Affiliated Colleges Report Sept 2016

Study 4
Affiliated colleges (Performance, Value of

the Affiliation Mechanism)
Prof. Dr. Masood Sarwar Awan

Individual Consultant
[Company address]
Contents
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 10
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Context ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Rationale/Significance of the Study:........................................................................................... 11
Objective of Consultancy: ........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of Report: .............................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 14
A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN....................................................... 14
Recent Initiatives ........................................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 22
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1. Key Data Sources ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.1.1. Secondary Sources: ................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.2. Data Limitations:................................................................................................................. 22
3.2. College Survey: ........................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 25
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 25
4.1. Faculty......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.2. Non-Faculty Staff........................................................................................................................ 26
4.3. Enrolment.................................................................................................................................... 27
4.4. Student admission and intake ...................................................................................................... 28
4.5. Curriculum and Programs ........................................................................................................... 28
4.5.1. Curriculum Development is centralized.............................................................................. 28
4.5.2. Revision is Non-systematic ................................................................................................. 29
4.5.3. Disconnect between taught courses and Labor market requirements ................................. 31
4.5.4. Learning Sources and Logistical Support ........................................................................... 32
4.5.5. Offered courses are limited in certain fields ....................................................................... 34
4.5.6. Recent Innovation ............................................................................................................... 34
| 1
4.5.7. Centralized Examination System ........................................................................................ 34
4.5.8. Internal Evaluation/Assessment in Affiliated Colleges ...................................................... 39
4.5.9. Lack of Systematic & Standardized Monitoring System .................................................... 40
4.5.10. Administrative Mismanagement ......................................................................................... 41
4.5.11. ‘Session Jams’ and Uncertainty .......................................................................................... 41
4.5.12. Admission Application and Registration in Universities .................................................... 41
4.5.13. College Teachers Recruitment ............................................................................................ 42
4.5.14. Training ............................................................................................................................... 42
4.5.15. Lack of Strong Monitoring System ..................................................................................... 44
4.5.16. Curriculum and Teacher-Learning Resources .................................................................... 45
4.5.17. Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................... 46
4.5.18. Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 46
4.6. Affiliation.................................................................................................................................... 46
4.6.1. Affiliation Process............................................................................................................... 46
4.6.2. Motivation of Affiliation:.................................................................................................... 56
4.6.3. Urban Bias in Affiliation: ................................................................................................... 56
4.6.4. Gender Inequality:............................................................................................................... 57
4.6.5. Affiliation Discipline must be offered by Affiliating University ........................................ 57
4.6.6. Unsustainability .................................................................................................................. 57
4.7. Governance ................................................................................................................................. 58
4.7.1. Dual Control........................................................................................................................ 58
4.7.2. Governing Council/Body .................................................................................................... 58
4.7.3. College Council................................................................................................................... 59
4.7.4. Parents Teacher Council ..................................................................................................... 61
4.7.5. Quality Assurance Mechanisms: ......................................................................................... 62
4.8. Financial Autonomy.................................................................................................................... 65
4.8.1. Financing............................................................................................................................. 68
4.8.2. Monitoring System of Affiliated Colleges: ......................................................................... 71
4.8.3. Saturation and Financial Sustainability of Affiliated Colleges: .......................................... 71
4.8.4. Mis-utilization of Public Resources: ................................................................................... 72
4.9. Labor Market .............................................................................................................................. 72
4.10. Hiring, Firing and Transfer of Faculty .................................................................................... 73
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 75
| 2
CONCLUSION AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS...................................................................................... 75
References ................................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 80
| 3
Acknowledgement
I would like to gratitude the various key stakeholders from HEC, Affiliating
Universities, Affiliated Colleges and Academia who open handedly took time from
their hectic schedules and share their views, ideas and help with their nice
suggestions. Adding together I would like to thank Mr. Imtiaz Pirzada, Associate
Professor of Economics and Mr. Jamshed Baloch, Assistant Professor of Social
Work from University of Sindh, Jamshoro; Mr. Qaisar Iqbal, Assistant Professor of
Pharmacy, University of Balochistan, Quetta; Dr. Atif Jaffery, Chairman,
Department of Economics, University of Gujrat, Gujrat; Mr. Bedi uz Zaman and Mr.
Mahmood ul Hassan, Associate Professors of Economics, Mr. Pir Ahmad Hasan,
Assistant Professor of History, University of Sargodha, Sargodha; Muhammad
Javaid Ahmad, Assistant Professor, Govt. College Jahanian for their assistance in
the data collection activities across different provinces. All these persons remain
committed exclusively as they acknowledge the significance of this issue regarding
the tertiary education of Pakistan. Besides academia, I would also like to express my
gratitude to Mr. Najeeb ur Rehman Bugvi, AIG, Establishment and Lt. Col. Dr.
Malik Shoaib, CO, CMH Mardan for providing security and logistic support for data
collection in KP; and
This study has been greatly benefitted by the opinions of responsible administration
personnel in the registrar office and examination office, and members of affiliation
teams in universities. This input has really helped a lot in the interpretation of
quantitative results, making of meaningful discussion and formulation of policy
suggestions.
In the accomplishment of this report, the role of Dr. Ishrat Lodhi, focal person from
HEC, is highly commendable. I am obliged and extend my deepest gratitude to her
for continuous help in matters where the study needs to take the best among different
alternatives.
Team Members
Dr. Muhammad Sarwar, Associate Professor of Education; Ms. Safana Shaheen,
Associate Professor of Economics; Muhammad Waqas, Muhammad Nauman Malik
and Muhammad Amir Aslam, Lecturers in Economics, University of Sargodha,
Sargodha have all assisted diligently and enthusiastically as responsible members of
project team during different stages like data enumeration, coding, editing, report
writing, Focus Group Discussion etc.
| Acknowledgement 4
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADP Annual Development Plan

BACT Balochistan Academy for College Teachers
BOG Board of Governors
B. Tech Bachelor in Technology
CPEC China Pakistan Economic Corridor
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HETTA Higher Education Teacher Training Academy
HSSC Higher Secondary School Certificate
HED Higher Education Department
HEC Higher Education Commission
KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
KII Key Informant Interviews
MTDF-HE Medium Term Development Framework-Higher
Education
QEC Quality Enhancement Cell
SSC Secondary School Certificate
| Abbreviations and Acronyms 5

Abstract
The recent explosion of affiliated colleges across Pakistan has naturally made space for the policy
makers to empirically investigate the situation of affiliated colleges. The major aim of this study
is to assess the affiliated colleges in terms of basic infrastructure, quality assurance, governance,
examination, affiliation, financial matters, faculty, students etc. It is being observed that affiliating
universities have neither any specified Quality Enhancement Cells for affiliated colleges nor
services other than exam conduct. Limited teacher training programs are focusing more upon
andragogical skills rather than course content refresher programs. Curriculum revision is seldom
in practice. There are various reservations regarding the paper checking system. Public sector
colleges have little financial autonomy. Moreover, service structure is protected and regularized
in public colleges but it compromises the ability of principal for teacher accountability. Private
colleges principals are much autonomous in their financial as well as hiring
and firing matters but exploitation of faculty cannot be negated. Reforms are required at both
affiliating universities and affiliated colleges levels. More decentralization is needed at university
level with adequate and active surveillance of colleges with transparency and accountability.
Grants should be given to colleges with relevant schemes of incentive and resource aid for
improvement. Teacher training programs and curriculum revision should be systematic in process
for better and consistent learning outcomes. Secondary sources are very limited in its scope and
periodic surveys for various dimensions of affiliated colleges information should be carried out so
that evidence-based policy could be made for long term improvement in affiliated colleges.
| Abstract 6
Executive Summary
Around the world tertiary education have been recognized as a way to achieve transformation from
a resource-driven economy to an efficiency-driven one. This tertiary education supported path
would eventually lead towards an innovative and knowledge intensive economy. Recognizing this
very fact which is already being experienced in the developed countries and in emerging
economies, Vision 20251 of Pakistan has greatly valued the accumulation of human capital.
Tertiary education has a significant role in the economic upgradation of a country. Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) were being pursued by Pakistan since 2000 but the emphasis of
MDGs rests over primary education. In the meanwhile, with the establishment of Higher Education
Commission (HEC) in 2002 tertiary education sector got a boost in Pakistan. Different new public
and private universities were given charter to initiate and at the same time existing ones increased
their capacity and efficiency because of the increased competition in higher education market.
Affiliated colleges system is inherited by Pakistan after the partition of subcontinent in 1947. In
Affiliated colleges graduate and post graduate courses are offered under the academic guidance of
Affiliating Universities and managerial administration of Higher Education Departments (HEDs)
in respective provinces. Currently, a major chunk of tertiary education students is being
accommodated by the affiliated colleges. This has happened as HEC mandated the universities in
policy guideline in Medium Term Development Framework – II (MTDF-II) 2011-15 to increase
the access of students to higher education setup and increase the enrolment in tertiary education.
Newly established or nascent universities which were established after 2002 contributed a lot in
the mushroom growth of affiliated colleges.
In the backdrop of above mentioned facts, this study is an endeavor by HEC to assess the current
situation of affiliated colleges so that appropriate measures can be taken for the upgradation and
capacity building of colleges in terms of quality and efficiency. Secondary sources are insufficient
to completely reveal the resources and outcome of affiliated colleges. Hence, these reasons make
the space for this study.
1
A Policy Note which describes the suggested pillars of socio-economic development of Pakistan as a future
strategy up till 2025. The document is prepared by the Planning Commission of Pakistan.
| Executive Summary 7
Key Messages
 Affiliated colleges have been expanded in a loose regulatory system by the affiliating
universities. Active governance is required in which strict regulatory systems are
developed for the systematic monitoring and accountability of affiliated colleges.
Directorate of Affiliation should be established in each affiliating university.
 Regional offices may be established for the regulation of affiliated colleges under the
supervision of Directorate of Affiliation in affiliating universities.
 Quality Enhancement Cell for affiliated colleges should be established within the
Directorate of Affiliation.
 Universities may be restricted to certain geographic territories for affiliation in order to
improve the monitoring of affiliated colleges.
 Data systems of universities and their affiliated colleges be established in the registration
branches with complete automation.
 Various sections of affiliating universities are over-burdened after the mushroom growth
of affiliated colleges. Hence, capacity building in terms of physical and human resources
is required and justified.
 Labor Force survey, Household survey and Development Statistics are not sufficient to
analyze the situation of graduates in market, especially with reference to the affiliated
colleges. Periodic survey is required to assess the demand of employers in market, courses
being mostly demanded by the students, time to get a job in labor market, what are the
market and community driven courses and programs and how much they got enrolment
etc.
 Quality Enhancement Cells must be established to evaluate the performance of affiliated
colleges on periodic and systematic way.
 Curriculum Development and revision should be systematic in which stakeholders from
colleges must be invited. Course contents relevance with respect to time of program, study
material availability, teacher training etc. must be ensured.
 Paper checking should be centralized with impressive remuneration. If centralized marking
is not possible then high remuneration along with more disbursement of papers across
paper checkers should be carried out so that paper checkers can pay more attention.
 Government should devise a mechanism in which grant must be disbursed as prize to well
performing colleges, incentive to those colleges which are trying to be better and aid to
those which are resource deficit but can perform well.
 It is better to disburse grant in tangible form where direct capacity building is possible as
libraries, access to journals, availability of computers, access to internet etc.
 Greater financial autonomy should be given to the principals of public sector colleges as
we can see in private colleges.
 Teacher training programs must focus upon course content refresher courses which is the
neglected part in training programs. Master trainer programs with appropriate study
material regarding the course content must be ensured to increase the efficacy of these
training programs. Currently, the whole emphasis is upon andragogical skills2.
 University and colleges must both be in contact with industry for the establishment of
academia–industry linkages. It helps to design courses as per the requirement of market,
remove deficiencies in existing teaching patterns etc.
2
Skills to teach the adult learners.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Context
Vision 2025 aims to smoothly transit Pakistan from an input-driven to a productivity-driven
economy. This can be achieved with the help of a rapid pace of economic growth and
competitiveness while strengthening Pakistan’s capability to innovate, adapt and create indigenous
technology and design, develop and market new products; thereby providing the foundation for
local growth (GOP, 2014). This transition is dependent on the performance of the higher education
and science and technology sectors which can contribute towards Knowledge economy.
Institutions of the higher learning will play a leadership role through the production of skilled,
innovative and enterprising knowledge workers. Research organizations will also come up with
solution based and innovative research in collaboration with the industry and academia for fruitful
results (HEC, 2011).
Since the establishment of Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan, tertiary education
sector has improved a lot. From infrastructure to the recent setup of Quality Enhancement Cells
(QECs) in Universities, HEC contributed a lot in the socio-economic development of Pakistan.
But still there are many avenues which need improvement e.g. few universities in top 500 ranking,
PhD faculty in universities and R&D organizations is still much less than the global standards etc.
One such area is of access to higher education. It is estimated that less than seven per cent youth,
aged between 17-23 years, have access to higher education, which is next only to the sub-Saharan
countries. Pakistan will improve this to 10-12 per cent during the Plan period (GOP, 2013).
Of course, this needs provision of access through setting up new universities, establishing sub-
campuses of the universities and enhancing enrolment capacity of the existing universities.
Keeping in view this policy, many new universities have been established in far-flung areas as
well as metropolitan areas, while establishing women universities to address gender imbalance in
the tertiary education and introduction of disciplines more relevant to women, like social sciences,
media, fine arts, textile designing, home economics, etc. The role of distance learning universities
cannot be ignored for the higher education. Two distance learning universities, the Allama Iqbal
Open University and Virtual University, are expanding their outreach.
| CHAPTER 1 10
Pakistan inherited the mechanism of affiliated colleges from British India (World Bank, 2011).
However, there has been a recent new phenomenon in which affiliated colleges expanded at large
scale under the umbrella of both old and nascent Universities of Pakistan. A significant chunk of
today’s tertiary education students are held by affiliated colleges in Pakistan (GOP, 2013). Hence,
the role of affiliated colleges can never be negated in near future, given their specific purpose of
delivering higher education at door step in far flung areas of Pakistan as responsible learning arms
of affiliating universities. It was envisaged that such provision of higher education at the door step
would be majorly conducive on two grounds; firstly, it would be relatively inexpensive. Secondly,
it would reduce inequalities pertaining to the deprived areas and girls’ education.
Rationale/Significance of the Study:

This study is an excellent initiative by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan in
respect of the assurance of quality oriented tertiary education in Pakistan. As far as our knowledge
is concerned there is no empirical study which has yet explored the efficacy and efficiency of
affiliated colleges in Pakistan. Undoubtedly, a large part of our graduates are being taught in
affiliated colleges all across Pakistan. Hence, any effective policy making regarding the promotion
of tertiary education in Pakistan would be incomplete rather inappropriate if the policy is not being
supported by the situation analysis of affiliated colleges.
Pakistan is a resource constraint country both in terms of finance and human capital. It would be
difficult to administer a university campus across the length and breadth of Pakistan. In such
circumstances, role of affiliated colleges can never be negated in near future and they command
an opportunity to equip our youth in the right direction with quality and meaningful education.
Only in this way, we can reap the benefit of demographic dividend of Pakistan. Cognizant of the
significance of affiliated colleges, HEC is now focusing on the quality of affiliated colleges. Their
quality cannot be enhanced without getting the feedback of stakeholders about the existing issues
and challenges they are facing. Therefore, the HEC’s initiative would be highly appreciable in
order to fill this gap. This study would be of great value in respect of all above mentioned aspects
of higher education and development.
Since 2005, the government has launched two successive Medium-Term Development
Frameworks for Higher Education [MTDF-HE (I) and (II)] and has focused on measures to
| INTRODUCTION 11
increase access, improve the quality and relevance of teaching and research, strengthen and
modernize governance and management of HEIs. Recognizing the need to accelerate reforms of
tertiary education, the government is now preparing the MTDF-HE (III) for 2016–20. To provide
analytical underpinning for the design and preparation of the MTDF-III, the HEC plans to carry
out a series of background studies to assess critical sector issues. These studies will help the HEC
in identifying issues and policy options. Among those background studies, this study is focused
upon Affiliated Colleges.
Objective of Consultancy:
The main purpose of the consultancy is to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based and objective
account of the performance and challenges of affiliated colleges in Pakistan, and to offer a menu
of possible measures to overhaul their performance and overcome the challenges.
The consultant focused on the following areas and issues:
 Student admission and intake (selection policy & practice);
 Enrollment distribution by types of college (public/private; intermediary/ degree…),
disciplines, programs, affiliating universities, location, and gender;
 Graduation (time to graduate, drop-outs, transfers, learning assessment tools, transition to
university);
 Teaching staff (qualifications, selection, promotion, teaching load, remuneration, etc.);
 Curricula and programs (quality and relevance, reviews, adherence, etc.);
 Affiliating mechanisms (type and scope of the services rendered by affiliating universities:
how efficient? how sufficient? etc.);
 Financing (sources and amount of funds, breakdown of expenditure; student aid: fees and
scholarships);
 Governance (level of academic, administrative and financial autonomy vis à vis
Department of Education /Affiliating University / Central & Provincial HEC; internal
governance system and capacity);
 Graduates’ situation in the labor market (time to land a job; match between skills acquired
and skills demanded).
| INTRODUCTION 12
Organization of Report:
The introduction section would be followed by a brief about the education sector of Pakistan with
special relevance to affiliated colleges in Pakistan. Later on, methodology would be discussed and
then results (Quantitative) of the data analysis would be presented. Finally, the discussion would
be made about the results (Quantitative & Qualitative) in the light of objectives and in the end
conclusion would be made along with policy recommendations.
| INTRODUCTION 13
CHAPTER 2
A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN
In Pakistan, the education is generally organized at three levels namely primary (year one through
five); secondary (year six through twelve) and tertiary (graduate and advanced degrees). The
structure of education is similar across all the provinces. The major certifications at secondary level
are Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and Higher Secondary School Certificate (HSSC). Both
certifications are being given after an examination by different provincial and federal boards. In
tertiary education, the degree level exists at two levels. First one is the degree level and the second
one is Post graduate level or Masters’ level (sixteen years of education). After that research specific
studies exists in the form of Master of Philosophy (M. Phil) or Master of Science (MS) which is
accumulatively to be eighteen years of education. PhD is a specialization which can be initiated
after the completion of MPhil/MS studies (GOP, 2015).
Recently, four-year bachelor course (BS Program) has been launched in which the intake is right
after the completion of Intermediate studies. The completion of BS studies would mean
accumulatively sixteen years of education.
In tertiary level, graduate, post graduate and BS courses are being taught both at universities and
affiliated colleges. However, the examination is being conducted by affiliating universities for
affiliated colleges in both Annual system and Term system (Semester system with examination
conduction by University)3. In affiliated colleges both Public and Private Sector colleges are
working. Private Colleges are further sub divided into two categories, one may be called as Group
Private Colleges and other one as Non-Group Private Colleges. Group private College is a system
of colleges in which different franchises are established along with a central monitoring head office
with standardized monitoring mechanism whereas in Non-Group Private colleges there is no
concept of franchise establishment. The decision making is more individualistic centered upon the
owner of the college4.
Regretfully, even after so much expansion of affiliated colleges across Pakistan there has not been
any continuous periodical survey/census to assess the capacity building and efficiency of colleges
3
FGDs and KIIs
4
Ibid
| CHAPTER 2 14
in Pakistan neither at Federal/HEC level nor at provincial level. However, some basic, available
and latest information (Table 2-1) about the faculty, enrolment and number of affiliated colleges
are as follows;
Table 2-1 Number of Colleges, Enrolment and Faculty
Provinces No. of Affiliated Colleges Enrolment Faculty

Punjab 1,351 1,018,248 36,648
Sindh 268 339,060 7,582
KP 209 74,981 5,674
Baluchistan 72 62,568 3,212
Total 1,900 1,494,857 53,116

Note: (i) Number of Affiliated colleges also includes the affiliated institutes considered affiliated as per the list of affiliation at HEC website. (ii)
Affiliated colleges include all non-professional (Degree & Post Graduate) and Professional (Medical, Engineering, Commerce, Homoeopathic etc.)
colleges as per the availability of data of respective provinces. (iii) Sindh province statistics are of 2012-13 (yet to be officially released) whereas
all other provinces statistics are of 2013-14.
Source: Punjab Development Statistics 2015
Sindh Development Statistics 2014 (yet to be released)
Baluchistan Development Statistics 2014
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Statistics 2015
| A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN 15

One thing is quite obvious that the provincial figures regarding enrolment, faculty and institutions
commensurate with the size of provincial populations as we can see that Punjab is at the first slot
followed by Sindh, KP and Baluchistan.
Table 2-2 Gender Breakup of Enrolment
Enrolment Punjab Sindh KP* Baluchistan

Male 526,933 195,364 48,774 40,456
Female 491,315 143,696 26,207 22,112
* Enrolment whose gender break up was not provided it has been added in the male category.
It is pertinent to mention over here that the only reliable and credible source of information is of
provincial development statistics regarding affiliated colleges/institutions. Even the same source
is not free of data limitations. For instance, there have not been any rural/urban and private/public
divisions of affiliated colleges. Table 2-2 shows that in terms of enrolment there is clear
discrimination against female as male enrolment is more than the female enrolment in all
provinces.
Table 2-3 Gender Break up of Faculty

Faculty Punjab* Sindh KP* Baluchistan
Male 21870 4,775 4,128 2351
Female 14778 2,807 1,546 861
* Faculty whose gender break up was not provided it has been added in the male category.

Again in faculty as well (Table 2-3) shows that male are dominating relative to female in numbers.
Given the fact that teaching as profession preferred by the females in Pakistan, is not right as far
as the affiliated colleges’ faculty is concerned.
Table 2-4 Gender Breakup of Institutions
No. of Affiliated Punjab Sindh KP* Baluchistan*

colleges
Male 901 178 144 51
Female 450 90 65 21
* Institutions whose gender break up was not provided it has been added in the male category.
Number of separate institutions on the basis of gender are once again more for the male relative to
the female (Table2-4).
There is difference in the number of affiliated colleges if we compare the statistics given in
different Provincial Development Statistics Reports (Table 2-1) and by Higher Education
Commission (HEC) of Pakistan (Table A.4 in Appendix). The number of affiliated colleges of
HEC are more than the Provincial Development Statistics Reports’ figure. This may be due to the
reason that grant of affiliation is program-based. Same college is affiliated with more than one
university for its different affiliated programs. Consequently, multiple counting of same college is
quite possible when we arrange affiliated colleges by affiliating universities5.
The data of Islamabad Capital Territory(ICT), GB and AJK was not available from secondary
sources. Hence, collectively using both Provincial Development Reports (Table 2-1) and HEC
5
See appendix to view anomalies of Affiliated Colleges list of HEC. Complete list was retrieved from HEC Website in
the month of March, 2016 (http://www.hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/DAIs/HEC-Recognized-
Universities.aspx).
Affiliated Colleges List (Table A.4 in Appendix), we can construct an overall picture of Affiliated
Colleges in Pakistan as follows;
Table 2-5 Number of Affiliated Colleges in Pakistan

Areas Number of Affiliated Colleges
Punjab 1,351
Sindh 268
KP 209
Baluchistan 72
Gilgit 33
Islamabad 302
AJK 122
Total 2,357
It is pertinent to mention here that the List of Affiliated colleges by HEC is not supplemented with
number of faculty and enrolment.
Recent Initiatives
1. There were various concerns about the 2-year bachelor program system regarding its
benefit in the continuously changing labor market of today’s globalized world. Hence,
following the study pattern of foreign countries, 4 – year Bachelor (BS) program was
launched. This program is successfully running in almost all universities of Pakistan with
the aim that eventually it will replace the 2-year bachelor program.
2. Students of affiliated colleges were previously enrolled in the system of 2-year bachelor
program only relative to the universities having both 2-year (BA/B Sc.) and 4-year (BS)
programs of bachelors. In order to remove this inequality for the students of affiliated
colleges, now the affiliation is being granted for BS programs in KP and Punjab (Table 2-
6). Still there are various reservations about the physical and human resources of affiliated
colleges for the adequate deliverance of BS program.

