OUTCOME-BASED education, or OBE, has emerged as a popular framework within education systems globally, shifting the spotlight onto measurable student outcomes. Public and private universities in Bangladesh are showing increased interest in implementing outcome-based education, with the government pushing it forward as a cure-all for the current education system鈥檚 challenges. The appeal of OBE is clear: it is a structured, student-centred method that prioritises the achievement of specific learning outcomes over the rigidity of time-bound, location-based learning. On the surface, it promises to keep universities accountable, making them more focused on developing market-ready graduates. However, as appealing as this may sound, the very structure of OBE may undermine the essence of what university education should be.
The key appeal of OBE is its systematic approach. Each course is designed with clear objectives that students must meet by the end of the semester. At every step, student performance is mapped to ensure that they are reaching specific outcomes. While this method has merit in environments requiring fixed skills 鈥� like primary and technical education 鈥� it poses significant limitations when applied to higher education, which thrives on flexibility, intellectual exploration and critical thinking.
Universities are not factories churning out products to meet predefined specifications. They are institutions for intellectual incubation, spaces where young minds explore, question and innovate. If we focus heavily on set outcomes, OBE risks transforming universities into result-oriented establishments that discourage the kind of critical thinking and intellectual curiosity fundamental to real learning. Education then becomes a means to an end, where students are steered towards achieving metrics rather than developing a broader understanding of the world.
Under an OBE system, faculties often become more like supervisors, guiding students through a checklist rather than nurturing independent thought. This bureaucracy-driven teaching structure reduces faculties鈥� roles to that of outcome facilitators, undermining their traditional position as mentors and intellectual guides. This shift changes the dynamics within universities, where the essence of academic mentorship is sidelined in favour of achieving quantifiable targets.
Moreover, teachers are forced to follow a pre-designed curriculum that prioritises immediate results over deep learning. When curriculum design centres around specific, often narrow, skills or knowledge areas, it leaves little room for interdisciplinary or creative approaches. Teachers who once inspired students to question, imagine and even challenge existing knowledge may now feel compelled to teach to the test, limiting their academic autonomy and depriving students of a richer learning experience.
Bangladesh鈥檚 government, in its bid to elevate education standards, sees OBE as a quick fix for some of the country鈥檚 most pressing educational challenges. However, rather than addressing the root causes 鈥� such as a lack of funding, inadequate infrastructure and a shortage of qualified faculty 鈥� the government seems to be opting for superficial reforms that ignore the unique needs of each institution.
Unlike in the US, where universities are regulated by regional accrediting bodies, Bangladesh鈥檚 universities are under the direct supervision of the government and the University Grants Commission. This centralisation risks a one-size-fits-all approach, especially detrimental to private universities, which operate under different constraints and cater to diverse student demographics. While public universities may struggle with funding and infrastructure, private universities are often more attuned to market demands and thus require the freedom to design flexible, industry-relevant curricula. Instead of empowering them, the government鈥檚 imposition of OBE may standardise curricula across institutions, disregarding the distinct strengths and challenges of each.
The grading system under OBE revolves around specific outcomes that determine a student鈥檚 final grade. This system may seem fair, as it assesses whether students have achieved the expected outcomes. However, the emphasis on outcomes reduces education to a transactional activity 鈥� passing one outcome after another until they receive a degree. Such a system favours students who perform well under set conditions but disadvantages those who may take different paths to knowledge, discouraging experimentation and risk-taking.
This rigid assessment structure disregards the reality that learning is not linear. Education, especially at the university level, should be as much about intellectual curiosity as it is about measurable skills. However, under OBE, students are often evaluated on what they know at a specific point, leaving little room for those who may develop understanding at their own pace. This rigidity not only limits students鈥� potential but also fails to produce well-rounded individuals with the 鈥榮oft鈥� skills necessary in today鈥檚 dynamic world.
OBE鈥檚 primary focus on measurable skills means that it prioritises short-term academic achievements over the development of soft skills like communication, critical thinking, problem-solving and teamwork. In Bangladesh, where an increasing number of graduates are finding themselves unemployable due to a lack of these essential skills, OBE fails to bridge this gap. Universities are producing degree-holders but not necessarily individuals equipped to succeed in a competitive global job market. When students graduate with limited life skills, they are left ill-prepared for the realities of both professional life and broader societal responsibilities.
Furthermore, the shift towards market-oriented subjects and job-focused curricula has led to the gradual marginalisation of humanities and social sciences programmes, which traditionally encourage critical thinking and empathy. This trend reflects the influence of a free-market economy on education, where programmes that promise direct employment take precedence. OBE only intensifies this issue, favouring disciplines with clear-cut outcomes over those that encourage a deeper understanding of human culture, behaviour and ethics.
The push for OBE also highlights a troubling trend in the purpose of higher education. Instead of serving as a space for knowledge creation, dissemination and societal betterment, universities are increasingly seen as job-training centres. This perception undermines the broader role of education in developing informed citizens and future leaders. Although employability is a valid concern, it should not be the sole driving factor in education, especially at the tertiary level, where students should be encouraged to think beyond immediate job prospects.
In the context of Bangladesh, where unemployment is high and most graduates seek government jobs for stability, students often prioritise exam preparation over genuine learning. As a result, universities are witnessing a significant mismatch between graduates鈥� skills and market demands. Despite the promises of OBE, this model does little to bridge this gap, as it is primarily concerned with ticking boxes rather than instilling adaptable, relevant competencies.
To truly improve higher education, the government should focus on addressing the fundamental issues that plague universities: inadequate funding, poor infrastructure and the lack of skilled faculty. These issues require more than a standardised model; they demand thoughtful investment in resources and policies that empower universities to meet their unique challenges.
Private universities could benefit from government support through land grants or funding, which would allow them to expand and innovate. Instead of enforcing OBE, the government should strengthen the Association of Private Universities of Bangladesh, allowing this body to monitor and regulate its member institutions more effectively. At the same time, public universities would benefit from tailored support that considers their particular needs, such as increasing faculty development programmes and improving research facilities.
If Bangladesh鈥檚 universities continue down this path of rigid, outcome-focused education, there is a real danger of them becoming degree mills, producing graduates who meet narrow benchmarks but lack the intellectual depth and creativity required for genuine societal progress. The government must listen to academics and students alike, respecting the universities鈥� role as spaces for intellectual freedom and innovation rather than compliance-driven institutions.
听
HM Nazmul Alam is a lecturer in English and modern languages, International University of Business, Agriculture and Technology.
