Our students deserve a better university admission system

Our students deserve a better university admission system
An admission test in progress at Dhaka University. FILE PHOTO: PRABIR DAS

Here we are, at the beginning of another admission season. This is the time when public university teachers are divided into two groups: one group eagerly signs up for the paid services of invigilation, script-checking and result publication, while the other group avoids the non-compulsory duties. To make sure that the current students are not affected, the unit-wise admission tests are usually held during the weekends. The process continues across several weeks, with evaluation of the answer scripts, result publication, interviews for subject allocation, preparation of waiting lists, notification of vacant seats, internal migration, and late enrolments. The saga continues with each episode pitched as a necessary stage for an incoming student. For private universities, however, the process is much more simplified: results and admission formalities are completed within a week.

This year, Dhaka University’s admission tests are scheduled for December 5-26. By the time these students have their freshers’ orientation, some of their contemporaries at private universities may already be approaching the completion of a semester. The exact difference depends on the institutions and intake dates. But it raises an uncomfortable question: how much time do we consider reasonable to spend entering higher education, and who takes responsibility for that time? Many students wait to hear from their preferred institutions before choosing between those and other options. Oftentimes, the reason is financial: public universities are heavily subsidised, and the older ones enjoy a solid market reputation. Only in recent times have some of the top private universities become more preferred as they ensure timely graduation and a professional and world-class learning environment. However, coordination between public and private intakes remains notably weak, and each institution is expected to manage its own affairs.

Back in 2020, to spare students from the hassle of going to different corners of the country to take admission tests, the University Grants Commission (UGC) proposed a cluster admission system. The old public universities exercised their autonomy to disregard this prescription. The rift was once again apparent this year when some of these universities defied UGC’s proposal to shift the admission calendar by a month to accommodate the HSC students who have been given a second chance to improve their scores. DU and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (Buet) retained their original schedules, while Rajshahi and Jagannath universities adopted different arrangements for supplementary candidates. The second chance initiative should have been accompanied by an agreed admission pathway. Private universities also need guidance on whether they can offer conditional admissions to the supplementary examinees.

One thing is certain: our tertiary admission system is in a state of disarray. Even within a single university, there are various assessment mechanisms. At DU, most units combine 60 marks of MCQs with 40 marks of written assessment. Fine Arts and the Institute of Business Administration (IBA) have different arrangements. After noticing poor performance among students who entered the system only through MCQ tests, DU decided to return to the time-consuming written components. While they can reveal a candidate’s reasoning, expression, and ability to construct an answer, they also pose the possibility of subjective grading. Examiners working under a strict deadline or without grading rubrics may not be able to do justice to the scripts. The inconsistency in marking can change a student’s future forever. The UGC can take up a project simply to decide on the assessment instruments for admission tests.

My experience tells me that many of my colleagues approach admission tests as a system to terminate as many applicants as possible. We rarely design the questions to judge students’ readiness to learn. The “weed out” policy relies on difficult questions that encourage repeated patterns and rote learning, allowing an admission cottage industry to thrive. Each university must have its teaching and learning centre that will conduct thorough research on their selection methods to decide whether admission scores correspond with first-year performance, persistence, or eventual completion. Does the written component identify capabilities missed by MCQs? Do the tests work comparably for students from different educational backgrounds? The admission test scripts can provide the universities with primary data on the recruitment process to select students for knowledge production.

The treatment of SSC and HSC results deserves similar scrutiny. While most universities consider previous public examination results, their numerical share in the final ranking is not that significant. The tertiary system begins with a mindset that to reach the university’s own assessment, students must have additional knowledge. If that is truly the case, the higher secondary and tertiary curricula must be aligned.

It is a no-brainer that shared examinations can reduce travelling, worries and costs caused by multiple applications. The engineering and medical systems have exhibited so by reducing repetition through cluster admissions. The chaos in public university admissions is enabled by the vested interest of stakeholders who find the admission season financially rewarding. We can argue that one examination does not, by itself, create an efficient admission process; applicants still need offers, choices, confirmation deadlines, and clear migration rules. When a preferred university completes admissions later, a student may leave their secured place in another institution. The vacancy then passes down the waiting list. Universities become connected through applicants’ decisions, whether their administrations coordinate or not.

A common application service could help address this gap. In the UK, for instance, the Universities and Colleges Applications Services (UCAS) offers a useful example of a centralised application system where universities retain their entry requirements and admission decisions. In the US, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) addresses a different question: whether institutions can use a common score alongside other evidence. Bangladesh could consider both ideas without requiring every programme to select students identically. Coordination must continue after enrolment, with an option of credit transfer and migration among the UGC-approved universities. The primary benefit of coordination is a centralised academic calendar. If private universities can operate under published calendars, public universities can, too.

Unfortunately, most of the public universities are notorious for deviating from their plans. Different disciplines can require different teaching arrangements while still providing students with dependable completion dates. Consequently, many of these programmes fail to leverage study abroad programmes or internationalisation. Scholarship holders need results before deadlines. A partnership becomes difficult to implement when neither students nor their overseas hosts can confidently identify an available semester.

As teachers, we ask students to respect deadlines because we consider time management a part of their education. Our institutions owe them the same discipline. When a university loses a month, its students are delayed in joining the job market while their competitors get a head start. This uncertainty, expenses and postponed opportunities should be central to every debate about the university admission schedule.

Dr Shamsad Mortuza is vice-chancellor at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB)

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

FollowThe Daily Star Opinion on Facebookfor the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see ourguidelines for submission