Even when the limitations of an education system are quite obvious, innovations are hard to come by. This is a lesson many well-meaning investors and hard-charging entrepreneurs have learnt at great cost, yours truly included, but why this is so has evaded them completely.
Usually, one finds soul-comforting explanation in bureaucracy or in institutional politics. But this do not explain why there is so little demand for all these 'innovative' offerings and why, unlike other sectors, the customer preferences - employer demands and students' desires - do not overwhelm the traditional sectors and ease the path of innovation. And, even where swelling demography and broken education seem to be hurtling towards certain disaster - like in Asia and Africa - new ways of educating appears more, and not less, difficult.
For example, India, faced with the task of educating a huge workforce at a time when automation and reversal of globalisation threaten most jobs and industries, took the unusual path of discouraging Distance Learning and investing in building more selective, state-sponsored, schools. This apparent contradiction - anti-innovation as it limits access and cuts down market-driven change (distance learning was growing exponentially in India before the Government stepped in) - is driven by, I shall argue, the hidden structure of value creation in education.
It is common knowledge that the allure of degrees - of diplomas, rankings, institutional prestige etc - maintains the structure of education. This is what most education innovators struggle against, and they assume that this is an anomaly, a big mistake that the students and their parents make. Following on, they assume that this will change when a better education, creating better value - with greater employability, or skills, or expertise - is on offer, the allure of pointless degrees will disappear. Therefore, so many people commit themselves to disrupt education.
However, all this is based on a theory - Human Capital theory - so much in fashion among the policy-makers. This assumes that education enhances productivity of the students and therefore, add economic value. This theory is automatically accepted, and no one ever questions its merit. If they did, they would look to Signalling Theory, that education basically adds value as a proxy - since someone has completed a degree, we know that they have persisted through a demanding system and would therefore be capable of doing so again - and the actual gain in productivity through education may amount to little. The reason why Human Capital theory, coming from Economists such as Gary Becker, trumps Signalling Theories is because the latter remains mostly in domain of Sociology and also, from my reading of it, very French (my exposure to it comes through reading of Bourdieu). It's just not fashionable enough, outside the Academic circles.
Most works in Education Economics, Policy Making and Investment Modelling are based on the Human Capital approach. Even those who would accept the value of Signalling - it is empirically obvious - this would amount to very little. But it is not so, says Bryan Kaplan, and ascribe a large proportion of Graduate Premium (the amount a graduate would earn in her lifetime over and above the average lifetime earning of a High School Diploma-holder) to Signalling Effect. And, this certainly makes anecdotal sense - all of us know what people really value, the degree - as well as empirically, as the most successful education businesses are not disruptive ones, but those that market degrees and builds schools.
Why do we not see it if it's so obvious? This is because Human Capital is the paradigm we live inside - we believe education raises productivity - and therefore, any contradictory evidence, even if it's obvious, is treated as an anomaly. And, I have a further argument to offer: That how Education creates value changes in line with the society it serves. Signalling Effect is greater in societies such as India, where Labour is abundant, jobs are relatively low-skill, society is stratified and access to Education is very limited. An expanding, rapidly evolving technological economy makes human capital potential of education greater - America is perhaps at that tipping point where the conversations about moving away from Signalling is real - though the ideas linger long after its validity is over.
At some point in the past, I took the optimistic view that Google and Facebook of EdTech would come from India. This was based on simplistic assumptions that the dynamic and big consumer market, free access to Internet, technology skills and investment capital would come together here. However, I did not take into account the models of value creation through education and single-mindedly followed the assumptions of Human Capital theory. For reasons I explain here, innovations in Education in India would be more difficult, even if the need is urgent and the possibilities are bigger, not because the bureaucracy is more entrenched (it is not: rather, everything is possible) or the education sector is more evolved, but because the consumers of education, the middle class, would not want change. This is different from other sectors, where India may actually take lead in innovation, and this difference is due to the value of 'Signalling'.
If I strike a pessimistic note, I should make correction. I don't deny the possibilities of change, and I think the balance between Human Capital and Signalling effects are altered by changes in the society, primarily through technological change and changes in economic activities. I am actually optimistic that we are on a threshold of another great age of change, after the relative hibernation since the 70s, when technologies and new geopolitics would usher in new forms of production, consumption and collaboration. This will change education, perhaps with a lag of few years, and how it creates value, which would open up new possibilities of innovation. Well, good things come to those who wait, perhaps.
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
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,
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.
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
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
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
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
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
The Creativity Imperative Businesses today consider creativity of their staff as a critical, possibly the most critical, factor for their ongoing survival. This is because the environment, political, social and commercial, has become so fluid; as Yogi Berra put it, “the future isn’t what it used to be”. Constant change, demanding and more aware customers and citizens, rapid information dissemination through new technologies of information and communication, and intense competitive and regulatory pressures, are pushing companies and people who work for them to innovate and adapt continuously. Set in this context, employee creativity has a whole new meaning. It is traditionally understood as people thinking about products and services, which did not exist before, or tweaking and improving the existing ones. Competitive pressures add to this creativity imperative. Information is fast and cheap, and communication technology is driving the costs of production and distribution
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.