Beyond yesterday’s problems: Faculty-the missing piece in universities reform

Yesterday, I read Prof. Dr. Asghar Zaidi’s insightful article in The Express Tribune, “Pakistan’s Universities are Solving Yesterday’s Problems.” His timely and thought-provoking reflection on the state of higher education in Pakistan presents a compelling case for reimagining how universities prepare graduates for an increasingly dynamic world. He argues that universities continue to address yesterday’s challenges while failing to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies required to navigate today’s rapidly evolving economic and technological landscape. This is an important message that deserves serious attention from policymakers, university leaders, and the academic community. While the article rightly places students at the center of the reform agenda and emphasizes the need to nurture critical thinkers, innovators, and problem solvers, it leaves relatively unexplored another equally vital pillar of higher education that is, the faculty. Faculty remain the missing piece in the ongoing reform of Pakistan’s universities. Meaningful educational transformation cannot be achieved without empowering faculty who shape learning, research, innovation, and industry engagement. Students can only develop the competencies demanded by the modern economy when faculty members are enabled to move beyond the traditional role of instructors and become facilitators, mentors, innovators, and effective bridges between academia and industry. Prof. Zaidi rightly argues that Pakistan’s future depends not merely on expanding university infrastructure or increasing enrolment, but on producing graduates who can think critically, solve real-world problems, innovate, and adapt. As he aptly notes, education should create a demographic dividend rather than a generation that is qualified on paper yet unable to focus, question, design, or apply knowledge. His observation that “attendance plus syllabus coverage no longer equals education” captures the urgency of reforming higher education.

While these observations accurately diagnose the symptoms, it is equally important to examine the structural reasons behind this disconnect. Curriculum reform alone cannot produce work-ready graduates if the institutional ecosystem remains unchanged. One of the most persistent challenges is the widening gap between academia and industry. Universities are often criticized for producing graduates who lack practical skills, while industries argue that academic research rarely addresses contemporary business and societal challenges. Yet the responsibility does not lie solely with universities. A growing trust deficit between academia and industry has limited collaboration, restricted knowledge exchange, and reduced opportunities for faculty and students to engage with real-world problems.

Faculty members themselves face significant constraints. Many lack meaningful industrial exposure, not because of unwillingness but because institutional systems leave little room for professional engagement. Heavy teaching responsibilities, administrative assignments, accreditation exercises, committee work, and compliance requirements consume much of their time. As a result, opportunities to undertake industrial attachments, consultancy projects, or collaborative research remain limited. Universities frequently invite industry representatives for guest lectures, seminars, and advisory meetings. While these initiatives are useful but still insufficient. Occasional interactions cannot replace sustained partnerships. Faculty should not merely coordinate industry visits; they should become active collaborators who translate industrial challenges into research, classroom learning, innovation, and policy solutions.

This transformation requires institutional support at the national level. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) must move beyond curriculum regulation and accreditation by establishing a structured national mechanism for faculty-industry engagement. In partnership with the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI), provincial chambers of commerce, and sector-specific industry associations, HEC should develop a centralized digital portal that directly connects faculty members with industry. Rather than expecting academics to independently search for consultancy opportunities or industrial collaborations, the portal should serve as a national matchmaking platform where industries can post consultancy requirements, research challenges, innovation projects, training needs, and technical problems requiring academic expertise. Faculty members could register their areas of specialization and engage in consultancy assignments, collaborative research, industrial attachments, and innovation projects. The same platform could also transform the Final Year Project (FYP) ecosystem by allowing industries to regularly upload real-world challenges that require innovative solutions. Universities, under faculty supervision, could align student projects with these industry-defined problems, while FYP proposals are jointly vetted by academic departments and industrial partners to ensure relevance, practicality, and academic rigor. Such an integrated mechanism would institutionalize university-industry collaboration, reduce the long-standing trust deficit, and ensure equitable access to opportunities for faculty across Pakistan. It would provide academics with first-hand exposure to contemporary industrial challenges while enabling industries to benefit from university expertise and offering students opportunities to work on market-driven projects that enhance employability and generate innovative, cost-effective solutions. To sustain this ecosystem, industrial engagement should become a recognized component of faculty performance evaluation, promotion, and professional development. HEC should further strengthen this initiative through competitive grants, consultancy incentives, faculty industrial attachment programs, commercialization support, and faculty exchange initiatives. Pakistan’s faculty are neither incapable nor inefficient; they possess the knowledge, research capacity, and commitment to contribute meaningfully to national development. What they require is a robust institutional support system not only from their respective universities but also from the country’s apex higher education institution, the Higher Education Commission to create opportunities, facilitate industry linkages, and enable them to translate academic expertise into tangible economic and societal impact. Equally important is recognizing faculty members who successfully supervise industry-linked projects. HEC should introduce dedicated incentives, including research grants, awards, promotion credits, and financial support for facilitators whose students develop commercially viable innovations, policy recommendations, patents, or practical solutions for industry. Such recognition would motivate faculty members to build stronger partnerships with external stakeholders and embed experiential learning within higher education.

Pakistan’s universities must evolve from institutions that merely transmit knowledge into institutions that generate innovation, solve national problems, and contribute to economic development. Achieving this vision requires a collaborative ecosystem where universities, industry, government, HEC, FPCCI, and chambers of commerce work together. Faculty must be empowered rather than overburdened, industry must become a genuine partner rather than an occasional visitor, and students must graduate having addressed today’s challenges rather than simply memorizing yesterday’s theories.

Prof. Dr. Asghar Zaidi has initiated an important national conversation. The next step is to move beyond diagnosing the problem and address its root causes. Faculty are not peripheral to university reform but they are its missing piece. Empowering them to engage meaningfully with industry will enable Pakistan’s universities to produce graduates who are not only academically accomplished but also capable of driving innovation, competitiveness, and sustainable national development.