Table: 2-6 BS 4-Year Program (No. of Colleges & Student Enrolment in 2013-14)
BS Program Number of Colleges Enrolment

Total Male Female Total Male Female
KP 39 26 13 10450 8704 1746
Punjab* - - - 39772 13485 26287
* Number of Colleges and its gender break-up is not available in Punjab Development Statistics 2015
Source: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Statistics 2015
Punjab Development Statistics 2015
3. In 2010, Government of Punjab launched a plan to grant autonomy to 26 colleges of

Punjab. These colleges were to be governed by the Board of Governors which would be
autonomous in their decision making of admission policy, fees, expenditure, teacher
appraisal etc. However, the plan did not materialize owing to the stiff resistance of teachers
as well as students. The teachers were feared of the alleged vulnerability of service and
students did not support due to possible hike in fee structure.
4. World Bank has implemented ‘Tertiary Education Support Project’ as a support to the
HEC’s Medium Term Development Framework – II (MTDF-II) for 2011-15. Under this
project, the colleges were evaluated in a survey (HEC, 2014) against Minimum Quality
Standards6 which were further divided into 40 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The
survey categorized the sampled colleges into four categories 7. Category ‘W’ (Excellent)
gets the top rank followed by ‘X’ (Good Performance), ‘Y’ (Satisfactory Performance) and
‘Z’ (Unsatisfactory) as performance level regresses. Out of the sampled colleges, only 2%
fall in the W category, 20% in the X category, 48% in the Y category and 29% in the Z
category8.
6
Table A.1 in Appendix
7
Table A.2 in Appendix
8
Table A.3 in Appendix would give more provincial level details.
5. Recently, Government of Punjab has launched its Faculty Development Program (FDP)
for the year 2014-15 in which the faculty of public sector colleges would be sent to top 300
foreign institutions and universities for higher education and training. This initiative of
Punjab government aims to enhance the capacity building and service delivery of affiliated
colleges9.
6. In another scheme, Punjab government is implementing its ‘Provision of Missing Facilities
to Colleges’ strategy as part of Annual Development Plan (ADP) in which the colleges
would be furnished all those facilities which are lacking e.g. additional class room, toilet
block, hostels, bus sheds, academic blocks, residences, boundary walls, science and
computer labs and other allied facilities10.
7. Since 2011-12, Punjab government is distributing laptops free of cost to the students of
affiliating universities and public sector affiliated colleges on merit basis. This initiative
has opened online international means and sources of learning and knowledge11.
8. The present Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has launched a landmarked initiative
about the provision of Scholarships to students with initial seed money of Rs. 500 million.
The seed money has been enhanced by providing further grant of Rs. 500 million. The
Endowment Fund is regulated under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Higher Education Scholarships
Endowment Fund Act, 2014 and governed by a Board under the chair of Honorable Chief
Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The aim is to provide scholarships to talented and
deserving students of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa purely on merit-cum-affordability basis in
order to improve the standards of education and to produce highly qualified and
professionally skilled/trained manpower to cater the future needs of the province in
selected fields12.
9. Naway Sahar laptop Scheme was initiated by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in
2012-13 under the scheme free of cost laptop computers were distributed amongst the
talented students of the Province. An amount of Rs. 1 billion was utilized for the scheme
and a total of 23147 laptops were purchased through a transparent process13.
9
www.hed.punjab.gov.pk
10
ibid
11
www.hed.punjab.gov.pk
12
www.hed.gkp.pk
13
ibid
10. Higher Education Teacher Training Academy (HETTA)14 has been efficiently working for
the training of teachers in the colleges of KP. The academy is conducting trainings in
respect of two broader areas; 1) Professional Development and Orientation Programs
includes modules of teachers and management staff for their professional development; 2)
Professional Research and Information Support includes in-depth research, analysis,
information, and organize programs, seminars and conferences for teachers and staff to
increase their understanding of professional, technical and organizational issues and to
enhance know-how regarding their role and performance.
11. Balochistan Academy for College Teachers (BACT)15 is training the teachers of colleges
in Balochistan since 2004. Moreover, it also conducts trainings of College Principals and
Vice Principals in order to improve their managerial skills. The provincial government has
planned to increase the working horizon of BACT in coming years.
14
http://higher_education.kp.gov.pk/page/higher_education_teacher_training_academy_hetta
15
BESP (2013-18)
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Key Data Sources
3.1.1. Secondary Sources:
For secondary data, the study used the officially declared Development Statistics Reports of
provinces. When contacted for latest statistics which might be compiled but yet to be released
officially by the respective statistics sections of provinces, only Sindh provide us information of
Education Section data (2012-13) in Development Statistics of Sindh 2014 report. Hence, the
following sources of secondary data were used;
 Punjab Development Statistics 2015

 Baluchistan Development Statistics 2014
 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Statistics 2015.
 Sindh Development Statistics 2014 (yet to be released)
3.1.2. Data Limitations:

Other than these reports there have not been any comprehensive effort by the Federal / HEC or the
provincial departments to assess the quality and efficiency of affiliated colleges in Pakistan. Even
the provincial development reports have a section of education in which graduate and post graduate
level information is given. This information is quite basic in nature and includes only the numbers
of enrolment, affiliated colleges/institutes and faculty. Gender break up is available in most of the
cases otherwise in some cases only total figures are shown. There has not been any information
about the regional division (rural/urban) and institutional division (Public/Private) of affiliated
colleges. In provincial development reports, technical institutions also include those technical
colleges offering the graduate technical course (B. Tech) which is bound to be affiliated with any
affiliating university but we were unable to include it as enrolment division between intermediate
level and graduate level were not reported except Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Statistics
2015.
| CHAPTER 3 22
3.2. College Survey:
Institutional sources of data do not provide us sufficient information for the analysis of affiliated
colleges in Pakistan. Therefore, in order to fill this gap, survey of colleges has been done.
Table 3-1
Provinces Selected Universities Sampled Colleges

Punjab 4 100
Sindh 1 20
KP 1 20
Baluchistan 1 10
Total 6 150
Four Universities were selected from Punjab. Out of these four, two were from central Punjab, one
from south Punjab and one from north. One university each from KP, Balochistan and Sindh were
selected. Within each University, colleges were selected randomly. The sampling frame in each
university was the official list of affiliated colleges of that affiliating university available on the
website of HEC. As university of Sargodha and University of the Punjab are two largest
universities regarding the number of affiliated colleges, so we have selected 30 affiliated colleges
each from both of the universities. Twenty affiliated colleges were selected each from university
of Gujrat and Baha-Ud-din Zikryia University Multan. Twenty colleges were selected from
university of Sindh Jamshoro and twenty from university of Peshawar, KP. Ten colleges were
selected from university of Balochistan, Quetta.
An important feature of this study is the combination of quantitative and qualitative data, collected
from the affiliated colleges. College survey instrument and Focus Group Discussion/Key
Informant Interview guidelines were developed in consultation with the stakeholders like HEC
and World Bank. The instruments were piloted as part of the design process. Again these
instruments were revised in the light of the pilot. Some questions that proved to be not very useful
were removed and additional relevant questions were included and piloted.
The questionnaire instrument (Quantitative-side) was used to collect information from affiliated
colleges. For quantitative data analysis, the study used SPSS software. On qualitative-side, Key
| METHODOLOGY 23
Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with the responsible and higher officials of affiliation
teams, registrar and controller of examination offices of the affiliating universities. Focus group
discussions with students, teachers and parents were conducted. The focus group guides and Key
Informant Interviews are not questionnaires; they are topic guides to ensure that the discussion
remain focused and sharing of views remain convenient. The feedback/perceptions/opinions of
focus groups discussions and Key Informant Interviews were added into the discussion of
quantitative results making them more fruitful.
| 24
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section holds the quantitative results of our data and the discussion is based upon the empirical
results established quantitatively and qualitative aspects based upon the opinions, perceptions and
experiences of the stakeholders involved in the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key
Informant Interviews (KIIs). The stakeholders include responsible higher officials of Registrar
Office, Controller Office, Affiliation Teams of universities, and Teachers, and Students
4.1. Faculty
Faculty is an important part in any education institution. The progress of education institution
depends upon the satisfaction of students about their teachers’ deliverance of knowledge. Table 4-
1 shows the on average situation of faculty in affiliated colleges. Overall number of professors and
Associate Professors are low in both public and private colleges where more severity is in private
colleges. Mostly Assistant Professors and Lecturers are working and their availability in number
is more in public colleges on average. Part time teaching staff is more in private colleges relative
to the private colleges.
Table 4-1 Faculty by Designation
Full / Associate Professor Assistant / Lecturer Part Time Teaching Staff

Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean
Public Colleges 8 0 0.61 33 0 3.75 3 0 0.04
Private Colleges 4 0 0.04 12 0 2.89 3 0 0.21
In terms of qualification (Table 4-2), overall the faculty with M. Phil/PhD are less in number on
average. Public colleges are more beneficial as compared to private colleges. Majority of the
faculty is having 16 years of education means Masters as highest degree. 16 years of education is
still the major condition for entrance in the faculty of affiliated colleges and universities. BS Hons
graduate appeared to have little interest in teaching as per our sample result.
Table 4-2 Qualification of Faculty
M. Phil / PhD Highest Degree Masters Highest Degree BS Hons Highest Degree
Public 10 0 0.9 28 1 3.49 2 0 0.01
Colleges
| CHAPTER 4 25
Private 3 0 0.52 9 0 2.52 1 0 0.01
Colleges
Table 4-3 shows us the level of expertise measured with the help of experience in teaching
profession. It is being observed that public college’s faculty is much more experienced as
Table 4-3 Experience of Faculty
Teachers with > 5 years’ Experience

Max Min Mean
Public Colleges 26 0 2.26
Private Colleges 4 0 0.79
Compared to the private sector faculty. One possible reason could be the job security in public
sector which retain faculty and may even attract the private sector faculty as the faculty in private
sector is relatively inexperienced. It might be possible that private colleges prefer less experienced
staff as they might accept lesser salaries.
4.2. Non-Faculty Staff

Along with faculty, the supporting non faculty staff is also significant for the smooth functioning
of affiliated colleges. Table 4-4 shows that as per our sample results the administration staff is
more in public sector as compared to private sector on average. This difference further increases
as we consider the Grade IV staff.
Table 4-4 Non-Faculty Staff
Technical Lab Staff Admin Staff Grade IV Staff

Public Colleges 26 0 6.72 35 1 8.53 40 3 13.56
Private Colleges 11 0 3.55 14 1 3.97 25 1 4.52
Technical Lab Staff is again more in public colleges than private colleges. It can be taken as
positive factor as this staff can service more and more students in understanding different scientific
practical. There is almost no training program for the improvement in the managerial skills of the
non-teaching staff (Table 4-5).
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 26

Table 4-5 Management Training
Management Training
Max Min Mean
Public Colleges 4 0 0.01
Private Colleges 0 0 0
4.3. Enrolment
Enrolment in degree level (Table 4-6) shows that public colleges are accommodating more
students relative to private colleges whereas in post graduate level private colleges are getting
bigger share of students. In BS 4-year program, public colleges are successful in getting maximum
students relative to private colleges. It is good as it has been introduced as a reform or initiative in
recent past.
Table 4-6 Enrolment by Levels of Education
Degree Post-Graduate BS-4years

Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total
Public Colleges 13147 13693 26840 1830 1435 3265 998 1227 2225
Private Colleges 12183 7668 19851 2997 3678 6675 149 104 253
Dropout ratio (Table 4-7) shows that drop out ratio is higher in public colleges as compared to
private colleges in both degree and post-graduate levels whereas in BS program the trend is
reversed as more dropout is in private colleges. In all programs, the drop out ratios of boys are
more as compared to the girls. Hence, girls are performing well relative to the boys.
Table 4-7 Drop out Ratio by levels of Education
Degree Programs Post-Graduate Programs 4 years BS Degree

(%) (%) (%)
Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total

Public
Colleges 4.00 43.34 21.98 11.64 52.36 32.03 0.33 11.04 5.64
Private
Colleges 17.20 22.15 19.11 16.28 21.18 19.00 2.74 17.50 7.96

4.4. Student admission and intake
Regarding admission criteria (Fig 4.4-1), the affiliated colleges are bound to fulfill the requirements of
affiliating universities. The reason is very obvious in case affiliated colleges do not follow the admission
criteria, their students would not be registered by the affiliating universities. As far as the admission
criteria is concerned, marks in previous terminal degree matter a lot in public sector colleges whereas for
private colleges its importance is rather less (29.4%) as more emphasis (47.1%) is upon other factors which
do not come under the category of previous terminal degree marks and capacity to pay.
Admission Criteria
0.0
Capacity to Pay
23.5
Public
Private 6.7
Other
47.1
93.3
Marks obtained in Intermediate/undergraduate degree
29.4
Fig 4.4-1 Admission Criteria
4.5. Curriculum and Programs

4.5.1. Curriculum Development is centralized
The curriculum is centrally developed either at the level of an affiliating university or HEC. There
has been limited input from the real stakeholders whom really have to teach at affiliated college
level.

College representative as Member of curriculum
development committee
100.0 97.4
Yes
No
0.0 2.6
Private Public
Fig 4.5-1 Percentage of Affiliated Colleges as representative in curriculum development

committee.
It is being perceived that these centralized curriculum development committees usually do not
know about the ground situation of affiliated colleges and their staff. There are various
reservations of college teachers about the course contents in terms of the proposed
suggested/recommended books, the contents are not rational in terms of time etc. The composition
of committee is highly skewed and there is negligible level of participation from college teachers.
More than 97% responses from public and private colleges showed that they have no representative
in curriculum development committees (Fig 4.5-1).
4.5.2. Revision is Non-systematic

Revision or update of curriculum is not systematic. There is no periodic revision of curriculum in
practice neither at affiliating university nor at HEC level. Affiliating universities’ departmental
board of studies are allowed to make required changes in curriculum after the approval of the
competent authority. But usually the board of studies meetings seldom go for the curriculum
change. Hence, there is no systematic and specific review process which can suggest curriculum
changes on regular basis after deliberation with all relevant stakeholders.

