Bangladesh’s education system: Crisis, confusion, and a loss of direction (Part 2)

Fresh from the exhaustion of the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examinations, students in Bangladesh face their next great hurdle: the gruelling, high-stakes scramble of university admission tests.

This system, designed to rank applicants, has evolved into a source of immense stress, inequality, and logistical chaos for thousands of young people each year.

The core issue is a simple mismatch: far more students pass with good grades than there are available seats in our public universities and medical colleges. To manage this overflow, each institution traditionally holds its own competitive test.

The chaotic maze of university admission tests

The odds are brutally steep — it is common for one candidate to compete against fifty others in a frantic ninety-minute examination. A single bad day, a moment of anxiety, or an unforeseen circumstance can derail a student's chances, making the process feel less like an assessment and more like a lottery.

This lottery forces students into a costly and exhausting circuit. Those who can afford it travel from city to city, sitting multiple tests at different universities, hoping to secure a place.

For many, however, this is not an option. The financial burden of application fees, travel, and accommodation is prohibitive. For female students and those from remote areas, the logistical and safety concerns of repeated long-distance travel add another layer of exclusion.

The result is a system that tests a family's resources and a student's endurance as much as it tests academic merit.

In recent years, there have been attempts to streamline this chaos through unified "cluster" admission tests for groups of public universities. While a handful of institutions participated, several major universities notably opted out.

Officially, they cited concerns about maintaining quality and control over their intake. However, whispers in education circles — and even reports in national dailies — suggest another, more cynical motivation: admission tests are a significant revenue stream. Universities earn crores of taka each year from selling application forms, a financial incentive that may discourage collaboration.

The situation in medical colleges presents a different facet of the same crisis. While they hold a single nationwide admission test — a model of efficiency in theory — it has been plagued by credibility issues.

Allegations of question papers being leaked the night before the examination surface with alarming regularity, eroding public trust and punishing honest, hardworking students.

Together, these factors paint a picture of an admission process that has become an unnecessary gauntlet. It consumes precious time and resources, exacerbates social and economic disparities, and subjects an entire generation to unsustainable pressure at a critical juncture in their lives.

When the gateway to higher education is this fraught with obstacles, we must ask: are we selecting the best students, or merely the most resilient test-takers?

Solutions to the Admission Maze

It is a longstanding frustration that our country has yet to establish a sensible, uniform system for university admissions. In developed nations, the transition from school to university is a structured process — not a chaotic scramble that leaves students and families in prolonged anxiety.

Take Australia, for instance. It uses the ATAR — a single percentile rank calculated from a student's final school results — which provides a clear and fair benchmark for university entry.

While we cannot copy that system directly, given our vastly larger applicant pool and far fewer seats, the underlying principle is sound: a standardised, transparent ranking method that reduces the need for countless separate examinations.

Here is a more practical idea for our context: integrate the core of admission screening into the HSC examination itself.

We could design a two-part addition to the regular HSC papers:

1. A separate 100-mark MCQ section focused on aptitude and subject-specific depth, administered during the HSC examination period.
2. Additional written questions embedded within the standard HSC question papers. Students would attempt these only after completing their mandatory HSC answers, within the same allotted time — with no extra minutes given.

A candidate's final ranking would then be calculated using a combined score: their original HSC marks plus their performance in these new admission-specific MCQ and written components. This composite score would create a detailed national ranking of all candidates.

The strength of this approach lies in its efficiency and fairness. It leverages the existing, secure examination infrastructure to serve a dual purpose.

It would identify top performers based on a broader set of criteria, all at once. Most importantly, it would dismantle the current stressful, costly, and exhausting circuit of multiple admission tests.

Students could focus on one major academic effort, with a clear understanding of where they stand nationally.

This would not merely simplify the process; it would restore dignity and order to a rite of passage that has become unnecessarily brutal. It represents a shift from chaos to clarity, and from a system that tests endurance to one that genuinely assesses academic merit and promise.

Challenges to reform

Let us be clear: any proposal to replace the current admission-test free-for-all with a unified, ranking-based system will face fierce resistance. Powerful interests have a stake in maintaining the status quo.

First, universities themselves are likely to push back. For many institutions, admission tests are not just a selection tool — they are a significant source of revenue. The sale of thousands of application forms each year generates substantial income.

We can expect them to raise seemingly legitimate concerns about academic integrity, pointing to past instances of question leaks or cheating in public examinations as reasons why the HSC cannot bear additional responsibility.

Then there is the vast shadow industry of admission coaching centres. Their entire business model is built on preparing students for a labyrinth of different university tests.

A single, transparent ranking system derived from school examinations would render much of their expensive, specialised coaching obsolete overnight. They are likely to lobby hard and will have considerable influence.

Faced with this reality, we have a simple choice: do we prioritise institutional financial interests, or the mental well-being and future of our students?

The benefits for students are undeniable. Reform would end the punishing cycle of endless test preparation and cross-country travel. It would remove a major source of anxiety and financial strain for families.

Crucially, it would create a single, secure point of assessment, making it far easier to prevent and punish question leaks and organised cheating.

The proposed plan is not a pipe dream. There is precedent for restoring examination integrity. Many will remember the condition of examination halls during the BAL government of 1996–2001, when mass cheating was common.

However, after the BNP took office in 2001, it implemented a rigorous zero-tolerance policy against cheating in examination halls. Within two years, the culture of widespread malpractice was dramatically curtailed.

This demonstrated that strong political will and effective administration can restore credibility to national examinations. That same resolve is required now.

