Dr Muhammad Naeem Khan
Lahore, Sept 22: Last winter, students at the University of Karachi poured into the admin block chanting against fee hikes, late-fee penalties, crumbling buses, and a “business model” creeping into public education. Within days the administration rolled back some penalties, but not the semester fee increase. A few months later, press releases and headlines celebrated Pakistani universities’ climb in global league tables. The dissonance is hard to miss. (Dawn)
Pakistan’s participation in higher education remains low by global standards. The World Bank’s latest tertiary gross enrolment ratio (GER) for Pakistan hovers around the low teens, far below the global average near 39–40 percent, according to UNESCO’s monitoring of SDG-4. In plain terms, a small share of Pakistan’s university-age population is actually in tertiary education compared with the rest of the world. (World Bank Data, UNESCO)
For those who do enrol and graduate, the job market is unforgiving. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) has repeatedly warned that roughly a third of educated youth struggle to find work—a picture echoed widely in national media. That weak demand is compounded by a sluggish industrial engine: Large-Scale Manufacturing has spent long stretches in contraction, and even official surveys depict a fragile, stop-start recovery—conditions that limit the economy’s capacity to absorb fresh graduates.
On campuses, a funding squeeze meets rising costs. Development allocations for higher education were cut sharply in the FY-2025/26 budget; experts warned of a sector “in crisis.” Student protests over tuition and fee penalties at Karachi University, and similar hikes elsewhere, are a barometer of household strain. Even where concessions came, core semester fees stayed higher than before. (Dawn, The Express Tribune, Geo)
And yet, in global rankings, Pakistan appears to be on the rise. Quaid-i-Azam University touts a placement around #315 in the 2025 QS World University Rankings and a top-401–500 slot in Times Higher Education’s 2025 table. LUMS publicized its QS positions (global ~#535; strong employer-reputation and international-faculty scores), while NUST celebrated a jump to #127 in Engineering & Technology by subject. National press amplified the story as “27 Pakistani universities” earning QS subject placements this year. (qau.edu.pk, Dawn, NUST, Top Universities)
So what gives? Are the rankings a hoax, a numbers game, manipulation, or do they actually mean something?
What Rankings Do Measure—and What They Miss
The leading systems (QS, THE, U.S. News) mix indicators such as citations, research reputation, faculty-student ratios, internationalization, and sometimes employer surveys. These can spotlight genuine strengths, especially research visibility in specific fields (hence Pakistan’s strong “citations per faculty” at some institutions). But they remain partial proxies for educational quality, learning gain, and real job outcomes. (Top Universities)
Scholars of quantification have long warned about “reactivity”, the tendency of measures to shape the behaviour they monitor. When a metric becomes a target, institutions can start optimizing for the score rather than the mission (a dynamic popularized as Goodhart’s Law and documented in higher-ed settings). Classic studies show that rankings can redirect resources toward easily countable outputs, reshape admissions, and spur tactical data reporting.
A major review in the Annual Review of Sociology argues that numbers don’t just describe reality; they produce it by channelling attention, incentives, and legitimacy. In higher education, that can mean chasing citation boosts or glossy inputs while harder-to-measure outcomes (teaching quality, advising, first-generation student support) lag. (SAGE Journals)
There’s also the non-trivial problem of gaming and data quality. The Columbia University episode—where the institution withdrew from the U.S. News ranking after acknowledging serious data issues—became a global cautionary tale. Soon after, dozens of elite U.S. law and medical schools publicly exited U.S. News over methodological concerns. If world-class institutions question the exercise, policymakers further down the income ladder should be cautious about using rank jumps as a proxy for sectoral health. (ResearchGate, LSE Research Online)
More broadly, critics now call for de-escalating the “ranking circus,” arguing that formula tweaks and opaque weightings aren’t a sound basis for funding or strategy. Beyond scholars, voices across the sector have urged a reset: make evidence for policy, industry, and society—not scoreboard position—the north star.
Pakistan’s “Rankings–Reality” Gap
In Pakistan’s context, the gap looks like this: while a handful of universities improve rank positions—often on research-centric indicators—system-level signals remain troubling. Enrolment growth is modest from a low base; household affordability is worsening; and the economy’s capacity to hire graduates is weak. If rankings encourage universities to double down on what’s measurable (citations, headcounts, promotional narratives) rather than what matters most to students (learning, mentoring, employability), the gap widens. (World Bank Data, UNESCO, Dawn, The Express Tribune)
Meanwhile, outbound student mobility keeps climbing. OECD and UIS trend notes point to a globally rising tide of internationally mobile students; Pakistan contributes to that flow as families—fearful of limited local options and seeking “name-brand” credentials—stretch finances for offshore degrees. That decision is often driven by the same rankings’ logic, now exported to household choice.
There are human costs, too. Studies link rank-obsessed environments to anxiety, status pressure, and “prestige chasing,” especially where a stark divide between “top-50” and “the rest” is ritualized. For Pakistani students facing fee spikes and uncertain returns, the psychological toll adds to the financial one.
So—Hoax, Numbers Game, or Useful Signal?
The honest answer is rankings can be a useful but very narrow signal. They can highlight islands of research excellence and global connectivity, and they help universities benchmark some activities internationally. But they are poor guides to sector health and poor proxies for student outcomes. When deployed without context, they invite gaming and misallocation—celebrating the scoreboard while classrooms, labs, counselling, and placement services remain underfunded. The academic literature—and recent high-profile withdrawals and corrections—backs this caution. (SAGE Journals, ResearchGate, LSE Research Online)
What Would Meaningful Progress Look Like?
If Pakistan wants rankings to matter for policy, industry, and society, it needs to re-anchor incentives:
- Publish graduate outcomes: a national Graduate Outcomes Survey (one- and three-years post-degree) with program-level employment, earnings bands, and further-study rates—transparent and audited. Tie a slice of public funding to verified outcomes, not reputational votes.
- Measure learning: adopt credible, low-stakes assessments of critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, and writing at entry and exit to track learning gain (institutional aggregates, not individual scores).
- Reward partnerships: score and fund industry co-ops, apprenticeships, and SME problem-solving studios that convert study into experience.
- Stabilize financing: reverse stop-start budget cuts that push public universities toward blunt fee hikes; prioritize need-based aid over across-the-board subsidies.
- Track inclusion: set GER targets for women and underserved regions; publish annual progress with independent audit.
Until those basics improve, rising ranks will sit uneasily alongside empty labs, anxious families, and under-employed graduates.
Bottom line
Pakistan doesn’t need to quit rankings; it needs to downgrade their political importance and upgrade the metrics that matter. Celebrate real gains—where research is world-class and programs are genuinely delivering—but stop mistaking a better position on a global table for a healthier higher-education system. As one recent commentary put it, this is the moment to “stop the ranking circus” and rebuild higher-ed policy around evidence, equity, and employability.
The writer is the Assistant Professor at Beaconhouse National University.