Availibility of Relevant books
97.3 Yes No
91.3
8.7
2.7
Private Public
Fig 4.5-2 Are relevant books available?
Both public (91.3%) and private (97.3%) colleges responded that there is no issue of availability
of books (Fig 4.5-2). As the revision is seldom therefore books are available in the market as the
demand remains consistent for the same authors and publishers.
Intimation of change in Curriculum

96.7 Yes No 92
8
3.3
Private Public
Fig 4.5-3 Percentage of Colleges whom are (not) intimated about Curriculum Change
Whatever and whenever the change is made either by the centralized curriculum committee of the
HEC or affiliating university’s department that would be properly intimated to the concerned
affiliated college (Fig 4.5-3).
Clarity of Outline
Yes No
99.0 98.1
1.0 1.9
Private Public
Fig 4.5-4 Percentage of colleges whom have or have not clarity about Outline
There has been no issue about the clarity in outline of curriculum as more than 98% of both private
and public sector colleges were quite satisfied with it.
4.5.3. Disconnect between taught courses and Labor market requirements

There has been wide gulf between what is required by the labor market and what is being taught
in classes. There is lack of industry-university linkages. Consequently, the curriculum is being
developed in isolation from the industry.
Market Driven Committee for Courses Selection

Yes No
79.2
64.4
35.6
20.8
Private Public
Fig 4.5-5 Percentage of Colleges possessing committee for the selection of market driven courses

The mismatch of skill requirement and skill development creates unemployment as well as
underemployment. Still there is missing of any periodic assessment of labor market requirements
and forecasts at governmental level. Hence, the universities have no policy document which guides
them about what is being required by the market or what skills the market is in need of.
There has been limited practice of market driven committee for new courses or disciplines to be
taken in affiliation. Private sector is particularly curious about the demand of students as they have
to compete in market to get maximum students to make their colleges sustainable in terms of cost
and profit. Public sector college teachers remain least interested in such practice as they do not
have any pressure for more program affiliations. The reason is secure service structure of
government in which the government cannot lay off teachers in the premise that the college is not
enrolling more students in different courses or subjects.
4.5.4. Learning Sources and Logistical Support

Most of the colleges either in private or public sector are in dearth of learning sources and logistical
support e.g. computer labs (for Non-IT program students), projector facilities in classes, high speed
internet connectivity, journal’s online access, well equipped lab. Material and equipment etc.
Moreover, even such less amount of resources (if available) are being poorly managed. This
seriously compromised the efficiency and service of these limited resources. For example,
computer labs become non-functional over time as there were no individual from teaching staff to
manage them. This usually happens in those public sector colleges where computer related course
is not offered and there is no one from the faculty to manage computer lab. Such lack of resources
is a hurdle in the way what the curriculum intends to deliver to the students in terms of skills

Accessability of Computer to Teachers
77.0
60.4 Yes
No
39.6
23.0
Private Public
Fig 4.5-6 Percentage of colleges providing (or not providing) computer accessibility to teachers
There is wide inequality between private and public colleges in terms of computers accessibility.
Private sector, particularly the private group colleges, are much efficient in this area as 77% of
private colleges have given computers to teachers. In public colleges, 60.4% colleges have
provided computers to the teachers (Fig 4.5-6).
Accessability of Internet to Teachers
92.0
79.2
Yes
No
20.8
8.0
Private Public
Fig 4.5-7 Percentage of colleges providing (or not providing) internet accessibility to teachers

Internet connectivity is also important to be connected with global digital world. This connectivity
is of 92% in private colleges and in public sector much lesser colleges (79.2%) have this facility
for teachers (Fig 4.5-7).
4.5.5. Offered courses are limited in certain fields

In some cases the affiliated colleges are offering courses in which more and more jobs are being
offered (especially in Govt. sector) in recent past and there is a possibility that it will continue in
future as well. Science subjects for affiliation are avoided by colleges because there is need of
science laboratories to run those programs. Moreover, those programs in which universities are
not conducting private exams and students which are not being accommodated in university
regular sessions go for affiliated colleges. These are the reasons which are working behind the
demand of colleges for affiliation. There is little interest of affiliated colleges to have research
oriented courses. Again it may increase their cost to hire those faculty who can conduct quality
oriented research.
4.5.6. Recent Innovation

In recent past, BS program (Four-year Bachelors) have been introduced in which since from
intermediate completion level the student is focused upon a particular discipline. The aim was to
teach students in Pakistan at par with the foreign students with clear tendency for research. The
program was launched in affiliated colleges as well. Issues regarding the curriculum, examination
and faculty capacity are still lingering. Serious efforts need to be done for the effectiveness of this
program by countering these issues.
4.5.7. Centralized Examination System

Affiliating University is the sole responsible institution for the final assessment of students in
affiliated colleges. Controller Office of the respective affiliating university being a centralized
authority conducts the exam. Generally, the question paper setting method is same across
universities. For both Annual and Term system affiliated programs, usually the same process is
adopted in which one external and one internal examiner in each paper are given the shared
responsibility of setting the question paper.

Satisfaction with the Timeline of Results (Degree Level)
7.5
Fully Dissatisfied Public
9.8
Private
18.9
More or less dissatisfied 22.0
24.5
More or less satisfied 30.5
49.1
Fully satisfied 37.8
Fig 4.5-8 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Timeline of Results (Graduate)
The rule is this that internal examiner is to set question paper and forward the same to the external
examiner who is bound to change a fixed percentage of question paper. Examination centers and
invigilation staff are also established and nominated respectively by the controller office. Later on,
the distribution of solved papers among paper checkers to result declaration process is strictly run
by the same office.
Satisfaction with the Timeline of Results (Post-Graduate Level)
8.7 Public
Fully Dissatisfied 7.7
Private
8.7
47.8
34.8
Fig 4.5-9 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Timeline of Results
(Post Graduate)

The selection of examiners is being done by the respective departmental board of studies of
affiliating university. The practice is to appoint internal examiner from the affiliated college
(Public College) and the external examiner from the affiliating university’s concerned department.
Examiners and Paper-checkers are often unable to meet submission deadlines of checked-answer
sheets to the controller office resulting in delays of result declaration and academic session delays.
As we can see (Fig 4.5-8 & 4.5-9) that there is relatively higher satisfaction level for degree level
results for both private and public sector colleges whereas both types of colleges are not so satisfied
for the result timeliness of post graduate level. If we observe the results above it is quite obvious
that steps need to be taken to improve the situation because not all the colleges are fully satisfied
and in some cases there is inequality of satisfaction. Inequality of satisfaction in Fig 4.5-8 can be
seen that public sector colleges are full satisfied by a greater number than the private colleges. On
the other hand, Fig 4.5-9 shows that in the category of More or Less Satisfied there is huge
difference as well.
Satisfaction with the Quality of Examination Contents (Graduate

Level)
Public Private
0
13
17.4
69.6
Fig 4.5-10 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Quality of Examination
Contents (Graduate)

Satisfaction with the Quality of Examination Contents (Post-Graduate
Level)
Public Private
0
13
17.4
69.6
Fig 4.5-11 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Quality of Examination
Contents (Post Graduate)
Our results (Fig 4.5-10 & 4.5-11) showed that in both degree and post graduate level, majority of
the colleges are falling in the categories of Fully Satisfied and More or Less Satisfied. There is a
general inequality in each category.
Satisfaction with the Quality of Marking(Degree Level)
11.3 Public
Private
13.2
43.4
32.1
Fig 4.5-12 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Quality of Marking (Graduate)
There are areas where improvement is required to make marking system optimal. At degree level
(Fig 4.5-12), the response of public college is more or less same across categories whereas majority
of the private colleges are less satisfied with the quality of marking. At post graduate level (Fig
4.5- 13), majority of both private and public colleges are in the category of More or Less Satisfied
but even then 16.8% of Public and 21.1% of private are relatively dissatisfied.
Satisfaction with the Quality of Marking(Post-Graduate Level)
0 Public Private
13
56.5
30.4
Fig 4.5-13 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Quality of Marking (Post-
Graduate)
Satisfaction with the Invigilation (Degree Level)
1.9
Fully Dissatisfied Public
3.7
Private
5.7
22.6
69.8
Fig 4.5-14 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Invigilation (Graduate)

Both public and private colleges are quite satisfied with the invigilation system at both graduate
and post graduate level. However, we can see that the distribution is more skewed for satisfaction
level in post graduate level (Fig 4.5-15) and at Degree level (Fig 4.5-14).
Satisfaction with the Invigilation (Post-Graduate Level)

Public Private
0
0
34.8
65.2
Fig 4.5-15 Percentage of colleges satisfied (dissatisfied) with the Invigilation (Post Graduate)
In FGDs, it is reported that there are few cases of problems when complete papers are made void
due to invigilation. Inefficiencies exist but overall the invigilation is transparent.
4.5.8. Internal Evaluation/Assessment in Affiliated Colleges

Tests are taken in affiliated colleges regarding preparation for the final affiliating university exam.
In annual system, the scores of these tests are not reported and they have no weightage in final
assessment. In Term system16, the process is different from annual. Some numbers of total paper
marks are allotted to the affiliated college teachers to assign them as per student academic
performance before final exam. These marks can be assigned via class presentation, attendance,
class participation, assignments, class Quiz and Mid Term exam with in affiliated college. Such
marks have to be reported to the respective controller office for final result. The seriousness
towards these internal academic assessment or evaluation (within affiliated college) is plagued
16
Semester system in Affiliated colleges is known as Term System. Term system is different from Semester system
of University in the sense that in Term System Part of the total marks are being allotted by the teachers in affiliated
colleges and the rest are allotted by the examination of affiliating university.
with varying intensity. It is being reported in FGDs that generally this internal assessment in
practice is much fairer in public colleges as compared to private colleges.
4.5.9. Lack of Systematic & Standardized Monitoring System

There is no regular and consistent monitoring system upon the examination, assessment within
affiliated college and paper marking. This deficiency makes no room for the systematic
improvement in overall system. As affiliating universities are all taking the exam conduct fees
from the affiliated colleges’ students hence they are morally bound to provide an efficient and
effective academic system to students. The possible improvement actions could be training and
orientation sessions of paper-checkers, more logistic support to the controller office for collection
and disbursement, proper accountability mechanism for the examiners and paper checkers for their
negligence, and surveillance over the affiliated college internal academic assessment or evaluation
of students. Hence, the monitoring system should be compact with various arms for the
implementation of accountability and transparency.
Evaluation of Teachers by Students

Yes No
84
76.1
23.9
16
Private Public
Fig 4.5-16 Percentage of Colleges having Teachers evaluation from Students whom they taught.
There is very limited trend of any teacher evaluation by the students in the public sector colleges.
The private sector colleges is in practice of doing the evaluation but mostly it is informal and lacks
any systematic system. However, group private colleges are good in this area as they are in routine
of taking questionnaire based teacher appraisal (Fig 4.5-16).

4.5.10. Administrative Mismanagement
The mismanagement is in two cases which is reported. Firstly, usually the papers are distributed
to those teachers/paper checkers who are not teaching in those papers. Sometimes, on the basis of
even favoritism and nepotism as paper checking is an additional source of earning to the
teachers/paper checkers. Secondly, there is no proper counselling and orientation sessions of
examiners (especially junior examiners) regarding paper setting. Written instructions are given to
the examiners which are seldom read by the paper setters. The examiners often ignore the
assessment balance between course memorization and critical thinking aspects. Even this balance
is different for graduate and post graduate level. Hence, neither the teachers or examiners are
properly guided by the controller office nor they have any formal sessions where senior and junior
teachers in relevant subjects can discuss these issues.
4.5.11. ‘Session Jams’ and Uncertainty

Session Jam is a term used to describe the delay in the final completion of an academic session.
Usually in Pakistan it is about the delay of annual system. In which mostly the academic sessions
are prolonged against their regular time line. The students have to bear undue delay and stagnation
in academic session. On the other hand, uncertainty prevails in the term system where the results
are delayed in semesters and students are studying in the next semester in uncertainty. Usually,
they get to know about the failed papers of the previous semester when they are about to take the
exam of next semester. Such uncertainty is fatal for the students as almost near the next exam they
get to know about the failed papers of the previous semester. Different reasons could be given for
this anomaly e.g. controller office may be over burdened due to the excessive college affiliation
without proper capacity building, inefficiency on the part of controller office employees, delays
made specifically by the teachers/examiners/paper checkers etc.
4.5.12. Admission Application and Registration in Universities

The students of affiliated colleges need to register to the affiliating university in specified time
before final exam. The process of admission from affiliated colleges to the registration in affiliating
university is non-computerized and non-automated in most of the cases. Paper work usually creates
space for the delays in registration to the affiliating university. Affiliated colleges get benefit of
late admission as they do not have to teach the course to the student and affiliating universities are
habitual of giving relaxation in late registration through ‘fine imposition’ as penalty, sometimes

with special permission from the Vice chancellor. However, efforts are being made to eliminate
this late registration process and affiliating universities are planning to introduce an automated
system but it is in its very early stage.
4.5.13. College Teachers Recruitment

The regular recruitment in Public colleges is being done through Public Service Commissions
which are the most credible institutions for public sector recruitment. The recruitment in private
colleges is not free from political pressure and favoritism. Pay and salaries of the teaching staff is
usually low and do not comparable with the public sector staff. There are no other allowance in
pay as we see in Public sector colleges. But all these facts are more relevant for private non group
colleges. For group colleges, system is much structured and more in line with the salary packages
of public sector. However, temporary teachers are not so much well paid off.
4.5.14. Training
The affiliating universities have no system of teacher training for affiliated colleges’ teachers.
Hence, a formal training system on regular basis is needed to improve the capacity building of
teachers. We can see that the decision about the books to be taught is primarily taken by the
teachers (Fig 4.5-17). Hence, if teachers are properly trained in terms of course contents and
andragogy17 they will definitely produce results for students in terms of more understanding and
skill enhancement.
17
The methods and practices used in teaching adults. In contrast to ‘pedagogy’ in which we teach the children.
Decision regarding the selection of Text Books
47.2
Teacher 73.6
1.9
Principal 4.6
26.4
The affiliating university 20.7
Public
24.5
Government Department 1.1 Private
Fig 4.5-17 Autonomy (%) in the selection of books
Generally, the affiliated colleges are not so much interested in offering teachers training facilities
(Fig 4.5-18). As the results are showing that public sector colleges are least interested in it as 92%
colleges do not offer/manage/avail such activities.
College offer trainings to faculty

92
Yes No
54.2
45.8
Private Public
Fig 4.5-18 Percentage of Colleges offering (or not offering) training to the faculty
In private sector, there is trend of training (54%) but it is much more inclined for the group private
colleges relative to non-group colleges.
HETTA and BACT have been praised in the FGDs but still there is need to increase the coverage
of college teachers. Moreover, the trainings need to be curriculum based as well along with
andragogical ones.

