This "one-size-fits-all" approach prioritises bureaucratic conformity over genuine innovation. Private universities, typically at the vanguard of technology adoption, industry partnerships, and innovative pedagogy, are governed by rules written for slower-moving, government-subsidised colleges. As one registrar at a medium-sized private university explains, "Our faculty put considerable effort into developing future-ready courses, only to have them stripped of creativity in the name of 'standardisation.' That's not quality assurance-it's quality erosion."
Suppose Bangladesh is serious about setting the bar higher concerning teaching quality in private higher education institutions. In that case, it needs to move away from dogmatic uniformity towards context-sensitive standards. An independent Higher Education Commission for Private Universities (HEC-PU) would allow for adaptable, evidence-based guidelines that foster the development of faculty, constant professional development, and innovative teaching while still maintaining the operational necessities of privately managed universities.
This article will demonstrate how the existing system of accreditation through the UGC is out of consonance with the working paradigms of private universities, explain how a standalone HEC can generate globally harmonised and responsive quality templates, and suggest how these changes could enhance teaching quality by freeing the faculty and motivating bold, forward-looking pedagogies.
THE STRUCTURAL MISMATCH: Bangladesh's higher education system is bifurcated between public universities, which are subsidized and subject to intense governmental control, and private universities, which are self-supported, entrepreneurial, and frequently nimbler in management. Both, however, are evaluated by the same UGC standards, a policy created out of regulatory expediency and not strategic intent.
Recruitment of faculty illustrates this disconnect. Public universities often have tenure-based, seniority-oriented systems that offer job security and state perks. Private universities must compete in an open market for talent, however, and typically require flexible appointments, performance-linked pay, and autonomy to recruit internationally. Applying public-sector recruitment rules to private universities not only disregards these market conditions but also actively discourages them from being able to recruit the best teachers. A pro-vice-chancellor at a Chittagong-based private university summed up the exasperation: "If Dhaka University doesn't do it, no private university should.". This mindset is holding the sector back."
Resource distribution differs, too. Public universities enjoy secure governmental backing, which allows them to plan long-term investment in facilities and academics without continually being pressured to produce revenues. Private universities, relying on tuition, philanthropy, and corporate support, have varying fiscal imperatives and opportunities. Unitary standards that fail to recognize these variations end up warping investment priorities in teaching buildings, laboratories, libraries, and faculty development.
Curriculum innovation cycles differ, too. Private universities can conceptualise and introduce new courses within a few months to meet market needs, whereas government institutions take years. Under the UGC's centralised approval process, even flexible private colleges are trapped in long cycles that leave them delivering material outdated by the time they do so, while the world evolves.
WHEN BUREAUCRACY BECOMES A BOTTLENECK: Its most apparent method of slowing the progress of private universities is its glacial processes of new program approvals and curriculum overhauls. In theory, reviews ensure academic vigour; in reality, they tend to drive innovation to the verge of obsolescence. It can take twelve to twenty-four months to get approval for a new program, so that by the time it is taught to students, the market need that had initiated it might be altered.
For example, when a private university in Dhaka took two years to craft a multidisciplinary course in sustainable urban development in collaboration with industry players, the UGC reaction was one of dismissal: "Dhaka University doesn't do it, so why should you?" This kind of thinking makes innovation a test of conformity rather than advancement. One dean recalled that their business curriculum update was stalled for fourteen months, resulting in outdated case studies and depriving graduates of the skills the market required that year.
The problem extends beyond syllabi. Faculty recruitment from abroad-a key practice in globally competitive universities-is bogged down in lengthy vetting that discourages applicants from committing. Short-term professional certifications that could quickly plug industry skills gaps contain levels of clearance that eat away at time, resources, and momentum.
Rather than promoting innovation, the UGC acts more like a gatekeeper. Its processes are geared for the stable, slow pace of public universities, rather than the fast-changing needs of self-financed colleges that must change rapidly to stay up with global trends.
THE DHAKA UNIVERSITY BENCHMARK PROBLEM: Compounding the slow pace is the ingrained habit of pitting every private university bid against Dhaka University's curriculum. While Dhaka University holds a revered position in Bangladesh's academic tradition, its processes for updating the curriculum trundle along at a snail's pace, relying on consensus-building and bureaucratic procedures. Timeliness, however, is not a luxury for private colleges operating in competitive markets-it is a requirement.
Professors explain how cutting-edge courses are always reduced or dropped to fit Dhaka University's curriculum. One computer science chairman noted that their cutting-edge AI course was downgraded to a general course due to Dhaka University's lack of similar courses. One engineering professor compared the process to "being told to drive a race car but only if it proceeds at the speed of an ox cart.".
True, some rejections are justified when institutions lack necessary resources, but too many goodly thought-out, pertinent proposals are rejected solely for diverging from the Dhaka University model. The message is clear: innovation will be punished, conformity will be rewarded.
A LOST OPPORTUNITY: One stark example of the expense was in 2019, when Dhaka's private university developed a B.Sc. in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Analytics. Industry players assisted in designing the course, which included required internships and cross-disciplinary modules bridging AI to health, agriculture, and logistics. Its applicability was identified by UGC reviewers but had to be overhauled to fit Dhaka University's three-decade-old computer science course. Industry-relevant projects and practical labs were eliminated, a process that took eighteen months to complete.
Indian and Malaysian universities had meanwhile started offering the same courses in full integration with industry. Many Bangladeshi students seeking more advanced AI training had already moved abroad. The same story met proposed innovations in creative writing and journalism, where innovative modules were rejected as "non-standard" despite the market demanding them.
