The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore, and a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer Publishing.
The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Government Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore.
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan defines itself as “an independent, autonomous, and constitutionally established institution responsible for funding, overseeing, regulating, and accrediting higher education in Pakistan.” Interestingly, nowhere in this statement of purpose is there any mention of conducting admission tests, attesting degrees, categorising journals, or revising the curriculum. Nonetheless, over the years, HEC has steadily expanded its administrative footprint beyond regulation and quality assurance into functions that universities themselves are expected to perform.
HEC must proactively become part of the solution to the higher education crisis rather than adding new hurdles intentionally or otherwise.
It sounds paradoxical that HEC grants universities the authority to award degrees and then asks their graduates to return to it for degree attestation. Now, its latest notification, issued on May 13, 2026, appears to push this centralisation even further. The notification mandates the “conduct of GRE/HAT General and Subject Test through HEC-Education Testing Council (ETC)” for admissions to MPhil and PhD programs from Fall 2026 onwards. In effect, universities across Pakistan are no longer trusted to independently assess candidates for graduate admissions.
The language of the notification is carefully crafted around familiar expressions such as “quality assurance,” “transparency,” “standardization,” and “merit-based admissions.” Apparently, though these are difficult ideals to oppose, it seems the HEC remains unconvinced by the credibility and competence of universities to design and administer their own admission tests. The notification, therefore, raises a fundamental question. Is the problem with all Pakistani universities or only a few? If only a handful of institutions have weak admission mechanisms, then why impose a centralised testing regime on the entire higher education sector?
Instead of improving the quality assurance mechanisms of underperforming universities, HEC seems more interested in replacing institutional autonomy with centralised control. Increasingly, universities are being treated less as autonomous knowledge-producing institutions and more as administrative units. They are bound to comply with centrally designed procedures and policies, even when these procedures and policies prove counter-productive.
One must also ask whether this centralised testing model genuinely addresses the deeper structural problems of higher education in Pakistan. Admission tests may standardise entry procedures, but they do not automatically improve faculty quality, research culture, supervision standards, curriculum relevance, laboratory infrastructure, academic integrity, or institutional governance. Neither does it address the HEC’s wrong policies. Among them is allowing under-resourced colleges to run BS programs. In many ways, the notification appears more focused on filtering students than strengthening universities with funding. This is exactly why HEC was originally established as a University Grant Commission back in 1974.
Globally, accreditation and funding agencies primarily ensure standards, accountability, and transparency. Universities, however, usually retain the authority to determine admissions according to disciplinary needs, research priorities, and institutional goals. Many internationally ranked universities increasingly hinge on holistic evaluations involving research proposals, interviews, writing samples, publications, and academic portfolios. They assume that universities are mature academic institutions capable of determining who fits their programs. Moreover, it remains difficult to understand how HEC-ETS multiple-choice questions, including English verbal reasoning, analytical reasoning, and quantitative reasoning, can effectively filter applicants for admission into diverse degree programs. More importantly, it is unclear how the notion of “reasoning” embedded in these standardised sections can adequately reflect the varied forms of reasoning required across different academic disciplines.
If HEC genuinely believes centralised testing is necessary, then another question naturally follows. Will this test remain affordable and accessible for students across Pakistan? Or will it gradually become another bureaucratic and financial hurdle in an already struggling higher education system? If the policy is truly about merit and quality, then the test should be free of cost, conducted on university campuses, and continuously evaluated by them regarding its effectiveness in assessing the disciplinary competence of applicants. Strong higher education systems are built by strengthening universities, not by gradually absorbing their academic functions into centralised bureaucratic structures. If universities continue to lose authority over admissions and academic decision-making, one might foresee HEC establishing its own university or perhaps universities to ensure minimum requirements and offset budget deficits. Quality assurance is undoubtedly necessary. But quality cannot be achieved through centralised testing only. It emerges through investment in faculty, research ecosystems, academic freedom, infrastructure, and institutional trust. Ground reality, however, tells a different story. Pakistani universities are achieving THE and QS rankings largely through their own institutional struggle, while receiving from HEC no substantial support or funding, but an expanding culture of bureaucratic control.
There is a strong likelihood that this notification will severely affect admissions across Pakistani universities, many of which are already struggling due to the economic crunch in Pakistan and globally. If admissions decline, universities, particularly those in the private sector, may have no option but to shut down certain programs and downsize faculty positions. This, in turn, may further intensify unemployment and place additional pressure on an already fragile economy.
HEC must proactively become part of the solution to the higher education crisis rather than adding new hurdles intentionally or otherwise. In the past, HEC launched several visionary initiatives that benefited universities, educators, and students alike. During that period, it exponentially excelled by staying aligned with its core mandate to promote the quality of higher education. However, recent years’ budget cuts appear to have pushed the Commission toward revenue-generating measures that risk undermining university autonomy and eventually the quality of higher education and admissions.
The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.
The second author is an AssistantProfessor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore