Bridging the divide: Creating an integrated ecosystem for Bangladeshi universities

The rapid expansion to more than 170 universities (roughly one-third public and two-thirds private) has increased seats without attention to governance, staffing, research capacity, or quality assurance. Quantity has outpaced quality, and an "invisible wall" now separates institutions by reputation, resources, and opportunity.

On the public side, chronic underfunding, bureaucratic delays, and modest academic salaries erode research and teaching. Talented faculty members depart or disengage, producing a negative feedback loop: fewer grants, thinner postgraduate supervision, and limited innovation.

Private universities, by contrast, have attracted scholars with competitive packages and better laboratories in top-tier cases; yet heavy teaching loads and managerial priorities can suppress research time and faculty development. Graduates of high-performing private institutions frequently emigrate, compounding national brain drain and depriving both sectors of future mentors.

Governance failures cut across the divide. Public universities face political interference and opaque administration that constrain academic freedom and slow decision-making. Some private institutions are governed as profit-maximising entities where trustee interests shape academic choices, creating pressures to expand enrollment, relax admission criteria, or prioritise marketable programmes over foundational scholarship. In both settings, academic freedom, collegial governance, and peer accountability can be weakened by patronage and short-termism.

Internationalisation further differentiates outcomes. Private universities commonly offer modular curricula, credit transfers, and partnerships that smooth student mobility. Public universities, despite pockets of excellence, often move slowly to formalise cross-border collaborations, limiting exposure to global research networks and modern pedagogy. Rankings reflect mixed progress: a handful of public and private institutions have registered gains, but system-wide research ecosystems—seed grants, graduate stipends, core facilities, and ethical review capacity—remain fragile.

Admissions and workload patterns also shape quality. Public universities tend to preserve competitive entrance examinations, strengthening peer effects but straining physical and supervisory capacity. Selected private providers uphold high standards, but the sector includes institutions where entry thresholds and academic rigour vary. In some cases, instructors are assigned 12–15 courses annually, crowding out research, mentoring, and student counselling—functions essential to genuine learning and employability.

Student experience mirrors these structural contrasts. Public campuses can be more affordable and historically strong in STEM, but are vulnerable to things like session delays, frequent campus closures, etc. Private campuses often deliver stable timetables, advising, and safer environments. Yet, tuition levels restrict access and can intensify socioeconomic stratification. Labour-market signalling then reinforces the divide: top private degrees may travel well abroad, while lesser-resourced public programmes struggle to update curricula and placements.

The risks are national, not merely sectoral: weakened research productivity, deepening inequality, and accelerating talent loss. To move from expansion to excellence, reforms should target system architecture rather than isolated fixes:

1. Independent quality assurance: Accreditor autonomy with transparent, outcomes-based standards applied uniformly to public and private providers; routine programme reviews tied to improvement plans.

2. Research funding and workload reform: Competitive grants, protected research time, and differentiated teaching loads; incentives for doctoral supervision and interdisciplinary centres.

3. Depoliticised and professional governance: Clear statutes limiting partisan or commercial interference; empowered senators and external examiners; public disclosure of board decisions.

4. Faculty pipeline and mobility: Early-career fellowships, visiting-scholar schemes, and joint appointments across sectors; performance-based promotions anchored in teaching, research, and service.

5. Equity mechanisms: Means-tested scholarships, income-contingent loans, and targeted support for rural and first-generation students to reduce access gaps.

6. Internationalisation with reciprocity: Strategic partnerships that include joint research, co-taught courses, and reciprocal exchanges, not just outbound credit transfer.

7. Student safety and learning environment: Enforce anti-ragging and harassment policies, expand counselling, and link internships to curricular learning outcomes.

Bangladesh does not need parallel systems competing for prestige; it needs an integrated ecosystem where differentiated missions—research-intensive, teaching-focused, regional—are resourced and held to high, transparent standards. Rebalancing governance, funding, and accountability can lower the "invisible wall," align incentives with public purpose, and turn expansion into durable excellence. It reminds us that by taking the right steps, we will not only solve the current problems but also build a strong education system to face any future sudden crisis. A nation that holds its education hostage to politics loses its future. But when students, teachers, and the country unite, not just a new charter but a new nation is born.

Dr Tarnima Warda Andalib is currently an Assistant Professor at BRAC University and Global Consultant Director at Oxford Impact Group, UK. Dauwood Ibrahim Hassan is currently a Research Assistant at BRAC University and also a member of the Marketing Department at IDLC Finance PLC.