Sheikh Nahid Neazy

Defetishising world university rankings and debunking neoliberal myths involve a critical re-evaluation of their applications, arguing that these frameworks often harm higher education by promoting market-driven goals over core academic missions and local social needs. The neoliberal policies, often tied to global rankings, consider education as a commodity, which has profound, often negative, structural consequences for our higher education landscape. However, nowadays, the release of global university rankings by organisations like Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE) generates media hype. The rankings assess universities globally based on factors like academic reputation, employer reputation, faculty-student ratio, citations per faculty, international research network and the proportion of international faculty and students. However, the questions remain – do the rankings give a true picture of universities in Bangladesh? Are the parameters used in world university rankings directly relevant to specific local needs or realities?

Thomas Kilkauer and Meg Young (a faculty, School of Managemnet at Western Sydney University, Australia, and a Sydney accountant respectively) wrote an article titled “Academentia: The Organization Insanity of the Modern University” published in 2021. The authors tried to analyse academic decadence, which is linked to the rise of “neoliberalism” and “managerialism” in higher education, particularly in the global North. They argued that increased pressure for publications, emphasis on quantity over quality, and the struggle for tenure led to academic degeneration, stress and mental health challenges for scholars. However, the article suggests that this is exacerbated by managerial practices treating academics and their work in a business-like, performance-oriented manner.

According to the article, the term “Academentia” combines “academia” (post-secondary education) with “dementia” (progressive impairments to memory, thinking and behavior which negatively impact a person’s ability to function). In short, “Academentia” describes a state of organisational insanity in which academics can no longer function as scholars.

The authors argue that “Academentia” is the outcome of a severe loss of touch with the scholarly reality of universities due to an environment shaped by the ideology of “Managerialism and Neoliberalism”. Such an often rather toxic environment is run by a university’s very own managerial apparatchiks. This is a hierarchically structured management body with several layers, ranging from line managers to CEOs. The latter are still called Vice-Chancellors and university presidents.

Academentia, according to the authors (Thomas and Meg), downgrades what once defined the very existence of a university – the academic faculty – into some kind of over-stressed semi-academic factory workers. Simultaneously, real academics have been sidelined by managerial apparatchiks. Under academentia, those academics dedicated to scholarship have lost next to all input in university policymaking. Just as dementia describes, the rule of managerial apparatchiks over academics at neoliberal universities has had negative impact on academics’ ability to function as academics. For managerial apparatchiks, academics are an unfortunate necessity!

Neoliberal Trap

The “neoliberal trap” refers to the pervasive influence of market-driven economic forces, privatisation and commercialisation that prioritise short-term economic gains and corporate interests over traditional academic values, critical thinking and the idea of education as a public good.

The idea that Bangladeshi universities are caught in a “neoliberal trap” and that global rankings are a “fetish” is a serious critique within academia and intellectual arena. This perspective argues that the adoption of neoliberal policies has distorted the core mission of higher education, leading to an over-emphasis on market-driven outcomes and a misrepresentation of true academic quality by commercial ranking systems. Since the 1990s, the higher education sector in Bangladesh has seen significant expansion driven by neoliberal policy shifts, including the growth of private universities and a focus on efficiency and accountability. The emphasis on English-language publications in specific high-impact journals (like Nature and Science) perpetuates a neo-colonial hierarchy of knowledge marginalising research produced in other languages and geographical or local contexts.

This is why some academics and critics argue that since rankings are unscientific and harmful to the core mission of higher education, universities should collectively reject them. A few high-profile universities and academic bodies in different parts of the world have already begun to withdraw from specific rankings. This type of move, as a protest, signals a potential end to the “age of deference” to the world university rankings industry.

Debunking Neoliberal Myths

Myth 1: Higher Education is primarily an instrument for economic development.

Debunking the myth: Some critics argue that education is not merely an instrument for economic development, but a space for critical thinking, intellectual growth and social transformation. Limiting education to market-oriented subjects (like business and artificial intelligence/engineering/technology) at the expense of basic sciences and humanities ignores its role in fostering creativity, critical engagement with knowledge, and in creating an equitable democratic society.

Myth 2: Privatisation and market forces improve quality and access.

Debunking the myth: This approach treats education as a costly commodity accessible only to those who can afford it, thereby exacerbating social inequalities. While private universities have already filled a gap, they often ignore fundamental educational principles and create a hierarchy within the system based on economic status. Adequate government funding, not just privatisation, is essential for addressing the pressing issues such as outdated curricula, need-based research facilities and faculty shortages.

Myth 3: Public universities are inefficient and politicised justifying state control and reduced funding.

Debunking the myth: This move ignores the historical reality that political consciousness and engagement in public universities have been vital to Bangladesh’s democratic movements and war of liberation. Increased state control often means political interference (not genuine de-politicisation), and a lack of autonomy hampers academic freedom. Blaming internal politics diverts attention from the state’s role in creating an environment where partisan political affiliations heavily influence university governance.

Myth 4: “Students as customers” and “Teachers as managers” is an effective model.

Debunking the myth: This model reduces a holistic learning experience to a transactional process, focusing on credentials rather than genuine learning and critical inquiry. It fosters an “unhealthy competition” and an “inferiority complex” regarding indigenous knowledge systems compared to Western ones, which are often perceived as superior due to colonial legacy/mindset and global market forces.

Critics of neo-liberalism in higher education argue that the prevailing ideas are myths, including the notion that market-based reforms are a panacea, the idea of universal funding as regressive, and the claim that the humanities are in decline across the world. Debunking these myths involves re-emphasising the idea of higher education as a vital public good that cultivates critically informed and socially responsible citizens, rather than just market-ready individuals or consumers.

The push for marketisation has led to increased stratification among institutions, commodification of learning, and in some cases, reduced participation for certain groups. The emphasis on metrics, ranking and audit processes has compromised administrative autonomy, academic freedom and research quality, while the continuing competitive environment seriously contributes to high levels of mental stress for both students and staff in Bangladesh’s universities. So, let’s defetishise world university rankings and reset the parameters based on our local needs in assessing the local universities!

____________________________________________

The writer is an Associate Professor, Department of English, Stamford University Bangladesh. He could be reached at [email protected]