HEC could actively encourage these efforts by embedding international benchmarks into local accreditation processes, as well as facilitating faculty exchange programs, visiting professorships, and joint research initiatives that infuse global perspectives into teaching.
Third, the commission could prioritize faculty development in a way that the UGC has not. This would mean mandating a set number of annual professional development hours for all faculty, covering areas such as pedagogy, subject mastery, and digital teaching tools. Such policies could be supported by the creation of national teaching fellowships or competitive grants for innovative educators within the private sector.
Finally, a private HEC could adopt evidence-based metrics for teaching quality. Instead of measuring only inputs like academic qualifications or years of service, it could assess outputs such as student learning gains, graduate employability, teaching awards, and documented instances of pedagogical innovation. This would shift the focus from procedural compliance to demonstrable impact.
Global Lessons in Tailored Quality Assurance
The notion that private and public universities require different governance frameworks is not unique to Bangladesh. Malaysia, for instance, uses the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) to set distinct evaluation pathways for private institutions, allowing them greater agility in responding to labor market needs and international student recruitment opportunities.
India offers another example through the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), both of which have developed private university–friendly guidelines that give credit for industry partnerships, start-up incubators, and applied research projects.
In the Philippines, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) integrates community engagement, entrepreneurship, and social innovation into quality metrics for private universities—acknowledging that these institutions often play a more direct role in local economic development than their public counterparts.
These models demonstrate that contextualized standards do not lower quality—they enhance it by making evaluation relevant to institutional missions and encouraging innovation rather than stifling it.
The Multiplier Effect on Teaching Quality
When accreditation systems reflect the operational realities of private universities, the quality of teaching improves across multiple dimensions. Faculty feel empowered when professional growth is not optional but embedded in institutional policy. With mandatory training hours and access to national or international teaching fellowships, educators are more likely to adopt contemporary teaching strategies and integrate new technologies into the classroom.
Curricula become more relevant when approval processes are swift enough to keep pace with global knowledge trends. Emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, sustainable urban development, or climate resilience can be incorporated into degree programs without years of bureaucratic delay.
Even the learning environment itself is elevated when accreditation frameworks require investment in digital platforms, collaborative spaces, and student-centered pedagogical approaches. The classroom ceases to be a passive lecture hall and becomes an active laboratory of ideas.
Risks of Maintaining the Status Quo
If Bangladesh continues to apply the UGC’s uniform accreditation model, the consequences will be predictable and costly. Private universities will remain reactive, constrained by outdated curricula and slow-moving approval processes. Faculty will stagnate professionally without structured incentives for upskilling. Most troubling of all, graduates will enter the workforce with skills that lag behind those of their peers from countries where higher education systems are agile, responsive, and globally connected.
relevance, innovation, and student impact rather than conformity to an outdated template.
Conclusion: From Uniformity to Excellence
True teaching excellence cannot be achieved by forcing diverse institutions into identical molds. It emerges when standards are ambitious yet attainable, rigorous yet relevant, and globally informed yet locally grounded.
At present, the UGC’s insistence—explicit or implicit—on aligning private university curricula with Dhaka University’s model has created a system where innovation is discouraged, delays are institutionalized, and global competitiveness is compromised. This is not a reflection of any shortcoming at Dhaka University itself, but rather of a governance culture that treats one institution’s curriculum as a universal blueprint.
A Higher Education Commission for Private Universities would have the mandate to break this cycle—evaluating academic proposals based on relevance, quality, and future impact rather than conformity to a legacy standard. It would replace the question “Does Dhaka University have this?” with the more important one: “Will this program equip our graduates for the world they are entering?”
As Nelson Mandela wisely said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” For Bangladesh, that weapon must be sharpened, refined, and adapted to the unique character of its private higher education sector—not blunted by outdated comparisons.
Source:
https://southasiajournal.net/a-separate-higher-education-commission-the-path-to-quality-teaching-and-innovation-in-bangladesh/