4.5.15. Lack of Strong Monitoring System
There is no systematic system of teacher appraisal in public and private affiliated colleges. In
public colleges, the appraisal is only in the form of final results of students and there is hardly any
follow up in case of poor results of students. In private colleges, there is again no system of student
feedback about teachers. In private group colleges, there is system of questionnaire feedback from
students as there is a system for university faculty run by the QEC. Such feedback matters for the
staff of private group college and may result in firing from job in extreme case.
College Own QEC

Yes No 89.6
82.7
17.3
10.4
Private Public
Fig 4.5-19 Does the college have its own QEC?
There have been no regularized Quality Enhancement Cells (QEC) in affiliated colleges in both
public and private colleges (Fig 4.5-19). In FGDs, it was revealed that practice is of an informal
college level committee (which the college considered to be equivalent to QEC or Quality
Assurance Mechanism) is established to assure the general quality of college ranging from
cleanliness to teacher presence in classes. Even such mechanisms are limited in practice for public
colleges (8%) but 78.1% of private colleges are working by this mechanisms (Fig 4.5-20). But this
is strictly informal without any standards.

Quality Assurance Mechanism at College
92
Yes No
78.1
21.9
8
Private Public
Fig 4.5-20 Does the college have its Quality Assurance mechanism in Colleges?
Private Sector colleges are much more conscious in the provision of outlines to the students as
compared to the Public sector colleges (Fig 4.5-21).
Provision of Course Outline

95.3
Yes No
52
48
4.7
Private Public
Fig 4.5-21 Percentage of Colleges which are (not) providing outline to students?
4.5.16. Curriculum and Teacher-Learning Resources

Curriculum and teacher-learning resources create the biggest difference in a well performing and
poor performing college. The curriculum and teacher learning resources are better in well
performing colleges given their competitive edge in infrastructure e.g. computer labs, internet
connectivity, well equipped libraries etc. Such facilities are either non-existent or under-existent
in public and private colleges. Even if the facilities are in existence their efficiency in terms of
resources is seriously undermined.

Teacher training (on regular basis) in public sector colleges and private colleges are not available
both in terms of refresher course for course contents and andragogical techniques. Even there is
no concept at the time of recruitment or even after recruitment (on-job). Some limited cases were
reported in private group colleges as well as in public sector colleges.
4.5.17. Quality Assurance

There is no Quality Assurance Mechanism in affiliating universities specifically for the assessment
of affiliated colleges’ quality evaluation. This thing is the need of the hour after the extensive
expansion of affiliated colleges across Pakistan. Such quality mechanism should be capable of
providing the much needed monitoring as well as guidance to improve the service quality of
colleges. It must have designated staff with proper periodic assessments of the colleges.
4.5.18. Assessment
In broader view, the whole examination system needs systematic improvement at all fronts. Right
from Paper setting to the result finalization, we need regular capacity building which should be
adaptable to the changing circumstances and needs of the students and affiliated colleges.
4.6. Affiliation
In Pakistan, only public sector universities are eligible to grant affiliation to colleges under the
affiliation guidelines of HEC. The basic criteria involve multiple elements like area, library, letter
from the respective directorate of colleges to be function as college etc. All Universities are not
exactly following this criterion as somehow they managed to relax them. This fact can be judged
by the variation in the responses of affiliated colleges in this section.
4.6.1. Affiliation Process

Affiliation is program based for public and private colleges. Public college application has to be
initiated by the principal and forwarded by the respective directorate of colleges whereas the
private college application needs to be forwarded by the governing body/council. Affiliating
university then process the submitted applications on the basis of the criteria and then affiliation
committee visit those colleges to verify those documents which have been submitted.

Status of recieving DPI letter
Yes No
83.9
71.7
28.3
16.1
Private Public
Fig 4.6-1 Colleges (%) whom have (haven’t) attained the DPI letter earlier than the grant of
Affiliation
The criteria is multidimensional and it may include governing body, qualification of staff,
infrastructure in terms of buildings, laboratories, equipment, furniture, libraries, books, total area
and play grounds etc. Finally, the recommendations of the affiliation teams would be forwarded
by the vice Chancellor to the syndicate for final approval of the affiliation. Even after the grant of
affiliation, the affiliation team can visit the college for quality check. If the team get unsatisfied
then the same team can recommend for de-affiliation.

Submission of Affiliation Application time
Public Private
24.5
longer than 6 Months 5.7
7.5
4-6 Months 16.1
13.2
3-4 Months 36.8
34
1-2 Months 33.3
20.8
After Starting Classes 8.0
Fig 4.6-2 Percentage of college’s submission of affiliation application time before the start of
session
The public colleges are lying at two extremes. Mostly applied the application in one to two months
or more than six months before the session start. On the other hand, private colleges mostly applied
in the range of three to six time period before the initiation of admission (Fig 4.6-2).
Visit of Affiliation Team after Application Submission

Public Private
28.3
longer than 6 Months 28.7
18.9
4-6 Months 16.1
20.8
3-4 Months 34.5
32.1
1-2 Months 20.7
Fig 4.6-3 3 Percentage of colleges as per the time between the affiliation application submission
and first visit of affiliation team.
Affiliation team usually visits the private sector college in three to four months after the application
submission whereas for public sector colleges the visit delay could be more than six months in
most of the cases (Fig 4.6-3).
Accessability of Computer to Students
95.4
86.8
Yes
No
13.2
4.6
Private Public
Fig 4.6-4 Percentage of colleges having Computer Labs
Access to computers (Fig 4.6-4) is best in private colleges (95.4%) in comparison with the public
sector colleges (86.8%). In the same line, the computer laboratories equipped with internet
connectivity (Fig 4.6-5) is more in private colleges (95.4%) relative to public sector colleges
(80%).
Accessability of Internet to Students

95.4
Yes
80
No
20
4.6
Private Public
Fig 4.6-5 Percentage of Colleges providing internet facility to students

Number of Books in the Library
Between 500 and 2000 > 2000
84.9
65.5
32.2
13.2
Private Public
Fig 4.6-6 Percentage of College Libraries more than 2000 books
Books in library are in good situation in all colleges. In Public Sector, 84.9% colleges have more
than 2000 books and in private college it is 65.5% (Fig 4.6-6).
Proportion of Text Books in the Library
5.7 Public
>90%
10.3
Private
7.5
Between 50% and 90%
19.5
39.6
Between 10% and 50%
52.9
47.2
<10%
17.2
Fig 4.6-7 Percentage of college libraries with different proportions of Text books to the total
books
However, books other than Text books are more in public sector colleges than in private sector
colleges. In Public sector, 47.2% of the libraries contain less than 10% text books whereas 52.9%

of private college libraries have 10% to 50% text books of total books (Fig 4.6-7). The reason
could be the intermediate section of private colleges which is usually more flourishing relative to
graduate and post graduate.
Books Purchased in 2014-15
62.3
>50
67.8
20.8
Between 10 and 50
11.5
9.4
Less than 10
20.7
Public
3.8
Zero
Private
Fig 4.6-8 Percentage of colleges with different number books purchase in 2014-15
The tendency towards the improvement in the quantity of books is more for both private and public
sector colleges as more than 60% of both types of colleges purchase more than 50 books in the
year 2014-15 (Fig 4.6-8).
Auditorium Availability
83.9 Yes
No
56.6
43.4
16.1
Private Public
Fig 4.6-9 Percentage of colleges with or without Auditorium

The facility of auditorium is more in public sector colleges as compared to the private sector
colleges. As public sector colleges have usually more space relative to the private sector colleges.
They have been given exclusive funds for the construction of auditorium by the government as
well. In private colleges, the space is usually less and resources wise they are not so strong to
construct such facility. 56.6% of public sector colleges and 16.1% of private sector colleges have
the auditorium facility (Fig 4.6-9).
Multimedia Availability
No Yes
52.8
Public
47.2
19.5
Private
80.5
Fig 4.6-10 Percentage of colleges with or without Multimedia
80.5% private sector colleges have at least one projector relative to 47.2% of public sector colleges
(Fig 4.6-10). In most of the cases the multimedia was exclusively for any particular lecture or
presentation. In each class the availability of this facility is almost negligible.
Availability of Sports Ground

No Yes
77.4
Public 22.6
65.5
Private 34.5
Fig 4.6-11 Percentage of colleges with or without Sports ground

Sports facilities are badly lacking in colleges as we can see that in both private and public sector
colleges there is non-availability of any sports ground which becomes a hurdle in the sports
activities of students and their health as well (Fig 4.6-11).
Transport Facility for the Students
Yes
58.2 60
No
41.2 40
Private Public
Fig 4.6-12 Percentage of Colleges with or without Transport facility for Students
Majority of the colleges in both public and private colleges do not have transport facility. 58.2%
of private colleges and 60% of the public colleges do not have transport facility (Fig 4.6-12). This
is also a hurdle in the way of getting more education given high fares of transport, security situation
and poor quality of public transport.

Medical Services for Employees
No Yes
75.5
Public
24.5
74.7
Private
25.7
Fig 4.6-13 Percentage of colleges with or without Medical facility for employees
In welfare terms, majority of the colleges do not have any specific medical service either for the
teachers (Fig 4.6-13) or students (Fig 4.6-14) where they can go for medical checkup on some
reasonable low rates. The colleges sometimes manage this facility with any doctor who give this
subsidized facility in order to get benefit of economies of scale.
Medical Services for Students

No Yes
71.7
Public
28.3
70.3
Private
20.7
Fig 4.6-14 Percentage of colleges with or without Medical facility for students
As far as public sector and group private sector colleges are concerned there is a strict monitoring
system of attendance. In some private group college it is even automated whereas in public sector

colleges paper work is maintained for it. Less than 10% absenteeism is in 74.4% of the private
sector colleges and 79.2% of the public sector colleges at degree level (Fig 4.6-15).
Percentage of Students Absent from Degree Level
0 Public
between 25% and 50% of students
8.5 Private
20.8
17.1
79.2
< 10% of students
74.4
Fig 4.6-15 Percentage of colleges with varying Absentee rate (Graduate Level)
At post graduate level, less than 10% of the students remain absent in 61.8 % of private colleges
and 75% of the public sector colleges (Fig 4.6-16). Non group private colleges usually relax
students in terms of attendance and they may have under reported. Hence, collectively the private
sector showing less amount of absenteeism as we can see in public sector colleges. The
absenteeism is lower in public colleges relative to the private sector college.
Percentage of Students Absent from Post-Graduate Level
> 50% of students

0
5.5 Public
0 Private
between 25% and 50% of students 3.6

25
29.1
< 10% of students

75
61.8
Fig 4.6-16 Percentage of colleges with varying Absentee rate (Post-Graduate Level)

