Choosing college is one of most excruciating rituals in one's life: Full of dilemmas, hopes, disappointments and illusions of big decisions, an act which makes us middle class perhaps. This is one event that creates an enormous amount of chatter, usually by one's parents but, if things go wrong, even by the neighbours, and among friends: This may mean good byes, and welcomes, losing friends and getting new ones. One anthropologist calls this stage 'liminal', a transitory experience between home and adulthood, a brief period of freedom, perhaps, between compliance and responsibility. But, in the middle of the blinding array of choices one has to make during the period, one that stands out is about choosing a subject - what to study when you go to college?
I am uniquely qualified to speak about this as I made, perhaps, a wrong choice. But, for me, it was never really a choice. I grew up in pre-liberalisation India, and when I went to college in 1986, everything was already set: The people mobility was limited, so I never thought of leaving the city I was born in; there were limited options and seats, so my school-leaving examination really determined what I could or couldn't do; and finally, there were very few job prospects, so my parents counselled me endlessly to do take up something useful.
In my class of about 60 people, 59 tried the Joint Entrance examination, which was the portal for Engineering and Medical careers. It was extremely competitive - only one or two people made it to the thousand student shortlist that the state Engineering and Medical colleges took in - and the rest tried again next year (and for some, again the year after). I was the missing person who never tried, because, at the time, I wanted to be a journalist. There were no courses on Journalism or Media available, so I was pleading my case with my parents to study English Literature or History. I thought my father, an English professor in a local college would be sympathetic. I also thought that my rather impressive results in literature subjects, I got the highest marks in all humanities subjects in the district as well as topped the list in eloquence and literary quiz competitions ran by the State Government that year, would help my case. But my parents, and also my tutors, decided that I would waste my life if I choose to study 'useless' subjects.
In the end, I shall somewhat settle for Economics, a subject I had a rather utopian notion of. A closet Marxist, Economics meant all sorts of things for me at school which, as it would turn out, it was not. But this was the only agreeable middle ground between Engineering, which I chose to pass off, and History, which I so wanted to study. Indeed, there was nothing wrong with economics - I loved the subject when I understood it, only that this was much much later, after I finished college and serendipitously landed in a career of international business; when I shall spend my rather solitary Friday afternoons in Dhaka reading back issues of The Economist, just out of boredom. I survived college somehow picking up just enough to pass examinations, mostly memorising stuff without understanding why I needed to memorise it, which was just fine as that's what was expected of us.
So, my quest of an useful degree meant living through a life which I neither liked nor hated, a subject which I could master but barely connected with. I emerged with an indifferent degree and went on to do my Masters, discovering, along the way, computer programming, which, strangely enough, I liked. Looking back, I know because I volunteered, took risks, did unexpected things, my life did not become a complete disaster. But it was very very close. I felt the most useless when I had the 'useful' degree in my hand but couldn't do anything very well. I had an Honours degree in Economics, and even a Masters, but was clueless about what I wanted to do. I was lucky that I was working in a networking firm the day I finished my Masters examinations and I never went back and spent another day using anything I learnt in college. I have barely ever mentioned my degree, except much much later, when I felt confident and developed a view point, only through independent study, life's experience and work.
My father would confess today that it was all a big mistake. He didn't stop my sister when she went on to study history; in fact, he encouraged her. How much of this is because he learnt from my experience, and how much of it was gender roles (that my sister, being a girl, was not expected to earn for herself, and therefore didn't need something 'useful') would remain a conjecture. And, surely, I am not sulking, as my life moved on its strange way, not because what I knew or what degrees I had, but what I did. I realised later that curiousity, openness and flexibility had been far more influential in shaping my life than any degree or work experience I had: It did feel precarious most of the time (as it does now), but I drew pleasure from what I did, after I finished living each phase of life. I was almost proud that my life turned out to be all agency and no structure.
