Start up or not to start up, is indeed the critical question. Having now spent almost three years working in and studying about Private Higher Education in the UK, I feel ready to launch my idea of technology-led higher learning network; what is holding me back is the issues related to capital raising and how the things should be structured.
My primary interest is indeed institution building, so ownership issues are somewhat a distraction. However, for the last one year, I have been advised, quite rightly, not to plan to do a start-up, but rather align the whole project with an existing entity. The rationale is straightforward: The project is too ambitious, too complex and may require a large seed capital, and therefore dissuade investors from backing a start-up. This led me to reformat our efforts and sent us on a wild goose chase of finding a suitable platform, the reassurance of a brick-and-mortar college, which, it seemed, most investors are in the look out for. This meant compromising some of our original plans and a significant diversion of efforts, something, with hindsight, I regret doing.
Hindsight is indeed an exact science, but not very useful. When I now reflect back on various conversations I had on the start-up project, I clearly see that I misunderstood the investor concerns. In a way, when they were saying that the project is too complex and ambitious, they were possibly questioning my credentials (and of other people in the team) to pull off such a project. They would have had no such doubts if I spent last several years in the cozy comfort of civil services, or spent a number of years carrying out anonymous tasks in a big name corporate house; but I did just the opposite - spent time in entrepreneurial businesses trying to create and shape innovative products - and this does not fill them with confidence that we can run a business, which is about doing exactly as we did before, of creating and shaping innovative product offering.
This leads to my other point about private equity mindset. With some exceptions, the investment community fails to see that the private higher education business in Britain has reached a point of discontinuity, an inflection point as I frequently refer to this as, and at times like this, a start-up, unencumbered by legacy thinking and baggage of the past, is better placed as a business form than any division of an existing, complex business entity whose business model has just vanished. Indeed, I can quote established business thinking to prove my point - Clayton Christensen would vouch for the value of start-up spirit in pushing ahead with new business models - but such thinking is usually lost on bankers limited to their spreadsheets and rationalized models of risk perception. This is particularly so as in Higher Education, legacy and continuity is seen as valuable assets, unlike areas such as software, where innovation and new thinking is valued over and above everything.
I have a clear view on such thinking. I love this story about Frank Woolworth, who set up his second discount store in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in April 1879 (after his first store in New York failed) and was immediately greeted by a bigger and more established store on the same street with the sign "50 years in business - never failed" on their shop-window. As the story goes, Woolworth responded with a sign on his window "Just Opened - All Fresh Stock!". This may be counter-intuitive in education, where pretending to be old is a good thing and often schools adopt rituals and symbols to make them look medieval: However, I believe that we have reached a point where someone needs to say "New School. No Pretensions: Just Meaningful Education."
I am an optimist after all and believe that the world can be made a better place, and therefore dream about changing the model of education. At this time, For Profit education is mostly a cheap diploma machine, a pretentious business whose only useful social role is produce armies of semi-skilled graduates who feeds the expanding service industry and keeps the skills premium down to a minimum. This is quickly leading the current models of education to irrelevance: This recession, which is showing no signs of abetting and indeed would condemn a generation of graduates to low paid jobs and hopelessness, is likely to throw these issues into limelight and open up new debates on what an education institution should do. Which means discontinuity, and opportunity for Googles and Facebooks of Education industry to emerge.
If all this seems wishful thinking, one should consider the quick proliferation of MOOCs and other online initiatives, Udacity, Coursera, MITx, Minerva Project et al, and see how quickly the education innovators are taking advantage of the enabling technologies and global demand for knowledge. These are perfect examples of how private profit-seeking investment in higher education is actually driving innovation and changing the game: A far cry from me-too tendencies of medieval pretensions, cost spiral and indifferent graduates, these initiatives are based on knowledge and skills (they often don't lead to certification), on courage of fresh thinking and of reviving the education long tail (I am reviving my interest in philosophy and Greek and Roman Mythology on Coursera). What I wish to do is in this tradition of challenging the status quo in education and creating something new, rather than succumbing to the easy charm of creating a diploma mill of some description.
Even if I sound disappointed, this is meant to be a statement of hope, a new start, of clear intentions of committing myself to a life of start-up rather than remaining a prisoner of the stifled thinking. I want to be involved in creating an institution of new thinking, rather than giving in and solely limiting myself to economic opportunity and asset bubble forming around the Higher Education, which is mostly on the basis of a new enclosure of what used to be public sphere into private activity. I have spent enough time looking inside the For-Profit education: I have now reached a breaking point when I would commit myself to turn the model upside down.
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,
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
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
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
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 ‘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.