4.6.2. Motivation of Affiliation:
Motivation of program affiliation can be discussed in two perspectives. From the affiliating
university side, there is one positive and one negative opinions are being observed. In the former
opinion, affiliation is being seen as a positive step to increase the enrolment of students in tertiary
education in a country in which major part of the population is young. Hence, in order to equip
them with knowledge, expansion of higher education services is needed. Affiliated colleges are
providing this service under the umbrella of affiliating university at the door step of people residing
in remote areas of Pakistan. Along with coping the issue of long distances, it is also a cost effective
or inexpensive way for students belonging to low income families to get higher levels of education
in Pakistan. Moreover, given the socio-cultural restraints and traditional conservatism, girls have
an opportunity to get higher education in their local communities. In the latter opinion, universities
are just increasing their own income sources at the cost of quality of education. They are in ruthless
competition with one another in which some nascent universities are expanding affiliation without
even considering their own resources and capacity building. Moreover, they have involved
themselves in the affiliation activity without properly finding the solutions of those affiliation
issues in which old universities are still caught upon.
From the affiliated colleges’ side, they were quite open to declare that they want affiliation in those
areas/programs about which there is demand in job market. This job market perspective is very
limited and without any declared public policy of the government. This job market perspective of
affiliated colleges runs very simple to go for those programs regarding which maximum job
openings are being offered. For instance, the job opening of ‘Educators’ in school side by Punjab
Government really boosts the demand of science subjects. In the same way, jobs offering for
physical fitness trainers or supervisors in education institutions again increased the demand for
physical education programs. Secondly, courses in which universities do not allow private
admission of students is also an area where affiliated colleges accommodate students who failed
to get enrolled in the regular program of the university e.g. physical health, education etc. Thirdly,
demand is also more for non-natural-science disciplines as there is no need of establishment of
science labs in such program affiliation e.g. commerce, sociology etc.
4.6.3. Urban Bias in Affiliation:
Affiliation of colleges is not a new phenomenon. It is being inherited after the independence and
later on HEC policy for the expansion of education encourage the nascent universities of Pakistan

to jump into affiliation process following the footsteps of old universities. Regretfully, affiliation
expansion (especially after the involvement of new universities) remains urban centric and it failed
to decrease the regional inequality. Most of the affiliation is being given to urban colleges as there
is limited penetration of private sector in rural areas. Rural areas continue to depend upon the
public sector colleges. The deplorable situation of public colleges in rural areas is known to
everyone. Hence, affiliation expansion did not do much to equip the young population of rural
areas of Pakistan.
4.6.4. Gender Inequality:
Gender discrimination prevails in Pakistan owing to orthodox socio-cultural norms and
misunderstanding of religious teachings. Both of them contributed in creating physical and
psychological security problems and barriers for girls to get higher education. Girls in urban areas
or cities are relatively in better situation as compared to the girls residing in rural areas. As the
affiliation expansion’s tendency remains to be urban centric, this naturally creates a bias against
the girls. Hence, affiliation expansion is not being followed to ensure gender equity. Majority of
the population of Pakistan is living in rural areas and their significant female segment is unable to
attain quality education at their doorsteps.
4.6.5. Affiliation Discipline must be offered by Affiliating University
It is a policy rule that affiliating universities can grant affiliation in those programs which are
already being offered on-campus by the affiliating university. In this study sample, all colleges’
programs are being offered on-campus by their affiliating universities. During FGD, one instance
was quoted by the participants that one such affiliation was granted in past but it rolled back due
to various problems relating with examination.
4.6.6. Unsustainability
Excessive burden without appropriate capacity building in line with any long term strategy causes
unsustainability. In the absence of any long term strategy for affiliation, affiliating universities are
unable to sustain the burden of affiliated colleges given their limited resource capacity. The most
relevant case is of controller office whose primary responsibility is to conduct examination. Such
burden give birth delays in results, poor management of examination centers etc. Same is the case
of affiliation teams whose dual tasking of affiliation and later quality check in terms of inspection
cannot be efficient and effective.

Summing up, it is quite evident by our results that there is great variation in the responses of the
affiliated colleges both within and across types of colleges. This naturally indicates towards this
fact that HEC criteria for affiliation is not being followed cent percent by the affiliating
universities. One way or the other the conditions are being relaxed by the affiliating universities
which may affect the efficiency and outcome of affiliated colleges.
4.7. Governance
4.7.1. Dual Control
Both public and private colleges are under the dual control of both affiliating university as well as
provincial government’s respective directorates of colleges. For academic purposes, colleges are
bound to follow the instructions of affiliating university and at the same time they must have to
meet the administrative and resource conditions/requirements set by the affiliation criteria that can
be verified and checked by the affiliation teams at any time. Respective directorates of colleges
have also administrative control over the colleges for their services.
4.7.2. Governing Council/Body

In the context of Private colleges, it is observed that the governing councils are practically inactive
in decision making or in overall policy guidance/surveillance of affiliated colleges. They are either
made or used to fulfill legal requirement of college establishment.
While discussing the composition of governing council, it was alarming to see that college
representative would not even know the profession of governing council members. File-work only
shows you the names with addresses without contact numbers or e mail addresses. Hence, private
colleges are practically working on the whims of owner or paid principals as an employee of the
owner of college. Mostly, these individuals are following a self-made and short-term gain policy
where more or less the rules of game are almost like a usual commercial business activity. In
practice, even the affiliation teams do not bother to meet the members of governing council during
the affiliation process. Governing council is being considered as a mere paper/document
requirement for affiliation.

Modality of Decision Making of Governing Body
Private
Through Voting 1.2

Through Chairman's Call 11.6
Through Consensus 87.2
Fig 4.7-1 Method of Decision Making in Private Colleges (%)

There is no concept of governing councils in public sector colleges. They are reporting to the
Directorate of Colleges in their respective Divisions. All policy guidelines are being channeled by
the provincial higher education departments. In the Punjab province, couple of years back,
government planned to give autonomy to some big colleges of the province. The autonomy plan
was based over the establishment of ‘Board of Governors’ (BOG) on the same pattern as syndicates
are working in universities. Principals were envisaged to have maximum autonomy answerable to
the BOG. But the plan failed to materialize due to allegedly poor planning of the government
regarding laws and regulations and stiff resistance by the teaching and non-teaching faculty of
those colleges.
Frequency of meetings of Governing Body

Private
Once a week 1.1
Once a month 11.6
Once every three 16.3

month
Other 18.8
Twice a year 48.8
Annual 14.0
Fig 4.7-2 Frequency of meetings of Governing Body in Private colleges (%)
4.7.3. College Council

Presence of College Council
Yes No
77.4
62.1
37.9
22.6
Private Public
Fig 4.7-3 Percentage of Colleges having College Council
Modality of Decision Making of College Council

Through Consensus Others
100
64.7
35.3
Private Public
Fig 4.7-4 Method of decision making of College Councils in colleges (%)

Frequency of meetings of college council
Other 19.5
9.1
Once a month 22
72.7
Once every 3 months 24.4

12.1
Twice a year 29.3

6.1 Public
Annual 4.9 Private

0.0
Fig 4.7-5 Frequency of College Council meetings in colleges (%)
4.7.4. Parents Teacher Council

The aim of any Parents Teacher Council is to have a formal and regular forum where parents can
impart their opinions and suggestions. The rationale says that colleges are working at community
level. In colleges, students of a particular locality or adjacent areas are studying. Hence, they could
have problems of common nature relevant to larger community.
Currently, there are no such councils existing. When asked about the reasons the response was
quite obvious that they really do not know how to give representation to parents in this council.
There is a concept of Parents Teachers Meeting in practice in the mid or at the end of a session or
result announcement. In which parents can meet teachers formally about the performance of their
boys and girls. Otherwise, college can call parents about any issue of the student at any time on
case to case basis. It is being reported that some special treatment is always given by the teachers
to those parents who are well off or administratively influential. This allegedly anticipatory
accommodation is being provided only to get any envisaged benefit or remedy of a problem in
which the teacher might caught upon in future.

Presence of Parents Teacher Council
Yes No
79.2
52.3
47.7
20.8
Private Public
Fig 4.7-6 Colleges having Parents Teacher Council

College council is fully active in both public and private college with its regular meetings and
proper decision making process.
Frequency of meetings of the parent teacher council

63.4
Private Public
27.3 27.3
19.5 18.2 18.2
9.1 7.3
4.9 4.9
Annual Twice a year Once every 3 Once a month Others

months
Fig 4.7-7 Method of decision making of Parents Teaches Council in colleges (%)
4.7.5. Quality Assurance Mechanisms:

Currently, there has been no working or functional quality assurance department specifically for
affiliated colleges by affiliating universities. Even then surprisingly there is so much difference in
the opinion of affiliated colleges about the existence of Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) in
affiliating universities (Fig4.7-8). We will discuss this issue in two categories; quality assurance
prior to affiliation (Pre-affiliation) and quality assurance after affiliation (Post-affiliation).

In the former category, quality assurance is being maintained under the guidelines of the HEC.
Each university has made rules and regulations in the light of the guidelines. Affiliation Teams or
committees have been authorized to visit the respective colleges to verify those details whose
documents have been submitted to the affiliation branch of the university. These affiliation teams
have representation from academia and administration of the respective university. Affiliation
branch is usually being staffed in registrar office of the universities and they are involved in
application processing of affiliated colleges. Affiliation teams are working practically as per the
Perception of College regarding Affiliating University's

QEC
Yes No
64
55.7
44.3
36
Private Public
Fig 4.7-8 % of Colleges perceiving the existence of QEC for Affiliated Colleges in University.
whims of the Vice Chancellor. Allegedly, this perception is being more for new universities. They
do visit colleges but in a number of cases relaxation is usually granted. For instance, in case of
governing council, it is just being taken as documentary requirement. Affiliation teams do not even
bother to meet members of governing council and analyze their role in the matters of colleges.
Sometimes, affiliation is even given while the registration process (partakes to the provincial
higher education department) is under process due to the provincial government administrative
delay. Sometimes, affiliation is given with this condition that questionable deficiencies should be
fulfilled in some specified time limit.

Visits of University for Quality Check
Yes No
60.9
54.7
45.3
39.1
Private Public
Fig 4.7-9 Percentage of Colleges having visits of university for Quality Check
One reason behind relaxation is also the competition among universities for more and more
affiliation. Usually, a representative of Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) is included in the
affiliation team but more or less his/her way of working is general and not so much technical.
Action taken by University on Monitoring Reports

Yes No
72.5
67.3
32.7
27.5
Private Public
Fig 4.7-10 Experience of Colleges (%) about the implementation of Quality Check/Monitoring
Reports
The biggest source of concern for colleges is the long delay of affiliation teams in visiting their
colleges for the verification of credentials of colleges. Old affiliating university team’s attitude is
often reported to be too ‘harsh and insulting’. This is also one of the reasons of colleges to move
for new universities for affiliation. But some representatives of private colleges who are relatively
established in education market are of the view that old universities’ affiliation teams are ‘strict
and firm’ rather than ‘harsh and insulting’. Moreover, it is said that they deserve to be strict and
firm as they are still much ahead in their operations relative to that of new universities.
In Post affiliation mechanism, quality checks is again being done by the affiliation teams. Often
the affiliation teams are too much busy or overburdened in new affiliation that they seldom visit
affiliated colleges for quality check except where explicit application of irregularity is filed to
university administration. Moreover, the limited quality check visits by affiliation team are limited
to private sector colleges.
Practically, there are very few cases of de-affiliation against non-observance of quality assurance
measures. There has been no regular monitoring of affiliated colleges due to the non-existence of
any directorate or QEC specifically for affiliated colleges in universities. As far as the general
perception in private colleges, universities are interested in getting more and more registration
fund, student fund and Lump sum affiliation fund against the enrolled students in affiliated
colleges. In other words, universities themselves want to gather more and more financial funds
without being conscious about quality check.
Having said that it is a fact that group private colleges are very well managed in terms of quality
checking. In group private colleges, their own central quality checking teams visit all the college
franchises and directly report to the central administration. This quality assurance ranges from
student feedback about teacher to the cleanliness in college. Such Quality assurance mechanism is
non-existent both in private non-group colleges and in public sector colleges.
Summing up, universities are conscious when they are in process of furnishing affiliation and even
this mechanism is not free of various slippages and relaxations in rules and regulations. Hence,
quality assurance compromised up to certain extent in the very early stage. After the affiliation is
given then there is no systematic process of affiliating universities to check the quality of colleges
on regular basis. Hence, practically affiliated colleges are non-accountable to affiliating university
except financial dues and fees. Public sector colleges are accountable to their respective
directorates of education for quality education but again there is no systematic process. The quality
checking is primarily based upon the reporting of clerks sitting in those colleges and random visits
of Directors (or representative) of the colleges. Private colleges (Non-group) have no regular or
sustained quality assurance mechanism in place but Private colleges (group) do have their own
satisfactory quality assurance mechanism.
4.8. Financial Autonomy
The private sector colleges are much more autonomous in terms of disposing of their assets of
colleges.

Autonomy of College regarding Assets Selling
Yes No
57.5 42.5 79.2

20.8
Private Public
Fig 4.8- Percentage of Colleges autonomous regarding the disposal of Assets
In public sector the decision of fee setting is totally centralized which come from the government
department.
Decision regarding Fee settings

-Public Colleges
The Government Department The Affiliating University
2%
98%
Fig 4.8-2 Who decides fee-setting in Public colleges ?

Decision regarding Fee settings- Private Colleges
The Governing Body The Principal Others
3%
16%
81%
Fig 4.8-3 Who decides fee-setting in Private colleges?
The governing body in private colleges are authorized the most and independent in making
decisions about the setting of fees followed by prinicipal.
Autonomy regarding the hiring/firing Contractual Faculty
50.6 Private
46.0
Public
35.8 34
30.2
3.4
0.0 0
The Government The Governing The Principal Other

Body
Fig 4.8-4 Autonomy (%) for Hiring/Firing of contractual Faculty
For ad hoc faculty, public sector colleges’ decision is mostly dependent upon government,
principal and subject specialist whereas for private sector decision it is dependent upon the
principal and governing body.

