Time to Standardise the Quality of Higher Education in Bangladesh

The expansion of higher education in Bangladesh is undoubtedly a significant achievement. Over the past several decades, access to education has expanded through the National University and its affiliated colleges, public universities, and a growing number of private universities. Yet, as access continues to expand, a fundamental question deserves serious national attention: Should the minimum knowledge and competencies acquired by students studying the same subject be broadly comparable, regardless of which recognised university they attend?

The answer becomes clearer when we look at Bangladesh’s secondary and higher secondary education system. The country has multiple education boards, Dhaka, Rajshahi, Chattogram, Cumilla, Jashore, Barishal, Sylhet, Dinajpur and Mymensingh, among others. The boards are administratively separate, schools are different, teachers are different, and local educational environments vary considerably. Yet students across these boards follow a nationally determined curriculum and use nationally approved textbooks. In other words, the education boards may differ, but the national academic foundation is broadly shared.

This principle exists for a simple reason: a student’s minimum educational standard should not depend entirely on the administrative board under which his or her school operates. A student studying in Dhaka and another studying in a remote district may have very different educational experiences, but both are expected to achieve nationally defined learning outcomes. If such a principle is considered necessary at the secondary and higher secondary levels, there is an equally strong case for applying it—appropriately and flexibly—to higher education.

Bangladesh’s higher education landscape is now considerably more diverse. Students study the same disciplines through National University-affiliated colleges, public universities and private universities. However, the curriculum, course structure, credit distribution, assessment methods, research exposure and intended learning outcomes of the same subject can vary considerably from one institution to another. National University publishes subject-specific Honours syllabi, public universities develop their own academic structures, and private universities operate programmes within UGC guidelines and their institutional frameworks. Consequently, students may graduate with the same subject title but with substantially different academic exposure and competencies.

This raises an important policy question: Should the meaning of a degree depend so heavily on where it was obtained?

A national curriculum does not mean that every university should teach the same books, courses or research topics. Nor should it eliminate institutional autonomy. What Bangladesh needs is a National Core Curriculum for each academic discipline. This core should define the essential knowledge, minimum learning outcomes, credit requirements, research skills and broad assessment standards that every recognised programme in that discipline should meet. Beyond this core, universities should retain the freedom to introduce specialised, advanced and institution-specific courses.

Consider Bangla as an example. If a National Core Curriculum were established for Bangla Honours, students studying Bangla at a National University-affiliated college, a public university or a private university could all be expected to demonstrate competency in areas such as the history of the Bangla language, linguistics, ancient and medieval Bangla literature, modern Bangla literature, Rabindranath Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam, literary theory, research methodology, academic writing and undergraduate research. A university could then add advanced literary theory, comparative literature, digital humanities or specialised research courses according to its academic strengths. Thus, national consistency and institutional excellence would not have to be mutually exclusive.

Bangladesh already provides important examples of national standardisation in professional education. In medical education, the Bangladesh Medical & Dental Council has established the MBBS Curriculum 2021, defining the structure, phases, subjects and professional examinations of undergraduate medical education. Although medical institutions differ in resources, faculty and academic environment, medical education requires a common professional foundation because graduates ultimately enter a profession where competency and public safety are fundamental.

Engineering education offers another relevant example. The Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education, or BAETE, evaluates undergraduate engineering programmes against defined accreditation criteria, including curriculum, programme outcomes, assessment and other academic requirements. The emphasis is not simply on the name of the university but also on whether a programme enables its graduates to achieve specified competencies and outcomes.

This leads to a broader question: If national competency and quality frameworks are necessary for medical and engineering education, why should similar principles not apply to disciplines such as Bangla, English, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Sociology, Business Administration, Law and other fields of higher education?

The objective should not be to make every university identical. Rather, the objective should be to establish a national academic baseline. A Bangla graduate from one recognised university should possess the essential competencies expected of a Bangla graduate from another recognised university. The same principle should apply across disciplines.

Such a framework could significantly reduce academic inequality. A student studying in a well-resourced institution in Dhaka and another studying in a college in a less-developed region may not have equal access to facilities, technology or research opportunities. However, the second student should not be disadvantaged by the absence of a nationally guaranteed academic foundation. A National Core Curriculum could establish that minimum guarantee.

The implications would also extend to employment. Employers often have to interpret degrees through the reputation of institutions because degree titles alone do not always communicate the actual competencies of graduates. A transparent national learning-outcome framework could help employers understand what a graduate in a particular discipline is expected to know and be able to do. It could also improve transparency in postgraduate admissions, credit transfer and academic equivalence, including for students seeking further education abroad.

However, curriculum standardisation alone will not solve the quality problem. Curriculum must be accompanied by appropriate standards for faculty qualifications, teacher development, libraries, laboratories where relevant, research opportunities, digital resources, assessment, academic integrity and programme-level quality assurance. A common curriculum on paper has limited value if institutions lack the capacity to implement it effectively.

Bangladesh could therefore consider developing a National Subject-Based Higher Education Curriculum Framework under the leadership of the University Grants Commission. Subject-specific committees could include academics from public universities, private universities and National University, together with researchers, professional bodies, employers and other relevant stakeholders. These committees could define the essential knowledge, skills, learning outcomes, credit requirements and assessment principles for each discipline.

Such curricula should also not remain static. They should be reviewed periodically—perhaps every four or five years—to reflect changes in knowledge, technology, research and the labour market. Artificial intelligence, digital literacy, data analysis, research methodology, communication skills, sustainability and interdisciplinary learning are already transforming higher education. National curricula must therefore evolve with society and the global knowledge economy.

Bangladesh has already developed parts of this infrastructure. The UGC has introduced Outcome-Based Education frameworks and standard syllabus guidelines for various programmes in private universities. Engineering education has an accreditation mechanism through BAETE, while medical education operates under a national curriculum framework. The next step could be to bring these initiatives into a broader national strategy for higher education quality and comparability.

The objective should not be “one university, one model.” It should be “one subject, one national academic foundation.” Universities should remain free to develop their own research strengths, academic identities and areas of specialisation. A research-intensive public university may offer advanced courses that another institution does not. A private university may develop innovative interdisciplinary programmes. National University-affiliated colleges may require a different delivery model because of their scale and diversity. Such differences are natural and should be preserved.

What should not vary excessively, however, is the minimum academic competency associated with the same recognised degree.

Read More

Unregulated AI Boom Invites Disaster for Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s secondary and higher secondary education system already demonstrates that different boards and institutions can operate within a common national curriculum. Medical education demonstrates the importance of a national professional curriculum. Engineering education demonstrates how programme-level accreditation can be used to establish quality standards. These experiences provide a foundation for a broader conversation about standardising the academic core of higher education.

The national debate on higher education should therefore move beyond questions such as how many universities Bangladesh has or how many students are enrolled. An equally important question is this:

When two students graduate in the same subject from two different recognised universities in Bangladesh, should their degrees represent a comparable minimum level of knowledge and competency?

If the answer is yes, then Bangladesh needs to seriously consider a national framework for subject-based higher education curricula.

The goal is not to reduce university autonomy. It is to strengthen the meaning of a degree.

One subject, one National Core Curriculum; different universities, different areas of excellence.

That principle could provide Bangladesh with a practical pathway toward greater academic consistency, equity, accountability, and international comparability in higher education.

The writer is an Assistant Professor at Management and Science University, Malaysia, and a Postdoctoral Fellow at International Islamic University, Malaysia.