Our varsities: focus should be on quality, not number

It's been known for long that one of the major problems facing the country's private universities is the lack of permanent campuses. The University Grants Commission (UGC) - the government body responsible for regulating tertiary education - has long been castigating private universities for running their academic activities from rented buildings and warning repeatedly of closing down all the temporary campuses. As per UGC rule, universities are mandated to move to a permanent campus within seven years of their establishment. One cannot help but appreciate the UGC's tough stance against private universities, compelling them to move to permanent campuses. However, to our utter bewilderment, many media reports indicate that 18 public universities established over a decade ago are still operating from rented buildings, or from school, or college buildings!
There is no question about the necessity of a permanent campus for a university to create a sound stress-free academic atmosphere. Policymakers are well aware of this, which is why they have been putting pressure on private universities to acquire permanent locations. When the same authorities turn a blind eye to public universities operating from rented buildings, what message does that send? Is it a double standard, or are policymakers more concerned about the students of private universities? Surely, the UGC rule applies to both public and private, or are we to believe that the UGC has no say or control over the public universities?
The public universities that lack permanent campuses are mostly specialised universities in science and technology, digital education, and agricultural education. The government enacted laws to establish these universities in 2013 and in subsequent years. Permanent campuses for three of these universities are presently under construction, but the rest are left in the lurch not knowing when they will have a campus of their own. Surprisingly, fourteen universities have not acquired any land yet. Without land, how can they even dream of having their own campus?
Government high-ups are quick to grab headlines and take credit for substantially increasing the number of public universities. They also declare that universities will be set up in every district. But educationists caution and rightly call for ensuring quality education in the existing universities. They say it is far more important than setting up universities in every district and potentially stretching quality university education thin.
Worse still, the approvals for setting up new universities are mostly made under political influence, without conducting proper feasibility studies. This is one of the reasons that most of the universities set up over the last decade or so are yet to gain a sound footing. Apart from infrastructure problems, these universities are also plagued by resource shortages such as quality teachers, equipment, and labs.
Astonishingly, among the 18 public universities yet to have permanent campuses are at least four that display the revered name, the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, over their entrance. There's another dedicated to Bangamata Sheikh Fazilaunnesa Mujib and one even to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It is alleged the names were given by the proponents of these universities to ease the approval process. Fair enough. But when universities carry revered and illustrious names like Bangabandhu, his wife, and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, one would expect them to be run in an efficient and professional manner. Otherwise, it would be an act of disrespect to the illustrious personalities whose names have been used in this manner.
[email protected]