4.8.1. Financing
In all Degree programs (Table 4-8), the fees of private colleges are more than the public sector
colleges. On average there is less variation of fees in public sector colleges across degree programs
Table 4-8 Fee in disciplines at Degree Level
Fee of Degree Programs

Arts Science Commerce
Public Colleges 10300 4300 7282 9295 4300 7158 7600 4300 6138
The same higher trend of more fees in private sector is being observed in BS program as well
(Table 4-9).
Table 4-9 Fee in Disciplines at BS 4 Year Level
4 Years BS Degree
Public Colleges 22050 3134 13760 22050 13920 17365 17850 13920 15885
At masters’ level, the fee hike can be observed at private sector colleges as compared to public
sector colleges. This difference in fee is due to the obvious reason of subsidized education in public
sector.
Table 4-10 Fee in Disciplines at Masters Level
Masters
Public 19475 4124 10694 21475 9350 15791 13580 11170 12375
Colleges
Private 100000 25850 61083 87500 45850 62590 76500 34000 57362
Colleges
Details about Revenue is given in Table 4-11 and expenditures in Table 4-12. The biggest source
of revenue for private colleges come from the student’s fee and other student charges categories.
Both type of colleges is receiving international and domestic donations. In Public colleges, the

overall donation is less as compared to private colleges. Moreover, difference of International and
domestic donation is very large in private colleges relative to public colleges.
Table 4-11 Revenue of Colleges Annually
Revenue (Yearly) Public Colleges Private Colleges

Max Min Mean Max Min Mean
Students Fee 25630000 99369 296737.91 112045862 450000 2715453.88
Other Student Charges 1318454 8650 14793.80 7802333 65310 144716.51
Income from own Assets 789263 3480 6477.51 4000000 43000 42199.33
International Donation 53500 3480 150.70 368970 20000 2832.01
Domestic Donation 100000 50000 560.22 9133418 38000 46141.84
Endowment 78000 2160 225.80 1189347 25000 8750.21
In Table 4-12, various expenses heads like salary, education material, maintenance expenses,
utility expenses, internal exam, science labs etc. The biggest share of expenses is of salaries in
both types. Private colleges’ expenses regarding library is much less as compared to the public
colleges.
Table 4-12 Expenditure of Colleges Annually
Expenditure (Yearly) Public Colleges Private Colleges

Max Min Mean Max Min Mean
Teacher/Employee Salary 95062000 871672 2972938.62 65108932 180000 154994.10
(Govt Part)
Teacher/Employee Salary 9597940 36000 60863.55 3078961 20000 24319.77
(Institution Part)
Education Material 1200000 21161 14784.00 1528793 21161 45642.45
Maintenance Expenses 15000000 20000 59600.11 15000000 6200 7036.46
Utility Expenses 2000000 25000 34949.22 2000000 10000 253510.14
Internal Examination 300000 40000 25381.84 1600000 40000 5770.72
Expenses
Science Lab Expenses 500000 10000 7930.84 410000 10000 4988.86
Dormitory Expenses 400000 50000 7930.49 300000 20000 4041.34
Sports Expenses 689104 15000 8568.21 250000 50000 10034.97
Library 512030 20000 6134.75 657820 20000 9796.68
Research 165000 10000 2595.49 1000000 10000 9604.03
Other Expenses 231000 55758.52 79002 128930 50000 2662.48

There are some colleges in private sector which have spent very little amount on library and
research and also negligibly spending on sports by observing the Minimum values of Private
College’s type.
Computerisation of Accounts Record

Yes No
92.0
84.9
15.1
8.0
Private Public
Fig 4.8-5 Percentage of Colleges with or without Computerized Accounts Records
Accounts Audited by Chartered Firm
71.8 Yes No
64
36
28.2
Private Public
Fig 4.8-6 Percentage of Colleges with or without Audit

Financial Rule Hinderence
Yes No
57.8
52
48
42.2
Private Public
Fig 4.8-7
4.8.2. Monitoring System of Affiliated Colleges:

Affiliating university seriously lacking any proper and systematic monitoring system. There has
not been any specialized directorate or Quality Enhancement Cell specifically for the guidance,
surveillance and follow up of affiliated colleges by any affiliating university. Currently, the work
of affiliated colleges (e.g. registration of students, examination, affiliation of programs etc.) has
increased the work burden of various departments of university. Given the limited capacity of
university offices, the quality of service has seriously gone down. After so much affiliation
expansion where the maximum number of affiliated colleges is more than 450 with one university
makes the natural need for a designated department to solve their issues on priority basis.
4.8.3. Saturation and Financial Sustainability of Affiliated Colleges:
There has been growing understanding in the people that there has been saturation in affiliation.
Even some of the affiliated colleges are of the same view that colleges have got too much affiliation
from different universities for different programs and now there has been not so much demand.
Affiliating colleges are unable to fulfill the seats of students sanctioned by the affiliating
university. When asked if they are consistently not getting the required response in admission
applications then how they are sustaining the expenses? The underutilized graduate and post
graduate courses are being financially sustained by the colleges as they get financial help from
their Intermediate level programs which are much profitable considering their costs and fee
revenue.

4.8.4. Mis-utilization of Public Resources:
Pakistan being a developing country is short of resources both human and financial. It is generally
said that dilemma is the wasteful usage of those given scarce resources. Public sector colleges are
not an exception to this reality. As a matter of fact both financial and human resources are being
wasted in public sector colleges consequent of a marriage of convenience between the personnel
working in affiliated colleges and in higher education departments. In most of the public sector
colleges, affiliation has been taken as per the directions of provincial higher education
departments. In reality, the number of students enrolled are even less than 10 in extreme cases. But
this is beneficial to both teachers and administration as teachers can be accommodated near their
home towns where they feel themselves comfortable on the other end, administration can oblige
individuals in such practice. Consequently, the resources are being wasted both human capital and
financial capital on the premise of expansion of education.
This thing is not in case of private sector as they are running as private sector entities where they
have to sustain their income sources and minimize their expenditures.
4.9. Labor Market
This study intends to seek out how the students of affiliated colleges are performing in labor
market. There has been no institutional source of data to cover this aspect of college students either
at provincial government level or HEC level. The second best source was thought to be alumni
which could help to trace former students in labor market. But even the existence of alumni is a
rare case. Hence, any systematic data about labor market like time to get first job, wages, on-job
training etc. could not be attained. Mostly there is informal contact of teachers with their former
students. Hence, the questions of the labor market are being asked to get the opinions and
perceptions of respondents and they are not based upon any factual empirical data.
Mostly the respondents are of the view that 40% or 60% of their students reamin unemployed. In
the view of most colleges almost 10% of their graduates are underemployed. Majority of both
public (60%) and private colleges (60%) perceive that 30% of their passed out graduates are
employed. On average, as per public college view, 64% opined that time to get job is one year
whereas on private college side there is mixed trend where 29.6% assumes that six months are
required and 28.3% opined that 10 months are needed to get job.

As per private college perception, 29.6% views that 60% of the students are working in formal
sector. In the perception of public colleges, 40% views that 30% are working in formal sector.
40% of the public colleges and 33.3% of the private colleges opined that 70% of students are
working in informal sector. Only public colleges opined that 76.3% answer “No” against the
question that there is any college type discrimination in labor market. On the other hand, private
colleges are of the view that there is no such discrimination in labor market. In the view of public
colleges, there is gender discrimination in the market (40.1%). On the other hand, the opinion of
private colleges is mild as only 19.1% opined that there is any discrimination in market.
4.10. Hiring, Firing and Transfer of Faculty

Both public and private sector colleges are equivalent in provision of graduate and post graduate
education but they are different in number of ways. For instance, the employees of public sector
colleges are recruited by Public Service Commission whereas in private sector it is much more
dependent upon college principal. The salaries of public sector teachers are relatively higher with
different allowances like medical allowance, House rent etc. The service of teachers is very much
protected by law and they have sufficient forums to defend themselves if they have been fired or
terminated whereas in private sector the service is too much uncertain and maximally at a one
month notice a principal can fire any one. In public sector colleges, hiring and firing are neither
under the control of Principals of colleges nor the affiliating universities. At the time of Affiliation,
the university affiliation team observe the requirement of faculty to be fulfilled. The appointment
of teachers is being made through Public Service Commissions in respective provinces. This
process is based upon a written test and then an interview/viva while implementing multiple
regulations about eligibility and quotas. Firing of faculty in Public Sector College is not an easy
task relative to a Private College. In government service, there is system of Annual Confidential
Report (ACR) written annually by their immediate higher officer. This report matters for the
promotion of teacher in government system but usually it is a common belief which says not to
mutilate ACR. Hence, ACR is not an effective system to get any improvement in teaching service
due to casual behavior of officials. In case of any extraordinary adverse misconduct, the principal
can initiate disciplinary action against the teaching faculty but it has to submit them as
recommendations to higher officials. Usually, it is a long and delaying process. In transfer of
faculty, there are two kind of problems. Firstly, No objection Certificate is required to get from
Principal but usually the principals are easily susceptible against political and teaching community

and usually the benefit of college is compromised. Secondly, the higher officials in higher
education departments are so much authoritative in their actions that without considering the
situation at local college level they transfer faculty. Seat Conversion and Seat Transfer are
examples of it. Seat conversion is a process to convert teaching seats across subjects and cadres
(e.g., BPS 17 to BPS 18). Seat Transfer is a process to transfer teaching faculty seat across colleges.
Teachers themselves are usually behind such actions to be posted at their favorite duty stations.
In private colleges (Group and Non-Group), principals are autonomous in hiring and firing of
faculty without any involvement of affiliating university. Here, the affiliation team at time of
affiliation can check the faculty of that college or even meet them to have some authenticity of
faculty. If there is any involvement of Governing council (where active), it is ceremonial in nature.
Public and Private colleges are at two extremes. At one extreme, public sector college principal is
not autonomous in hiring and firing of faculty and even if there is any power of disciplinary action
recommendation it is seldom used by the principals because of the pressure of teaching
community. At the same time, the process is too not so rapid. On the other extreme, private college
principal is fully autonomous in this area. This is good to ensure a check on the performance of
teachers but at the same time there are cases of personal liking and disliking. But this alleged
favoritism or nepotism cannot be made at the cost of college’s benefit.
While summing up this chapter, we can say that practically affiliated colleges are being run in
Pakistan without any proper monitoring and accountability system. They have been working in a
loose regulatory framework. Even in the implementation of conditions regarding affiliation there
is inequality among colleges.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS
This study is a great opportunity to understand the working of affiliated colleges which have
extensively expanded and still this trend is progressing. The outcome of the study would be helpful
to analyze those aspects which we cannot observe by secondary or institutional sources of data.
There is huge infrastructure related inequality in colleges. Training of teachers either on
andragogical techniques or refresher for course contents is very limited. There are huge concerns
regarding the governance of affiliated colleges where in private sector the governing bodies is no
more than a mere formality to be fulfilled having no role in decision making. On the other side,
public colleges have too little autonomy. There is absence of any Quality Assurance Mechanisms
in affiliated colleges as well as in affiliating universities (specifically working for affiliated
colleges).
The following suggestions and recommendations have been formulated in the light of results which
we have described explicitly in the previous section, and opinions and perceptions we gather from
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). It is pertinent to mention
here that FGDs and KIIs have helped a lot in the interpretation of results and policy formulation.
Governance reforms at the level of University are needed to strengthen the system and quality of
service for the affiliated colleges. Reforms should overall aim towards the establishment of
systematic regulation which makes the affiliated colleges accountable as well as guide them
towards improvement. Decentralization is the need of the hour owing to the extensive expansion
in affiliation and geographic long distances between the peripheries (affiliated colleges) and the
center (affiliating university).
Recommendation # 1
Geographic-oriented affiliation may be implemented in which geographic areas can be divided

among universities in provinces where within certain geographic boundary (in easy access of
affiliating university) a particular university would be allowed to grant affiliation.
| CHAPTER 5 75
Recommendation # 2
Regional Offices should be established with trained staff and necessary infrastructural facilities
for the efficient monitoring of affiliated colleges and to solve their issues.
Recommendation # 3
‘Directorate of Affiliation’ can be established exclusively in affiliating university. It would work

as a liaison between the Affiliated Colleges and Affiliating University. It would have staff related
with controller office and Registrar office (Additional Director, Deputy Director, Assistant
Directors, Clerical Staff etc.). It would possess ‘an affiliated Colleges specific Quality
Enhancement Cell’. This cell would initially be given the task to rank affiliated colleges under its
domain as per the guidance of HEC’s College Survey Report (HEC, 2014) in the light of Minimum
Quality Standards. Later on, the ranked colleges should be given time either to improve their
ranking (more investment individually/merger18/consortium19) or to be shut down in extreme
cases. As per the National Steering Committee of HEC suggestions put forward in 2012, it is
recommended that all provincial governments along with their respective Higher Education
Departments should constitute Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) for affiliated colleges at
provincial level. While acknowledging and endorsing the above mentioned suggestion, this study
proposing to make QECs at universities level for affiliated colleges.
Recommendation # 4
Good Governance requires evidence-based policy making. Policy making depends upon the
availability of timely and relevant data. All Provincial governments or provincial higher education
departments must work for a systematic and standardized dataset across provinces.
Recommendation # 5
Periodic Education and Labor Market Survey is of prime importance. Development-of-Market

means the need assessment about which disciplines our economy or society is in need of. Once it
become known to us we would be in a position to expand affiliation in those disciplines. Need to
assess the current situation and future prediction of enrollment in tertiary education. Once we get
18
A case of college mergers in Norway is discussed in Appendix
19
A case of Claremont University Consortium is discussed in Appendix
| CONCLUSION AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS 76
some indication about these facts empirically, we would be in a position to steer university
affiliation expansion (Response-to-Market) as well as their own on-campus capacity. This survey
would be carried over by QEC in Directorate
Recommendation # 6
Centralized paper marking system should be encouraged. In which paper checkers are invited to a
central place where their monitoring is quite easy by the external examiners. Result timeliness
would be improved in this way. The remuneration on paper checking should be increased in order
to increase the opportunity cost of teaching in evening coaching academies. So that teachers mark
papers more attentively. This process/activity would be seen by the exam section of Directorate of
Affiliation
Recommendation # 7
Curriculum development/revision should be a periodic and systematic practice in affiliating

universities while considering following; Inputs must be attained from the teachers in public and
private colleges; Availability of study material and its relevance with the course contents; and
Rationalization of course contents regarding study time. This would be seen Acad section of
Directorate of affiliation
Recommendation # 8
A system of grants and aids should be given to the well performing affiliated colleges. This would
work as an incentive precedent for relatively low performing colleges. On academic side, access
to e-libraries, journals, teacher refresher courses regarding curriculum contents, libraries etc. can
be provided. Greater financial autonomy be given to the affiliated colleges so that they can gather
resources for themselves like establishing links with local philanthropists.
Recommendation # 9
Special funds be allocated by the government for the establishment of private colleges and industry
linkages. It may involve teacher trainings, visits of faculty to different firms, industry etc.,
internships, dialogue forums (where the industry representatives at least tell the college
representatives about what their graduates are lacking).

