Higher ed needs a refresh.
One may love how it once was, but we live in a different world. Enlightenment university may be described in glowing terms, but this belonged to a world in which millions of people were sold into slavery every year and Colonial masters imposed their rule on much of the non-European world. A return to that pristine ideal as an escape from our broken times is no less indulgent nostalgia than Brexit, the collective calamity that Britain's closet colonialists imposed on the country.
In this brave new world world where the Indian, the Chinese and the African dreams have to be taken account, when democracy demands a fair opportunity to be offered to even the non-posh citizens, and when new technologies of production and of communication make obsolete the twin realities of big factories and unionised labour, higher education needs a model other than nostalgia. And, it may be, like the world of today, different from the stable, rear-mirror-fixatated, perpetually-being-reorganised, seeking-order-in-chaos environment of the universities; rather, it should be the entrepreneurial, perpetually-on-the-edge, seeking-chaos-in-order, in motion for creation model that the digital economy brings.
But before we get too excited, it's worth repeating - one can get too excited about digital. It's best to start by accepting that the impact of digital economy is uneven, and also as often, different for different people. Also, another caveat: It does less than is claimed, as the Silicon Valley loves to fake it before they can make it. Many of the bold claims are fluff or fraud, and promises of disruption are really old-style salesmanship. And, yet, digital economy is here. It's not just about $25,000 robots folding one piece of garment at a time (and not being able to handle socks) or the tentative moves to self-driving cars which may require complete redesign of our cities; it is rather about more mundane and real stuff like the pieces of software that decimated the solid middle class profession of book-keeping and coming in the way of legal clerks, or basic automation that would make millions of call centre workers in India redundant soon. Modern university's attempt to save itself from industrial decimation meant tying its fate with global service industry, only to share its troubles as globalization goes in reverse gear.
The case for this rethinking is immediate. It's often fashionable to shrug and state in posh accent that change will always have its winners and losers (which only means that posh accent always wins) but when universities get it wrong, they ruin lives intentionally. They miss the point by deliberately missing the point: They organise elaborate conferences the threats to universities but never once to self-reflect on what their dated practices, their narcissistic attachment to rankings (the only innovation the university sector fully embraced) and their constant craving for privileges do to their students. And, of course, in the meantime, policy-makers everywhere has gone crazy. Politicians sold access to university as a guarantee of a good life, something that they failed to deliver otherwise. They goaded people to go to universities, backing them with unaffordable loans or by expanding the sector massively by licensing unsustainable colleges. That in today's India, educational attainment is inversely coorelated with likelihood of being employed is symptomatic of this massive global breakdown.
This is also a case of the cure being worse than the disease. The solution in the form of markets - the panacea that, in contemporary imagination, should revitalise all institutions - meant that universities have become more tied to existing practices. Consider rankings and all sorts of new measurements, for example: These narrowed the space for change and innovation and positioned doing more of the same stuff as innovation. As innovative companies like Google or Facebook try their best to become like university campuses, the newly embraced market discipline meant the universities become more like factories. The performance culture bred discord and distrust; the magic potion of competition undermined the free exchange that was the most redeeming part of the university culture; the money culture meant that the VCs awarded themselves massive salaries and directed the cuts at staff commonrooms. Instead of arriving at the digital economy, the universities were sent straight back to the purgatory of early twentieth century factories.
The private competition, which was variably unleashed in different countries, made things worse. If innovation was the intention, private players did not go anywhere near it. Rather, they sought out the rent inherent in the monopolistic structure of the sector. They created faux-tradition and doubled down on industrial culture. Their innovative energies were mostly directed at sales, designing ever better mousetraps, making even more subtle false promises, accentuating the disconnection of higher ed even more with the rapidly changing economy. And, even in its new, disruptive online avatar, private education became all about stripping the university experience to the bare minimum (to garner efficiency) and finding the easiest path to a degree. The digital economy demanded a paradigm change: In the perversion of private education, this was deemed to be all style and no substance, which it was not.
This, in many ways, is a penny-dropping moment. The politicians' promise of higher education for everyone has produced little but public indebtedness; the narcissistic universities are suddenly staring at rippling waters. The private education industry, after failing in America, lived a little more on the back of Indian and Chinese aspiration, and lately taking flight to Africa, but its funding is trying up and valuations are looking exposed. Its digital-only avatar is still a character in search of an author, an empty vassal of rhetorical excess and lightweight in delivery. Digital economy has disrupted both private and public education, and laid bare the lack of imagination even of the education start-ups.
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.