In the realm of higher education in Bangladesh, the primary issue lies not in a lack of funding but in a deficiency of accountability. Each year, substantial funding is channeled into public universities, research institutions, and national bodies, leading to campus expansions, increased degree offerings, and policy declarations. However, a crucial question persists: who bears the responsibility for the outcomes?
The current scenario reveals a lack of full accountability among various stakeholders. Are universities answerable for ensuring student learning and graduation? Should students be held accountable for utilizing heavily subsidized education effectively? Is the research system responsible for addressing national challenges? Presently, the answer to these questions is that no single entity assumes full responsibility.
Recent discussions around the quality, global rankings, and research relevance in public universities were reignited by the Prime Minister’s visit to Dhaka University, his first since assuming office. The subsequent controversy stemming from a minister’s comparison of Dhaka University to a coaching center highlighted a shared frustration among many Bangladeshis. What the country truly needs is a fresh social agreement for higher education that brings visibility to responsibilities and establishes a connection between public investments and tangible outcomes.
At present, students attending public universities receive education largely funded by taxpayers, a fact often overlooked and unacknowledged. Funds are distributed to institutions through block grants, with students contributing minimally and rarely considering the substantial investment behind their education.
A simple reform proposal involves providing every student admitted to a public university with a formal scholarship for higher education. This adjustment does not alter the financing structure, as the state continues to support education in these institutions. However, this approach enhances transparency by ensuring that funding is tied to individual students, with universities receiving allocations based on enrollment numbers and, notably, student progression. If students fail to advance or drop out, funding decreases; conversely, successful students lead to institutional support.
This scholarship model holds a dual benefit: students gain a tangible understanding of public investment linked directly to their education, while universities receive a direct incentive to prioritize teaching quality, academic support, and student retention over mere expansion. This model does not entail privatization but rather performance-based public funding that maintains government control.
While the scholarship model addresses teaching costs, other expenses like infrastructure and capital development would continue to be covered by government grants. Furthermore, universities could enhance their revenues through competitive research grants and development funds. This approach does not reduce university budgets but rather brings transparency and direct accountability to the teaching component based on student outcomes.
In terms of research, Bangladesh possesses research institutions such as BRRI, SRDI, GSB, SPARRSO, among others, that generate valuable knowledge. However, these institutions operate in silos, detached from universities, each other, and national priorities. Research funding is fragmented across ministries with minimal coordination, resulting in duplication and missed opportunities.
To address this issue structurally, establishing a national research council akin to UKRI is proposed. This body would oversee research and innovation funding, providing core support to national research institutions, coordinating competitive grants across universities and disciplines, and aligning the entire system with long-term national challenges.
Moreover, investing in staff development, creating pathways for junior academics, and involving students actively in research work are suggested cultural interventions to foster a genuine research culture within universities. A national coordination body would be instrumental in driving these initiatives.
A system that funds institutions without evaluating their outputs is destined to stagnate. Implementing a performance-based strategic funding layer with periodic reviews assessing teaching quality, student progress, research output, and contribution to national priorities is recommended. Well-performing institutions would receive additional support, while underperforming ones would face structured pressure to improve, ultimately shifting university leadership towards genuine accountability for outcomes.
While some critics may argue that these proposals are better suited for wealthier nations, the core challenge in Bangladesh lies in alignment rather than funding scarcity. The existing public funding in higher education lacks a unified logic and sufficient accountability for its outcomes.
In conclusion, a redefined social agreement would clarify responsibilities: the state would transparently fund, universities would perform accountably, students would appreciate the value of public investment, and research would serve the nation cohesively and purposefully. The pertinent question facing the state is whether to persist in managing the system’s inadequacies or embark on a redesign journey.