In earlier posts, I wrote about my current exploration of possibilities of a Liberal Education for the 21st Century (See A Liberal Education For The 21st Century and A Liberal Education for India). For last several years, I have been looking closely at the Education-to-Employment (as well as Education-to-Enterprise) transitions, a territory far removed from Liberal Education ethos and conversations, but the main lesson I took away from this work is that what we offer now is too narrow an education, and the solution of the talent problem - the challenge employers are facing in finding the right talent as technologies disrupt industrial business models - lies in broadening the scope of education. The other part of my life, study of the history of the education systems, emphasised the point further: A narrow education at a time of great technological change can turn a 'demographic dividend' into an unmitigated disaster (See An Education for Decline). This is the background of my efforts to 'liberalise' education, particularly in India but also more generally across the developing world. This requires, at the outset, a deeper understanding of the nature and purpose of Liberal Education, which I intend to continue here.
While the case for Liberal Education is perhaps pretty clear at a time of great technical and social change, what's not so clear is if one could have a Liberal Education which is practical as well. In fact, 'Liberal' and 'Practical' are oppositional words in Higher Education. As Sheldon Rothblatt explained, since the 18th Century, Liberal Education was conceived as the opposite of 'Servile' Education, a preparation for mechanical trades and handicrafts, an education meant for the mind rather than the body. And, this idea is entrenched in Liberal Education, an enlightenment project. The scholastic curriculum in Cambridge, in Stuart England, would include practical arts such as agriculture and painting, alongside intellectual enterprises such as logic and rhetoric (Source: Rothblatt, Costello), but the Enlightenment changed all that, separating the two. Therefore, that a Liberal Education shouldn't be for a practical purpose is a foundational belief of Liberal Education, not to be changed at will.
This also means that Liberal Education can not be for everyone. That was also very much the Eighteenth Century idea. A Liberal Education meant a longer period of study, demanding greater financial resources. It also meant late entry into the workforce, which few people could afford. So, like 'Practical Liberal Education', a 'democratic Liberal Education' is also an oxymoron.
This creates a puzzle. We are at a point in history where it's easy to see why one needs Liberal Education for practical work: Technology today has the power to replace humans from many trades and it is crucial for a great number of us to subordinate technology to our own creative will rather than being subordinated by it. A Liberal Education is ideally suited to enable us to do so. It is the same with democracy: We need a broad education, and the values that it gives us - critical thinking, openness, compassion - to maintain and strengthen our democracies. However, it seems that the models of Liberal Education are inherently opposed to becoming practical and democratic, the very purposes that we intend to employ it for.
However, while it was so, it doesn't need to be any longer. The eighteenth century world of free men and slaves is not the world we live in now; besides, technologies and regulations have changed the nature of mechanical work, demanding a far greater level of sophistication even from the humblest of workers. And, now, it is coming for those who do intellectual work. And, indeed, our ideas of privilege are different too: Most of us don't necessarily live in countries ruled by Kings and Queens (though I do in one), and there is no longer any divine right to rule for anyone or any group of people. Democracy is still imperfect, but it is an established fact, and that everyone, regardless of Gender, Religion, Race or Property Ownership should have a vote has been established. The ideas of Liberal Education may not have changed with time - there is a die-hard elitism somewhere ingrained - but the climate of opinion and technological environment have both changed.
And, indeed, there lies the opportunity to liberalise and create a new kind of education. The Nineteenth Century had changed Liberal Education ideals significantly - subjecting intellectual enquiries to examinations and measurements, developing wide ranging professions and rapidly establishing universities and expanding student numbers - a project that has been completed with grand success, and complete undermining of the original claim of freedom, by the beginning of the twenty-first. The old claims do not suit the new realities anymore, though many people still cling to the old claims for everything else lacks authenticity. But there is absolutely nothing common with the Liberal Education of the 18th Century and what's on offer in the shiny new campuses in Asia today, except the claims: This now needs to change.
There are plenty of ideas to help construct the new ideal. A Liberal Education may be open-ended, but this does not mean disconnection from life: Rather, one would need engagement with nature and other people to really understand the world. It does not have to be expensive and long-winded: Rather, this is the big space for education innovation, and creative funding arrangements. Yes, Liberal Education must be grounded to culture, but that doesn't make it parochial. And, it necessarily have to be global, but that does not necessarily have to be rootless. Finally, it should not mean an oppositional relationship with technology, but rather this should be quest to explore technology for human purposes.
Costello, William T, Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge, (1958), Harvard University Press, Boston, Mas.
Rothblatt, Sheldon, Tradition and Change in English Liberal Education (1976), Faber and Faber, London
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.