The second day in my 100 day plan in transition went better than I expected. I would sometimes have these 'productive' days, when I accomplish quite a bit, some of it just because of things coming together, and some of it because I feel motivated, and this was one of those. I did feel good in the end: I had two interviews, though for the same job, which I had to complete before I can have the next round of conversations; completed paperwork for another position; started working through the mountains of assessments that I must complete before I move to my next life; and completed a lengthy piece of content for the marketing course that I am delivering currently. Between the interviews and a few other conversations, I spent about four hours on Skype, which is not what I want to do for an ideal day, but it was good to connect with so many people in the space of a day too.
I also started reading Michael Roth's Beyond the University, a spirited defense of Liberal Arts education in America. The arguments are familiar to me - from the other conversations and even Professor Roth's lectures - but his zeal is infectious. The immediate effect I always have when reading such books is not to think about American Education, which is the immediate context of this work and which supplies all the examples and ideas in the book, but to see this in the context of the challenges one faces in the education in developing countries, India in particular but not exclusively so. One of the big problems in India today is the overt vocationalisation in Education - there is rapid expansion in tertiary education since 2006 but almost all of it in applied disciplines - at the same time as the lack of civic engagements has become obvious, violence against women at all levels have risen, the quality of work has fallen, and the political discourse in the country has descended into meaninglessness.
To be sure, India has never had good liberal education in any meaningful scale. The whole modern education set up was done at the behest of the British Administration, and the universities were meant to produce the 'clerks for the empire'. However, there were attempts by individual philanthropists, Rabindranath Tagore in Bengal, Madan Mohan Malviya in Benares, Sir Annamalai Chettiar in Tamil Nadu, all wanted to create a model for an Indian education, and stayed outside the narrow English dominated model of education that went on in the mainstream Higher Ed. After the independence, the Indian state focused on and encouraged world class institutions for science and technology, most notably the IITs, but its efforts to develop a liberal arts education was fairly limited, except one university in the form of JNU in Delhi. And, again, all that happened in India happened for a small minority at the top (one can say the same for America) and there was no efforts to democratise good liberal arts education.
One would think that the efforts of democratise Engineering Education is somewhat counter-intuitive. There is only a certain percentage of population that can become Engineers, but a much larger population needs good education in languages, basic sciences, mathematics, history and other subject areas. But this point was somewhat missed in the conversations about Indian Education. And, indeed, this was not about just importing the American model: There needed to be a conversation what an Indian Education should look like. However, this conversation just did not happen.
There is some conversation about liberal arts now a days in India. A group of successful entrepreneurs have announced the founding of a new university in Northern India, which will be an elite university and will charge $25,000 a year in tuition fees. This university will follow the American Liberal Arts model. This has indeed set off a 'liberal arts wave', the failing Engineering schools all want to have liberal arts wings now, in the hope that this is the new way to make money. This is a predictable scramble with very predictable results.
I have been talking about connecting with other individuals and help set up a Liberal Arts college in India, but these plans remain long term. This is something I wish to do over a three to five year period: This is what I want to go back to India for. Indeed, the values are important here and I just don't want to do another For-Profit school. Indeed, I believe that the For-Profit model will even work here. Besides, this is not about copying the American model and try to set up an elite university; in anything, I wanted to get involved in a project to create a model of Indian Education, accessible to all students regardless of their financial ability. Only then it becomes a worthwhile project for me to go back to India for.
If my experiences have taught me anything, I have now learnt to be patient. All too often, I was too optimistic, and wanted to launch large scale projects without enough preparation. My experiences, in my current business and in the recent years, have tempered my views about human nature and helped me develop a more realistic approach. I still want to roll up my sleeves and get engaged in solving problems, but I believe I have a better appreciation of the constraints now. So I know that it is not easy to set up a liberal arts college with certain values, because there will be no money for it. The private investors wanting to do this for money is a bad way of sponsoring it, because, in the end, this always catches up and corrupts the project. One has to find a philanthropist who sees value in doing this, and that's not easy; but that is only one of the many problems.
In fact, money in this project comes later: The biggest problem is actually to find the idea and get a founding team together. This is not about an institution to promote one view of life, and therefore, this will rule out most people who are willing to advance their own ways of thinking, the Hindu Nationalists, the Corporate interests, the American philanthropists etc. In fact, the idea is not even certain: What liberal arts will mean in the Indian context, given its past but also its future, its unique requirements of developing a functioning society, has not been discussed adequately. Further, staying outside the realm of academic capitalism also means not being able to afford academic prestige, those big name professors who need big pay packets, and indeed, work with a different set of people who would be able to afford (and be willing to) to commit themselves to a project of this nature.
However, despite the difficulties, this is what I want to do. I see this playing out over the next few years, as I go through a new period of engagement with India. I am not trying to get the money for this project right now, but rather will work towards developing the idea first and then connect with people who would want to work towards this. I often get asked (in the interviews) - what do I want to do long term - and this answer, that I want to find a model for an Indian Education and set up an institution which will offer this. This, at least, gives me a purpose to work for.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.