Recommendation # 10
Trainings must be based upon course-content refresher trainings with appropriate study materials.
Currently, the horizon of training is limited to just andragogy which should be expanded with a
priority upon Curriculum Based Trainings followed by Profession Enhancement Trainings, Lab
base Trainings., Performance Assessment Training, Project Design Base Trainings, Financial
Management Trainings, Hostel Management Trainings, Security base Trainings.

References
 BESP (2013-18) Balochistan Education Sector Plan 2013-18, Policy Planning and
Implementation Unit (PPIU), Education Department, Government of Balochistan
 GOP (2014) Pakistan Vision 2025, Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning,
Development and Reform, Government of Pakistan.
 GOP (2013) 11th Five Year Plan (2013-18), Planning Commission, Government of
Pakistan.
 GOP (2015) Pakistan Economic Survey 2015-16, Ministry of Finance, Government of
Pakistan
 HEC (2011) Medium Term Development Framework - Higher Education 2011-15
(MTDF-HE 2011-15), Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.
 PDS (2015) Punjab Development Statistics 2015, Bureau of Statistics, Government of
Punjab.
 DSK (2015) Development Statistics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2015, Bureau of Statistics,
Planning and Development Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
 DSS (2014) Development Statistics of Sindh 2014, Sindh Bureau of Statistics,
Government of Sindh.
 DSB (2013) Development Statistics of Baluchistan 2013-14, Bureau of Statistics,
Planning and Development, Government of Balochistan.
 HEC (2014) DLI – 4, Progress Report, Tertiary Education and Support Program (TESP),
HEC and World Bank.
 HEC MQS-Manual Final Minimum Quality Standards (MQS) Manual for Affiliated
Colleges, Academics Division, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan.
http://www.uoh.edu.pk/download_forms.php?name=TVFTLU1hbnVhbC1mb3ItQWZmb
GlhdGVkLUNvbGxlZ2VzLnBkZg== (Retrieved on 09-05-2016)
 World Bank (2011) Affiliated Colleges in South Asia: Is Quality Expansion Possible?,
South Asia Human Development Sector, Report No. 47, World Bank.
| References 79
Appendix
Table A.1 Minimum Quality Standards and their Score
S. No. Standards Total Score
1 Vision, Mission and Goals 05
2 Academic Programs and Evaluation 10

3 Student Admission and Progression 10
4 Academic Faculty and Non-Academic Staff 10
5 Physical Infrastructure, Academic facilities and Learning Resources 20
6 Organization, Governance and Financial Management 20
7 Research 03
8 Public Disclosure and Transparency 15
9 Community Link & Outreach 07
Total 100
Source: HEC (2014)
Table A. 2 DLI-4 Rating Criteria
Category Scores Remarks

W 80 - 100 Excellent
X 60 - 79 Good
Y 40 - 59 Satisfactory
Z Below 40 Unsatisfactory
Source: HEC (2014)
Table A. 3 Summary of Colleges Performance - Pakistan
Evaluation Criteria Province Total %age
AJK KP Baluchistan Sindh Punjab

% of colleges in W category (80- 1 0 4 0 1 6 2
100%)
% of colleges in X category (60-79%) 7 15 5 3 20 50 20
% of colleges in Y category (40-59%) 0 32 6 17 61 116 48
% of colleges in Z category (below 0 25 7 13 25 70 29
40%)
Total 8 72 22 33 107 242 100
Source: HEC (2014)
| Appendix 80
Table A.4 : Number of Affiliated Colleges, Province wise
Areas Total Universities Affiliated Colleges

Punjab 19 1563
Sindh 12 433
KPK 13 400
Balochistan 2 91
Gilgit 1 33
Islamabad 10 302
AJK 1 122
Total 60 2944
Source: Higher Education Commission of Pakistan
| Appendix 81
Merger of State (“University) Colleges in Norway in 199420
Higher education in Norway comprises four main types of institutions namely: universities, specialized
university institutions, university colleges, and art academies. A key difference between a university and a
university college is that a university offers at least four doctorate programs. University colleges also focus
primarily on bachelor degree courses that have a strong professional orientation such as education,
engineering, nursing etc and most do not have a research focus. Research, if any, are typically of a project
nature between the college and local or regional firms.
1994 Merger of University Colleges

The 1994 merger of 98 vocationally-oriented colleges into 26 state colleges (now known as university
colleges) in Norway, is widely regarded as a successful reform. The reform aimed to give each county its
own university college; and at the same time ensure a more resource effective teaching structure. In
particular, through the centralization of administrative functions, teaching resources that were previously
dedicated to this function could now be freed up and used for teaching and research. The colleges vary in
size; from the smallest, with 170 students, to the largest, with 8,050 students. In 2003, around 98,315
students (or about 47% of all students in higher education) attend these colleges; with about 9,030 staff
supporting them.
Reform Implementation Process

The reform implementation process can be broadly categorized into two main stages: i) the merger process
conducted by the Ministry of Education, and ii) processes taking place in the colleges after the mergers in
order to achieve the reform‟s full objectives.
In the first stage, a set of organizational changes were undertaken to achieve the various goals. First, the
number of colleges was reduced to one fourth. Next, the internal organization of each of the new university
colleges was decided by forming faculties and departments as well as by the establishment of new
administrative structures. Finally, a university-like management system was introduced. It should be
highlighted that a key issue, during this phase, was to come to an agreement on which institutions were to
be merged within the various regions. The regional boards were the driving force in this process and were
clearly supportive of the idea. Not unexpectedly, the various colleges were less enthusiastic, but accepted
somewhat reluctantly that this reform had to pull through. Still, some colleges worked actively to avoid the
amalgamation for various reasons: some argued that the distance to the administrative centre of the new
university college would be too far, while others feared that their ambitions to be granted university status
would be effectively curtailed. Although the Ministry directed the merger processes, flexibility was also
allowed during negotiations between the regional boards and their affiliated colleges for local adjustments.
In the second stage, the individual colleges were then responsible for implementing the measures necessary
to fulfill the academic, administrative and economic objectives of the reform.
20
Source: Thematic Review of Higher Education, OECD; The Merger of Non-University Colleges in Norway, Kyvik
| Appendix 82
The Claremont University Consortium21
The Claremont University Consortium (CUC) is a free-standing educational support institution of The
Claremont Colleges (TCC). Its responsibilities include providing support services to the students and
institutions in areas such as campus security, financial and human resource services etc. The Consortium
is also responsible for group planning and holds lands for future expansion of the group.
There are seven educational institutions constituting the Claremont Colleges. Five are undergraduate
colleges offering a liberal arts education including Pomona College and Harvey Mudd College; and the
remaining two are graduate institutions. The Claremont Colleges enroll more than 6,300 full-time
students. The combined faculty consists of nearly 700 Professors, with approximately 1,600 staff.
Presently, more than 2,000 courses are offered to students attending the colleges.
CUC Governance Framework and Intercollegiate Cooperation

The Consortium is governed by a Board of Overseers comprising the President and Chairs of the Boards
of Trustees of all the Claremont Colleges, the CEO of CUC, and 7 to 11 members. To work out specific
intercollegiate cooperation issues, the consortium maintains an extensive network of intercollegiate
committees ranging from a broad policy council to the functional staff and faculty committees.
Shared Facilities, Programs and Resources

Each Claremont College is independent in that students receive their degrees from the college that they
are enrolled in. Each College also designs its own curriculum and teaching methodology to be adopted,
hires its own faculty and has its own administration and admissions departments.
The Consortium however, helps to bring together large or expensive facilities and programs to be shared
amongst the various Colleges. This not only results in cost savings, but also enables “the whole to be
greater than the sum of the parts.” For example, there are various shared academic departments and
programs such as the Intercollegiate Women's Studies Center and the European Union Center of
California. The shared facilities include the Colleges‟ libraries, the Student Services Center, dining and
sports facilities.
The Colleges also coordinate budgets and course schedules to allow for cross-registration of courses -
opening up more options and an extensive array of program offerings to their students typically found
in large comprehensive universities. Each year, students take roughly 6,000 courses (about 16 % of the
total courses offered) at a campus other than their home campus. Cross-registration is also possible in
the consortium. In addition, three of the Claremont Colleges pooled their resources to create the Joint
Science Department where students share and utilize various laboratories including an 86-acre natural
area for the conduct of their research and experiments.
21
Source: http://www.cuc.claremont.edu
| Appendix 83
HEC List Anomalies
The Following is an example of mistake of double entry of Quaid e Awam University and its
affilited colleges.
Figure A-1: Snapshot of Page No. 2 of Affiliated Colleges List by HEC
Figure A- 2: Snapshot of Page No. 3 of Affiliated Colleges List by HEC
| Appendix 84
The Following is an example of possible doubling counting of affiliated colleges for their affiliated
programs in different universities. It further becomes dubious because of incomplete addresses of
colleges as shown in Figure 4.
Figure A-3: Snapshot of Page No. 53 of Affiliated Colleges List by HEC (Punjab University Affiliated
Colleges)
Figure A-4: Snapshot of Page No. 4 of Affiliated Colleges List by HEC (Quaid I Azam University Affiliated
Colleges)
| Appendix 85

Affiliated Colleges Report Sept 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Affiliated Colleges Report Sept 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study 4

Affiliated colleges (Performance, Value of

Prof. Dr. Masood Sarwar Awan

ADP Annual Development Plan

| Abbreviations and Acronyms 5

Rationale/Significance of the Study:

A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN

Table 2-1 Number of Colleges, Enrolment and Faculty

Provinces No. of Affiliated Colleges Enrolment Faculty

Sindh 268 339,060 7,582

KP 209 74,981 5,674

Baluchistan 72 62,568 3,212

Total 1,900 1,494,857 53,116

| A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN 15

Table 2-2 Gender Breakup of Enrolment

Enrolment Punjab Sindh KP* Baluchistan

Female 491,315 143,696 26,207 22,112

Table 2-3 Gender Break up of Faculty

Female 14778 2,807 1,546 861

| A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN 16

Table 2-4 Gender Breakup of Institutions

No. of Affiliated Punjab Sindh KP* Baluchistan*

Male 901 178 144 51

Table 2-5 Number of Affiliated Colleges in Pakistan

| A BRIEF ABOUT THE AFFILIATED COLLEGES IN PAKISTAN 18

BS Program Number of Colleges Enrolment

3. In 2010, Government of Punjab launched a plan to grant autonomy to 26 colleges of

 Punjab Development Statistics 2015

3.1.2. Data Limitations:

Provinces Selected Universities Sampled Colleges

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-1 Faculty by Designation

Full / Associate Professor Assistant / Lecturer Part Time Teaching Staff

Table 4-2 Qualification of Faculty

Table 4-3 Experience of Faculty

Teachers with > 5 years’ Experience

4.2. Non-Faculty Staff

Table 4-4 Non-Faculty Staff

Technical Lab Staff Admin Staff Grade IV Staff

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 26

Table 4-6 Enrolment by Levels of Education

Degree Post-Graduate BS-4years

Table 4-7 Drop out Ratio by levels of Education

Degree Programs Post-Graduate Programs 4 years BS Degree

Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27

Fig 4.4-1 Admission Criteria

4.5. Curriculum and Programs

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28

Fig 4.5-1 Percentage of Affiliated Colleges as representative in curriculum development

4.5.2. Revision is Non-systematic

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29

Fig 4.5-2 Are relevant books available?

Intimation of change in Curriculum

4.5.3. Disconnect between taught courses and Labor market requirements

Market Driven Committee for Courses Selection

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31

4.5.4. Learning Sources and Logistical Support

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 32

Accessability of Internet to Teachers

| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33

4.5.5. Offered courses are limited in certain fields

4.5.6. Recent Innovation

4.5.7. Centralized Examination System