It was only much later in my life I shall go back to university again and complete a second Masters. This time, I followed my heart and did not pursue anything useful: I studied Adult Learning. I loved what I did: It did help that this was one of world's best universities, so I was surrounded by very smart people and could participate in stimulating conversations. This was all about open-ended pursuit of something I really wanted to understand. It was not completely utopian though: My work life centred around training and education of adults. I worked in businesses, set up some of my own, but the content of the work I was doing for over twenty years was always about dealing with adult learners and making them learn something. But this was not a teaching qualification I was doing, nor what I studied allowed me to earn any professional brownie points. It was my own deep pursuit of an understanding what I was really doing, and how to do it better. This was my rather slow, long (it took me four years to complete the MA, as I did it alongside work) and deliberate exploration of my practice, which included lots of apparently purposeless studies in philosophy, sociology and history - the history of universities in America, Foucault and Bourdieu, history of psychoanalysis and structure of collaborations that lead to innovation. A Master of Education that I earned in the end, even if this was from University College London, was unlikely to be of any value or get me a job, particularly in contrast with something like an MBA, which I could have done at the same cost of time and money.
But, that's the point - it is never the degree, but how you study that matters. Despite the claims of all the education thinkers, three/ four years that we spend in a college is a really short time to change a person's character. Higher Education neither shapes one's life nor makes him/her automatically productive, because it only works alongside so many other forces that shape our life so much more profoundly: Our families and communities, our schools, our work, our love and relationships, our health, our circumstances, finances, bereavements and travels, all define a slice of ourselves, putting a layer on whatever we learn from college. What the college can uniquely do is to make us open, curious, flexible, give us a way of looking at all our disparate experiences and a way of making sense of all of these. It can help us feel empowered to answer that first question that we mostly leave unanswered - what we really want? It was only much later in life I felt confident to open the lid of this very important question: I felt forever disempowered, forever at the mercy of others, forever dependent on making decisions for me (whether by offering a job, promotion, opportunity or something else).
I hate those people who tell me that I can be anything I want to be. I know that is the language of privilege, of being born into opportunity, where everything is indeed possible. I have tried, but I couldn't be what I wanted to be. But one thing is certainly plausible: To know what you want. To be able to ask the question, to calibrate your own aspirations to the reality, to develop abilities, even if this takes a long long time, to get there. The trick is, what you want may change mid-course, but to achieve anything in life, one must take the new course and yet be persistent; you must keep asking what you want not in terms of jobs, or salaries, or careers, but deeper and deeper and deeper. And, once you are able to do that, what you dreamt come to you. In that sense, everything is possible, but it is not everything - just the thing that was made possible by your persistence. This is the ultimate usefulness of an education, to navigate this essentially confusing terrain. The education that allows you to do that is the only 'useful' education.
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
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Religi
This post is a reaction to Aatish Taseer's evocative obituary of secular India in the Atlantic ( read here ). While I agree with it mostly - and share the reservations about the direction and the future of India - I differ with the author on one key aspect: I do not agree with his portrayal of a resurgent Bharat eating up a secular India. In fact, I believe while Mr Taseer regrets the Indian elite's loss of connection with the realities of day to day life of the country, his very presentation of Bharat and India as oppositional entities stems from that incomprehension. While I understand that he is only using these categories as RSS uses them - to effectively other the English-speaking elites and non-Hindus - I believe it is a mistake to describe the profound changes in contemporary India as the ascendance of Bharat. I grew up in Bharat. I never learnt English until late in life, when I started working. My growing-up world was one of small-town India, vernacu
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 was gui
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, as
A lot of conversations about Kolkata is about its past; I want to talk about its future. Most conversations about Kolkata is about its decline - its golden moments and how times changed; I want to talk about its rise, how its best may lie ahead and how we can change the times. In place of pessimism, I seek optimism; instead of inertia, I am looking for imagination. It is not about catching up, I am arguing; it is about making a new path altogether. It had, indeed it had, a glorious past: One of the first Asian cities to reach a million population, the Capital of British India, the cradle of an Enlightened Age and a new politics of Cosmopolitanism. And, it had stumbled - losing the hinterland that supplied its Jute factories, overwhelmed by the refugees that came after the partition, devoid of its professional class who chose to emigrate - the City's commercial and professional culture evaporated in a generation, and it transformed into a corrupt and inefficien
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
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.