THE CASE FOR CONTEXT-SENSITIVE STANDARDS: A standalone Higher Education Commission for Private Universities could overhaul this environment. It could praise diversity among the institutions by evaluating each on its mission, whether research or teaching, and create space for innovative teaching methods such as blended learning, flipped classrooms, and competency-based education.
Such a commission might blend international connections into national standards, promoting international accreditation and exchanges between faculty. It might place special emphasis on faculty development, requiring yearly training in pedagogy, technology, and mastery of subject matter, as well as fellowships to recognize innovation in teaching. It might evaluate outcomes-graduate employability, learning gains, and research impact-instead of procedural compliance.
GLOBAL LESSONS IN TAILORED QUALITY ASSURANCE: Bangladesh does not need to invent reform architecture anew. Working models across Asia and other parts of the globe indicate how dual-track governance may both safeguard quality and promote innovation in higher education.
One of the most relevant case studies comes from Malaysia through its Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). The MQA has an express mandate to support the various missions of public and private universities. It has established clear, but equally rigorous, evaluation paths for private institutions to provide them with more freedom in curriculum design, program accreditation, and employer partnerships. This system enables private universities to launch new degree programs in developing areas-such as data science, fintech, and sustainable tourism-within a matter of months, responding both to local labour market needs and the requirements of the international student market. The MQA framework has made Malaysia a known education hub in Asia, with more than 130,000 international students from 150 countries in 2023, partly due to the ease with which private universities can adapt their offerings without being hindered by public-sector delays.
India's strategy also has lessons to learn. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) operate with regulations that favourably stimulate private higher education innovation. Accreditation rating emphasises features like strong industry relationships, start-up incubation centres, patent filings, and applied research projects with concrete economic value. Accordingly, India's leading private universities like Ashoka University, Shiv Nadar University, and Amity University have set up globally recognized programs, partnered with multinational corporations, and employed foreign faculty-achievements made possible due to accreditation systems that promote, not deter, research and entrepreneurial pursuits.
The Philippines' Commission on Higher Education (CHED) provides another example and is especially relevant to Bangladesh's development agenda. CHED's evaluation standards go beyond academic accomplishment to include involvement in the community, entrepreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. Through this, it acknowledges that private universities are more likely to assume a leading role in local economic development, particularly for underprivileged or rural communities. By providing incentives for activities like micro-enterprise training, environmental conservation programs, and health outreach initiatives, CHED ensures that private tertiary education is not only academically superior but also socially applicable. This double-fold focus has helped Filipino universities produce graduates not only career-capable but also highly committed to the imperatives of national development.
These international models demonstrate an obvious truth: contextualized quality assurance does not lower standards-it raises them. By varying evaluation criteria according to the working environment and strategic specificities of private universities, regulators can design conditions that are favourable to innovation without sacrificing academic quality. Countries that have embraced such tailored systems have registered real gains in graduate employability, international standing, research productivity, and economic contribution from their higher education system.
For Bangladesh, adopting a similar approach with a special Higher Education Commission for Private Universities would not be deregulation-it would be a reframing of regulation so that it becomes more innovative, more responsive, and closer to the country's vision of being a high-performing participant in the global knowledge economy.
THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT ON TEACHING QUALITY: If accreditation systems are brought into alignment with the working lives of private universities, there is a boost in several aspects of teaching quality. Faculty feel empowered when staff development becomes mandatory instead of voluntary and is woven into the institution's policy. With compulsory hours of training and coverage of national or international teaching fellowships, instructors are more likely to seek innovative teaching practices and introduce new technologies into the classroom.
Curricula are made even more relevant when the authorization mechanisms are quick enough to keep up with global fluctuations in knowledge. Novel fields of study, such as artificial intelligence, green city planning, or climate resilience, can be added to diploma courses without bureaucratic delay.
Even the learning space is revolutionized when accreditation models demand investment in virtual spaces, open spaces, and student-centred pedagogic approaches. The classroom ceases to be a mere auditorium but an active ideas laboratory.
RISKS OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO: If Bangladesh continues with the UGC's blanket one-size-fits-all system of accreditation, the consequences will be predictable and costly. Private universities will remain on the back foot, burdened with inflexible courses and glacial processes of approval. Employees will be rendered professionally stagnant without a systematic incentive to reskill. Worst of all, graduates will be job-ready with qualifications inferior to those of their international peers in countries with flexible, responsive higher education systems that are part of the world education space.
Relevance, innovation, and student impact over conformity to an outdated template.
CONCLUSION: True teaching excellence cannot be achieved by forcing varied institutions into the same molds. It occurs when standards are ambitious but achievable, challenging but practical, and internationally aware yet locally rooted.
Now, the UGC's explicit or implicit insistence that private university curricula be aligned with the Dhaka University model has led to a system in which innovativeness is stifled, procrastination institutionalized, and global competitiveness sacrificed. This is not necessarily a sign of failure at Dhaka University, but rather a governance system where one curriculum serves as a blueprint for the universe.
A Commission for Private Higher Education would be responsible for breaking this cycle-evaluating proposals at the academic level based on relevance, quality, and contribution, rather than compliance with an inherited norm. It would not ask "Does Dhaka University have this?" but rather a more relevant question: "Will this program prepare our graduates for the world they are stepping out to confront?
As Nelson Mandela so wisely expressed, "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." For Bangladesh, that weapon can be sharpened, refined, and adapted to the unique character of its private higher education system-not blunted by recognisable clichés.
Dr Serajul I Bhuiyan is professor of journalism and mass communications at Savannah State University in Savannah, Georgia, USA.
sibhuiyan@yahoo.com