Overcoming opposition will demand decisive leadership and a compelling public campaign that places students' welfare at the centre. This reform would not merely alter a procedure; it would end an era of unnecessary ordeal for our young people and save precious years of their lives.

Problem 3: the graduate's abyss — education without a pathway to work

Beyond the stresses of examinations and admissions lies perhaps the most crushing failure of our system: the near-impossible transition from graduation to employment.

For countless students, the degree that was meant to be a ticket to a better future instead becomes a source of frustration, marking the beginning of a bewildering and costly job hunt.

The core betrayal is simple: society expects that education leads to employment. Yet our system appears designed to produce certificate-holders, not capable professionals.

This gap between expectation and reality breeds deep public distrust in the value of the education we provide.

The ordeal for a job-seeking graduate is multi-layered.

First, there is the financial burden. With far more applicants than positions, every recruiter holds a competitive examination. Graduates must pay application fees — often for multiple jobs — in addition to travel costs to scattered test centres.

For an unemployed young person, this is a heavy toll merely for the chance to be considered.

Then comes the social pressure. As months pass, polite questions from family and neighbours — "Any news about a job?" — begin to feel like judgments.

The social standing of a graduate, once a source of pride, diminishes rapidly in the face of prolonged unemployment. The psychological burden can be immense. Newspapers have reported instances of suicide linked to frustration and social pressure.

The process itself is maddeningly opaque. There is no predictable calendar for job announcements. Graduates remain in a state of perpetual anxiety, unable to make concrete plans, constantly waiting for the next circular to appear.

Worst of all, the selection method is fundamentally flawed.

To prepare for these jobs, students abandon their academic disciplines and begin memorising generic guidebooks and past question banks — often even during regular academic classes.

This not only distracts them from their actual studies but also creates a perverse incentive structure. These examinations reward short-term memory rather than the critical thinking and problem-solving skills their degrees should have developed.

Memory fades with time; analytical ability does not.

As a result, we often select proficient test-takers rather than the most capable minds for the job.

We are trapped in a cruel cycle: a system that fails to equip students with market-ready skills, then subjects them to an expensive, stressful, and intellectually shallow lottery for access to limited employment opportunities.

It is a recipe for mass frustration and a tragic waste of generational potential.

A Blueprint for Dignified Hiring

Addressing the graduate employment crisis requires more than hope; it demands a comprehensive overhaul of recruitment practices.

We must move from stressful, costly lotteries to a fair, transparent, and efficient system.

First, we must level the playing field. For general graduate roles, examinations should assess fundamental ability rather than a specific degree.

A philosophy graduate should stand the same chance as an engineer if they possess the appropriate intellect and aptitude.

Tests must move beyond rote memorisation to evaluate what truly matters: abstract reasoning, critical thinking under pressure, basic numeracy, clarity in writing (in both Bangla and English), and problem-solving ability.

Preparation, therefore, should focus on sharpening the mind — precisely what education ought to cultivate.

To implement this, the government should establish a National Recruitment Authority (NRA).

Its first responsibility would be to create a vast, secure, and classified question bank managed with the highest standards of integrity and security clearance. Only authorised individuals with appropriate vetting should have access, with strict criminal penalties for any misuse.

This repository would contain thousands of questions across various cognitive domains, ensuring both freshness and fairness.

The applicant process should be straightforward and free of cost:

1. Undergraduate final-year students should be eligible to apply and sit the test, enabling them to join the workforce shortly after graduation — ideally by January or February of the following year, if successful
2. Shortlisted candidates would receive a secure, one-time examination link
3. They would take the test from their own computer within a strictly proctored environment. Their camera and microphone would remain on, showing their hands, keyboard, and workspace to a live supervisor
4. The system would be reinforced with technological safeguards. Artificial intelligence would monitor unusual activity, such as looking away from the screen or the presence of another person, and generate a report at the end of the examination. The exam window would be locked to prevent browsing; copy-and-paste functions would be disabled; screen-recording and remote-access software would be blocked. Any recorded evidence of cheating would result in the immediate cancellation of eligibility
5. Each applicant would receive a randomised set of questions. These would be time-intensive thinking puzzles rather than factual recall questions, making external assistance virtually impossible

We must also bring order to recruitment timing.

The government should mandate that all public-sector graduate entry positions be advertised within a fixed annual window — for example, December to February, when there are no classes under the proposed academic calendar.

This would allow final-year students to apply with clarity and, if successful after computer-based tests and face-to-face viva voce interviews, transition seamlessly from graduation to employment the following year.

Private companies should be encouraged to adopt this standardised system for a nominal fee. It would save them considerable resources otherwise spent designing their own flawed tests and grant access to a pre-vetted pool of candidates assessed for genuine ability.

New laws should be enacted to protect the integrity of the system from manipulation. If we can guarantee zero question leaks and robust oversight, the proposed structure is highly likely to succeed if implemented thoughtfully.

The goal is not merely to fill vacancies but to restore faith.

This system would eliminate application fees, reduce travel burdens, end the culture of guidebook memorisation and coaching dependency, restore order to recruitment, and — most importantly — select candidates based on intellectual capacity and composure rather than memory or financial advantage.

The solution is technically feasible. What it requires now is unwavering political will and absolute integrity, free from influence and nepotism.

Our graduates deserve nothing less.

Dr Md Anwar Hossain is an ecologist based in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a Member of the Bangladesh Diaspora Research and Policy Forum. Email: anwar79du@proton.me

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.