A surreal illustration of a crumbling academic building symbolizing failing quality assurance.

Higher Education's Achilles' Heel: Why Quality Assurance Models Often Fall Short

Author's portrait.
Rhea Morgan in Mind & Education August 2025 • 5 min read.

"Uncover the Hidden Challenges Plaguing Universities and How to Build a More Robust System"


In today's rapidly evolving world, the pursuit of quality in higher education is more critical than ever. Universities, the cornerstones of knowledge and innovation, face mounting pressure to demonstrate their value and ensure that their graduates are well-prepared for the challenges ahead. This pressure has led to the widespread adoption of quality assurance (QA) models, frameworks designed to guide and standardize educational practices.

However, the implementation of these models is often fraught with difficulties. Despite the best intentions, many universities find that their QA efforts fall short of expectations, failing to deliver the promised improvements in teaching, research, and student outcomes. The reasons behind these shortcomings are complex and multifaceted, ranging from a lack of resources and inadequate training to a disconnect between QA processes and the realities of academic life.

This article delves into the heart of the problem, exploring the common pitfalls that plague higher education quality assurance. By examining the challenges faced by universities in South Africa and beyond, we aim to shed light on why QA models frequently fail to achieve their intended goals. More importantly, we'll offer practical strategies and insights for building a more robust, collaborative, and effective QA system that truly enhances the quality of higher education.

The Illusion of Quality: Unmasking the Real Problems in Higher Education QA

A surreal illustration of a crumbling academic building symbolizing failing quality assurance.

The rise of external QA systems worldwide reflects a growing demand for transparency and accountability in higher education. While these systems aim to ensure standards and drive improvement, they often place significant pressure on institutions to comply with externally defined metrics. This can lead to a focus on meeting requirements rather than fostering genuine quality enhancement.

One of the key challenges is the perception of QA as a top-down, compliance-driven process. When academics view QA as an imposed burden rather than a collaborative effort, they may resist engaging fully, undermining the effectiveness of the system. This resistance can be exacerbated by a lack of resources, inadequate training, and a failure to align QA processes with the day-to-day realities of teaching and research.

  • Lack of Resources: Understaffed QA units struggle to provide adequate support to academic departments and faculty.
  • Inadequate Training: Academics may lack the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively implement QA processes.
  • Misalignment with Academic Realities: QA models may not adequately address the unique challenges and contexts of different disciplines.
  • Limited Stakeholder Buy-in: When QA is seen as an external imposition, academics may resist engaging fully.
Furthermore, the selection and implementation of QA models often suffer from a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Universities may adopt frameworks without carefully considering their specific needs, culture, and context. This can result in a mismatch between the model and the institution, leading to frustration and limited impact. As the original paper suggests, institutions need to be selective about the model to be adopted to ensure a better fit for the institution. The success of any QA system hinges on its ability to foster a culture of continuous improvement. This requires creating an environment where academics feel empowered to identify problems, propose solutions, and implement changes. Collaboration, communication, and shared ownership are essential ingredients for building such a culture.

Building a Better System: Practical Steps for Improving Higher Education QA

Improving the quality of higher education requires a fundamental shift in how we approach quality assurance. Instead of viewing QA as a compliance exercise, we must embrace it as a collaborative journey of continuous improvement. This requires fostering a culture of shared ownership, providing adequate resources and training, and tailoring QA processes to the specific needs of each institution. By prioritizing collaboration, communication, and a commitment to excellence, we can build a more robust and effective QA system that truly enhances the quality of higher education for all.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

Why do many universities find that their Quality Assurance (QA) efforts often don't meet expectations?

Universities often find that their Quality Assurance efforts fall short due to a complex mix of issues. These include a lack of adequate resources, insufficient training for academics, a disconnect between QA processes and the realities of academic life, and a perception of QA as a top-down, compliance-driven exercise rather than a collaborative effort. When academics view QA as an imposed burden, they may resist engaging fully, undermining the effectiveness of the system. This can be exacerbated by a failure to align QA processes with the day-to-day realities of teaching and research.

2

How does viewing Quality Assurance (QA) as a top-down, compliance-driven process affect its success in higher education?

When Quality Assurance is perceived as a top-down, compliance-driven process, academics may resist engaging fully, undermining the effectiveness of the system. This resistance can be exacerbated by a lack of resources, inadequate training, and a failure to align QA processes with the day-to-day realities of teaching and research. The focus shifts towards meeting externally defined metrics rather than fostering genuine quality enhancement.

3

What are the key ingredients for fostering a culture of continuous improvement in Quality Assurance (QA) within universities?

The success of any Quality Assurance system hinges on its ability to foster a culture of continuous improvement. This requires creating an environment where academics feel empowered to identify problems, propose solutions, and implement changes. Collaboration, communication, and shared ownership are essential ingredients for building such a culture. This also involves providing adequate resources and training.

4

What are some practical steps universities can take to build a more robust and effective Quality Assurance (QA) system?

Improving the quality of higher education requires a fundamental shift in how we approach quality assurance. Instead of viewing Quality Assurance as a compliance exercise, it must be embraced as a collaborative journey of continuous improvement. This requires fostering a culture of shared ownership, providing adequate resources and training, and tailoring Quality Assurance processes to the specific needs of each institution. Prioritizing collaboration, communication, and a commitment to excellence are also important.

5

Why is it important for universities to avoid a 'one-size-fits-all' approach when selecting and implementing Quality Assurance (QA) models?

The selection and implementation of Quality Assurance models often suffer from a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Universities may adopt frameworks without carefully considering their specific needs, culture, and context. This can result in a mismatch between the model and the institution, leading to frustration and limited impact. Institutions need to be selective about the model to be adopted to ensure a better fit for the institution to avoid frustration and limited impact.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.