THERE is a vital link between higher education institutes, production of knowledge and sociopolitical and socioeconomic upheaval. Higher education institutions are increasingly viewed as having a greater effect on local and national economies and societies.

Currently, our comprehension of the knowledge-based economy is limited. Much has been written on economic growth under economic turmoil and uncertainty, but less about the link between HEIs and economic viability.

Innovations at HEIs contribute to the latter’s organisational development and economic progress. Investing in HEIs as engines of knowledge production fosters the free exploration of ideas and facilitates their transformation. Historically, HEIs have been lauded for their role in producing new knowledge, extending technological frontiers, supporting economic growth and acting as agents of change in local and regional communities.

There is an important correlation bet­w­e­­en the number of graduates (via HEIs), and GDP per capita. For instance, research in the US has shown that states with a higher number of Bachelor’s degree-holders have a higher GDP per capita. But in many developing nations, such as Pakistan, the association between the number of graduates and the per capita income is inverted.

Simply establishing more campuses is no solution.

In Pakistan, HEIs are expanding in terms of new campuses. But the poor quality of human resource hired at educational institutes has jeopardised the real drive for knowledge creation, which is detrimental to an HEI’s and its graduates’ prospects as we observe downward mobility in terms of qualification levels and job quests. We lean towards a localised strategy by creating campuses in villages and having students finish their basic to higher education without exposure to a broader sociocultural context.

HEIs are influenced by a country’s economic policies, political turmoil, and structural inadequacies; here, in the presence of useless programmes and incompetent academics, HEIs have exacerbated the economic strain by generating graduates who lack the necessary skills. Instead of investing in quality, billions are spent on building new campuses. As a result, we sign MOUs with overseas donors and implement their plans to receive some financial support despite the lack of relevance, and continue to accumulate liabilities.

The Covid-19 pandemic era of online learning has led to a rising trend of virtual degree programmes, including PhDs.

PhD criteria are imprecisely outlined, quality assurance is frail, and the degree of knowledge capital imprecise. Plagiarism is on the upswing.

By ignoring economic growth, productive university-industry partnerships to foster innovation and knowledge infrastructures, the policy of expanding HEIs through new institutions and degree programmes has proven disastrous. An increase in the number of mediocre degree-holders puts a greater burden on the economy. In light of the economic deterioration, these graduates are more of a liability than an asset.

It is the quality of HEIs, not their increase, that will ensure productivity, encourage corporate innovation, and improve regional capacity through the supply of worthy human and research resources. It is not only about greater access to higher education, but also about the graduates’ contribution to the local economy as a return on investment. Otherwise, we will see university graduates applying for positions where only primary school graduates applied in the past.

Population growth is mainly responsible for economic devastation, but the rise in incompetent and job-seeking university graduates also spells doom for the nation, as institutions teach them as future employees rather than as entrepreneurs who could contribute, even if marginally, to greater job creation.

In the midst of the economic crisis, universities must be of an entrepreneurial bent to stimulate innovation. Entre­preneurship programmes’ curricula should differ from those of conventional education programmes, with venture development serving as the basis. Courses on leadership and creative thinking, as well as exposure to technological innovation and new product development, should be emphasised.

Criteria for faculty advancement, that are based only on conceptual contribution, must incorporate more pragmatic solutions. Only then can HEIs aid in the resolution of issues such as recession, corruption, inflation, unemployment and poor income generation. Otherwise, they will exacerbate the sociopolitical and economic decline. There is an immediate need to change the policy emphasis from ‘brick and mortar’ and control to empowerment and knowledge production. The major emphasis must be on the quality of graduates as opposed to their quantity, and on useful degree programmes as opposed to simply expensive ones.

The writer is an educationist.

Published in Dawn, January 19th, 2023