A university promises more than classrooms, degrees and employment opportunities.
It promises an environment where knowledge can challenge power, research can solve social problems, and young people can develop the intellectual independence necessary to shape their country’s future.
Yet in Bangladesh, this promise risks being reduced to a political calculation: establish a university, distribute administrative positions, construct buildings when possible, and celebrate institutional expansion as evidence of development.
The more fundamental question, whether these institutions possess the capacity to deliver meaningful higher education, often receives considerably less attention.
The problem is not that Bangladesh has too many universities in any absolute sense.
A growing population, expanding educational aspirations and the concentration of established institutions in major cities create legitimate reasons to widen access to higher education.
Students outside Dhaka and other educational centres should not have to overcome enormous financial and geographical barriers to obtain a university degree.
Regional universities can stimulate local economies, encourage research into local problems and make higher education accessible to disadvantaged communities. But these benefits do not automatically follow from establishing an institution.
A university becomes valuable through what it teaches, the knowledge it produces and the opportunities it creates, not simply through the name displayed above its entrance.
The expansion of public universities in Bangladesh increasingly exposes the difference between these two approaches.
Consider the cluster of institutions within relatively short distances of Gopalganj University of Science and Technology
. Several universities in the surrounding regions have yet to develop adequate permanent campuses, laboratories, libraries, accommodation and teaching facilities.
Some continue to operate from rented premises long after their establishment, while others are preparing to begin their academic activities under similar arrangements.
Meanwhile, existing institutions continue to struggle with shortages of teachers and infrastructure.
Establishing additional universities in such circumstances raises a question that deserves serious consideration: are we addressing an educational need, or creating new institutions before ensuring that the existing ones can fulfill their responsibilities?
This is where the language of development becomes misleading. Governments frequently measure progress through visible indicators: the number of institutions established, the number of departments opened, the number of buildings constructed and the number of administrative positions created.
These figures are politically attractive because they can be announced, photographed and presented as achievements. Academic quality is less accommodating.
It requires years of investment, consistent institutional leadership, rigorous recruitment, functioning laboratories, well-stocked libraries and a culture that rewards intellectual independence.
Such achievements are difficult to manufacture through administrative declarations.
A university campus can be inaugurated in a day, but a university cannot be built in a day. Nor can a credible academic culture be created merely by appointing a vice-chancellor and filling an organisational chart.
Institutional development requires a sequence of decisions in which qualified teachers, adequate funding, academic programmes and research facilities develop together. When the order is reversed, the university may exist administratively long before it becomes academically viable.
The financial implications are equally important. Public universities are funded through resources that could otherwise support schools, technical education, existing university departments, research grants and student welfare.
Establishing a new institution entails expenditure on land acquisition, construction, salaries, administration, equipment and recurring operational costs.
If these investments are made without a realistic assessment of student demand, regional requirements and long-term financial sustainability, the result may be a collection of institutions that consume public money without delivering educational value proportionate to their cost.
The opportunity cost is particularly troubling. Imagine what targeted investment could accomplish at universities already struggling with inadequate classrooms, limited laboratory facilities, insufficient accommodation and shortages of qualified teachers. Improving these institutions could immediately benefit thousands of students.
Strengthening existing departments, funding postgraduate research, modernising libraries and improving residential facilities would help transform nominal access into meaningful educational opportunity.
The choice is not necessarily between establishing new universities and improving old ones.
It is between a coherent expansion strategy and an approach that distributes resources without adequately considering what each institution needs to succeed.
More troubling still are allegations that political patronage and irregular recruitment have influenced the development of some newer universities.
Reports concerning Khulna Agricultural University, for instance, describe a striking imbalance between the numbers of teachers, officers and employees recruited during an earlier administration and the number of students enrolled at the time.
Allegations that political recommendations influenced appointments raise concerns about whether institutional resources were being allocated according to academic requirements or other considerations.
Similar allegations of irregular appointments at other institutions suggest the need for systematic investigation. The recruitment of teachers is especially consequential.
Buildings can be expanded, equipment can be purchased and administrative procedures can be revised.
The intellectual quality of an institution, however, depends heavily on the people who teach and conduct research there.
Bangladesh cannot improve higher education merely by increasing the number of universities if it cannot ensure a sufficient supply of qualified academics.
Nor can it expect credible research output from institutions that treat teaching appointments as administrative transactions rather than decisions with lasting academic consequences.
This shortage also demands a more sophisticated response than simply recruiting more people.
Universities need transparent selection procedures, independent evaluation, clear academic criteria and mechanisms that prevent political influence from determining appointments.
Written assessments, teaching demonstrations, research evaluations and structured interviews could contribute to a more rigorous process if their implementation were independently monitored.
Students may provide useful feedback on teaching demonstrations, but professional appointments must ultimately rest on verifiable academic competence, research potential and teaching ability.
No selection procedure will succeed unless those responsible for administering it are themselves accountable.
The pressure to establish a university in every district compounds these difficulties. Local demands are understandable. A university can generate employment, stimulate businesses and give a district a sense of educational recognition.
Local representatives may therefore regard a new institution as an achievement for their constituencies. Yet political visibility and educational necessity are not synonymous.
A district may benefit more from a well-funded college, a specialised institute, a technical training centre or improved transport links to an existing university than from an underfunded university bearing its name.
There is also a danger in assuming that a degree automatically creates economic opportunity.
When universities expand faster than academic standards and labour-market needs can be accommodated, graduates may emerge with credentials but insufficient knowledge or practical skills.
Employers then struggle to find suitably prepared candidates even as graduates struggle to secure appropriate employment.
This disconnect undermines public confidence in higher education and places the burden of institutional failure on students who invested years of their lives in obtaining a degree.
The solution is not to restrict educational opportunity or preserve existing institutions regardless of their performance. It is to establish a credible framework for deciding when, where and how universities should grow.
Every proposed institution should undergo an independent feasibility assessment, including a realistic financial plan, a recruitment strategy, infrastructure requirements and an academic development roadmap.
Approval should be conditional on measurable milestones, with transparent public reporting on enrolment, teacher-student ratios, research activity, expenditure and learning outcomes.
Existing universities should receive comparable scrutiny and targeted support, rather than being left to manage persistent deficiencies while new institutions are announced.
(The writer is an Academic, Journalist, and Political Analyst based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Currently he teaches at IUBAT. He can be reached at
nazmulalam.rijohn@gmail.com)