Behind the Degrees: The Dark Reality of Public Higher Education in Pakistan

We expect students to respect authority, but who teaches those in authority that students deserve respect too?

Consider a student arriving at a public college after completing a nine-hour night shift at work. For students who balance education with employment and family responsibilities, complying with institutional requirements can sometimes present practical challenges. Yet at the college gate, a student may find himself questioned over something as basic as a uniform. The incident raises a broader question that how should public institutions balance discipline with the realities of the students they serve.

Higher education is supposed to build confidence, critical thinking and responsible citizenship. This purpose requires that institutional discipline need not require unquestioning obedience; students should have legitimate avenues to question rules and voice concerns about their enforcement.

Respect in an educational institution should not be a one-way responsibility. It should work in both directions, and particularly when there's a lot more institutional authority on one side.

Institutional authorities inevitably hold greater power than students. Principals, senior faculty and administrative staff may influence matters such as grades, attendance, examinations, thesis supervision, recommendations, academic opportunities and disciplinary decisions. This imbalance can make students hesitant to raise legitimate concerns, particularly when they are uncertain about how their complaints will be received. Greater institutional authority therefore carries a corresponding responsibility to exercise that authority fairly and transparently.

Undergraduate students should be treated as young adults with responsibilities beyond the classroom. Uniforms are much more than an issue of dress code. Educational establishments have always been using them to create an image of unity, belongingness, and discipline. For instance, an example of one of the first uses of uniforms is the uniform worn by the students of Christ's Hospital School in England which dates back to the sixteenth century.

From a psychological point of view, wearing a uniform means affiliation to a certain group. It can also be used for minimizing any visible difference in clothing and creating common identity among pupils.

Nevertheless, the results of research concerning the impact of uniforms on students' performance are inconsistent.

Standardized rules are also needed for large educational institutions just to work. In case where there are a couple hundred or even a thousand of students living in one space, standardized practices will bring some

predictability in areas like identification, attendance, security, and behavior. The mere existence of those rules is not the problem in itself; the key question is if these rules are still relevant and proportionate.

The first people from the institution whom students may see at the college entry gate are the security officials. The security officials might be tasked with making sure that the students abide by the identification policy, dress code, and safety regulations among others. Nevertheless, having the rules and how the rules are implemented is one thing and another. This is because two institutions may have identical rules but treat their students in a totally different way.

There are legitimate rules that might not be effectively enforced. In case the objective of dress code is that of identification, the ID card serves the same objective; in case the objective is that of safety, the security procedure might be pertinent. The manner in which the rule is enforced should thus always be related to the actual objective of the rule.

Institutional power creates an inherent imbalance of power as well. Students may be reluctant to voice concerns when the same institution responsible for hearing their complaints may also be in control of grades, attendance, examinations, thesis supervision or academic recommendations. This does not mean that authority is not appropriate. It means that authority must have transparent processes and real accountability.

Education is an institution which has a hierarchy in nature. Teachers, Heads of Departments, Administrators, and Senior Management staff have varied roles and thus have varied degrees of authority. A Professor might rightly judge educational work or set standards for the class or conduct a research because these are roles associated with him. Issues may arise when the authority of the institution becomes that of the person and he demands obedience out of his official authority.

Accountability is not the antonym of authority but is what lends legitimacy to authority.

Institutional practices can also survive because they become traditions. A rule may continue for years simply because it has always been part of an institution's culture, even when the circumstances surrounding students have changed. This is particularly relevant in higher education, where today's students may combine studies with employment, internships, family responsibilities and long commutes.

Accountability is not limited to how students dress or behave; it also concerns whether institutions fulfil their own responsibilities. Maintenance issues in public facilities can affect students’ ability to learn in comfort and safety. Problems like poor ventilation, poor lighting, broken furniture, sanitation problems and lack of drinking-water facilities are not merely cosmetic. They have a direct impact on the quality of the educational environment. Since public institutions are maintained on public resources, the continuing problems of maintenance also raise legitimate questions about planning, maintenance systems and the supervision of educational expenditure.

This is not an attack on teachers or public institutions in general because there are many professionals who teach under tough circumstances. The point here is not authority itself, but lack of accountability.

Student rules need to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they continue to be reasonable, understandable and related to a justifiable purpose. It is important for universities to provide transparent assessment and complaint procedures, professional training for security staff members and maintenance of public spaces. Above all, it is essential that students have a way of giving feedback without any fear of repercussions.

Education has an official curriculum, but institutions also educate by virtue of their day-to-day conduct. The students learn about the exercise of power, the manner in which conflicts are managed, and whether the rules are applied consistently. Such learning is often referred to as the “hidden curriculum of education.”

When an institution educates its members on critical thinking in the classroom, while at the same time discouraging them from asking relevant questions, it may end up teaching them that although questioning authority is good in theory, it could be dangerous in practice.

Authority earns respect through responsible use of power. Higher education institutions not only provide degrees; they are the places that teach the learners how the society works. While teaching the learners that rules are important, the institutions themselves have to abide by rules. While teaching learners that respect is important, the institutions must also show respect. While teaching learners critical thinking, they must be able to raise their legitimate objections.

What is required here is not the erosion of the institution’s power; rather, what is needed is accountability of that power. The reason being that the most valuable thing that an educational institution can teach may not appear on the syllabus at all.