The trend of simplifying a intricate and diverse academic institution into a solitary number on a list has gained popularity. These rankings, formulated using subjective and unclear criteria by entities such as newspapers and magazines, often lack a deep understanding of academic institutions. Despite this, students and parents frequently rely on these rankings to make crucial decisions about academic paths. Extensive research and valid arguments from education experts highlight numerous inherent flaws in rankings. These include the superficial nature of perception-based evaluations, universities’ ability to manipulate data to boost their rankings, and the neglect of student well-being and support in the assessment process. Consequently, many universities have opted to withhold their data from ranking producers.
While the impact of rankings on prospective students and their families is a common topic of discussion, the influence of rankings on scholarship providers is less acknowledged. Recently, I discovered a concerning aspect related to scholarship allocation by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). Certain HEC scholarships, such as the US-Pakistan Knowledge Corridor scholarships, are only accessible to students admitted to highly ranked universities listed on specific rankings. This revelation came to light through a conversation with a visiting scholar who aspired to study water systems focusing on our region. Despite identifying the best program for his area of interest at a university just below the ranking threshold, he was compelled to settle for a less suitable option due to the ranking criteria set by an uninformed agency.
By reducing universities or departments to mere numbers on a list, we perpetuate several misconceptions. One such fallacy is the assumption of uniformity and the dismissal of specialized areas within disciplines. For instance, assigning a single score to a department implies excellence across all subfields, which is unrealistic. The expertise within departments varies significantly, with some excelling in specific areas while lacking in others. Additionally, the notion that high-ranked departments excel in all sub-specialties is flawed. This flawed reliance on external rankings by HEC not only reflects lazy judgment but also hampers scholars’ opportunities to thrive in environments conducive to their academic pursuits.
Pakistan’s scholarly landscape demands well-trained individuals capable of critical thinking and knowledge creation. Scholarly endeavors thrive on freedom, independence, and trust, essential elements that should not be compromised by arbitrary ranking criteria imposed by external entities. HEC’s reliance on such rankings to guide scholars’ choices undermines the pursuit of intellectual growth and innovation. It is imperative to liberate scholarship funds from the constraints of profit-driven ranking systems and prioritize scholars’ access to environments that nurture their academic interests effectively.