The complex pursuit of quality in higher education

Metrics-based approaches can be inherently subjective, and skew perceptions of quality

The 2020 National Education Policy (NEP 2020) underscores ‘quality education’ by referring to ‘quality’ 154 times across its 66 pages. Its exhortation for universal access to quality education by 2030 to make it in sync with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4), however, seems an antithesis because equitable access to all learners, irrespective of their socioeconomic background, cannot be accomplished through private schools, colleges, and universities, howsoever public-spirited.

This aside, quality has long been intensely debated in education, notably higher education. Conventionally, quality in education has been associated with equipping students with the essential knowledge and skills and preparing them for lifelong learning.

Since economic liberalisation, the idea and concept have been mainly shaped by commercial considerations and the demands of intense competition, which often conflict with the old established notion of quality. Consequently, defining and achieving quality has become elusive and increasingly complex in the contemporary context.

The definition of quality in education is inherently ambiguous. Should it be defined in terms of physical facilities and infrastructure? Or be indicated by the effectiveness of managing the admission and examination process? Should it be determined by the curricula, content syllabi or pedagogy, or the quality of lectures or lecturers? It could mean all of these, making its measurement all the more complicated and equally contestable.

How much technology should be integrated into pedagogy and curriculum to enhance quality? Is human development, i.e. transforming individual beings into evolved human beings, possible without a human touch?

Quality is, at its core, an internal aspiration. Supported by suitable systems and processes, facilitated by adequate infrastructure, teaching-learning resources, and liberal funding, and free from excessive administrative burdens, faculty members will likely focus on improving teaching, innovating their pedagogy, and bringing rigour to the classroom. 

This would undoubtedly improve quality. Conversely, even the best teachers would fail to deliver without a conducive work environment and lack of resources. Quality is not merely about teaching itself but about ensuring all enabling factors are in place.

Arguing that the prevalent approaches to quality cannot capture the essence of quality in education, Van Kemenade et al. pitch for a quality concept based on four constituents: objects, standards, subjects, and value.

These dimensions underline the multifaceted and contextual nature of quality, raising essential questions about its scope and implications and highlighting control, continuous improvement, commitment, and breakthrough to explain quality and management of quality in the contemporary context.

Even then, determining and measuring quality in higher education remains a challenge. Metrics-based approaches often rely on a series of parameters. On the face of it, they might appear objective but are inherently subjective in their inclusion or exclusion of criteria. Such approaches can skew perceptions of quality and inadvertently disadvantage institutions or students.

The relationship between higher education and career outcomes complicates the discourse on quality further. Poor career progression and graduate unemployability may not necessarily reflect deficiencies in higher education. It could also be attributed to broader economic challenges, such as insufficient job creation to accommodate the growing number of graduates.

While expanding access to higher education is crucial, the twin concerns of equity and affordability must be noticed. Today, students and families do not only seek access to higher education but aspire to receive quality higher education at an affordable cost.

The lack of a reliable and objective mechanism to assess quality often forces people to base their choices on perceptions and proxy indicators. Such reliance can lead to misinformed decisions and make individuals susceptible to market manipulations. 

Moreover, the increasing tendency to create false perceptions of quality, driven by marketing and rankings, exacerbates these challenges. Policy interventions to improve quality often result in isolated ‘islands of excellence’ amidst a ‘sea of mediocrity’, failing to drive systemic improvement.

The question of privilege

Quality is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a simple formula where high-quality inputs and efficient processes automatically result in high-quality outputs. Instead, inputs, processes, and outputs are intrinsically interwoven and influence each other in dynamic ways. 

Traditionally, input-based quality measures, like seat-to-application ratios, have been used to signal excellence in higher education. However, these measures can reinforce exclusivity and elitism by prioritising programme popularity. Merit-based selection processes often privilege students from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds, perpetuating inequality and limiting access for marginalised groups.

Emphasis on economic criteria to measure output quality often overlooks the nuanced interplay of socioeconomic factors that affect student outcomes. This creates a vicious cycle in which students from privileged backgrounds are more likely to succeed, perpetuating inequities in higher education.

Comprehensive quality measures, such as those adopted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), have historically attempted to address these complexities. However, their effectiveness has been diluted in recent years.

Teachers are central to quality education. Quality teaching and research are inseparable, and appointing and nurturing competent, motivated educators is crucial to fostering meaningful learning experiences.

Teachers need support to innovate and engage in pedagogical practices, prioritising critical thinking and holistic development. Sadly, the contemporary discourse on education policy often sidelines teachers’ agency and perspectives. Teaching is increasingly viewed as a de-professionalised activity, reduced to standardised performance inputs.

Teachers are no longer seen as facilitators of critical thinking but as providers of replicable skills. This shift reflects the deep penetration of market forces into education, where the focus has shifted from cultivating an enlightened society to producing employable graduates.

Thus, the purpose of education has been reduced to certification and employability. Reimagining education requires a fundamental shift in perspective. A pedagogy centred on interactive and participatory learning, as opposed to rote instruction, is essential.

Quality education must aim to develop well-rounded individuals who can contribute meaningfully to society. Addressing these broader dimensions is the only way to realise the true essence of quality education.

(Furqan is a former advisor for education in the Planning Commission and a professor of management at Jamia Millia Islamia; Navneet is a faculty at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh)