I have been involved in the ugly end of the Higher Education - For-profits - for too long to not to detect the puzzle that lies at the heart of Higher Education as a business. Good Higher Education, if we overcome the cynicism to believe that there is such a thing (and overcome the claim that Higher Education is a mechanism to perpetuate privilege, and nothing else), needs elements such as a community, a gift culture, a long term vision and high levels of trust, which are not common in the business world. The investment world, which gets involved in owning and running Higher Education institutions, is really at the far end of the spectrum of values from what makes good education, and while they claim to reward innovative companies, they like regimented Higher Education, and while they want Google to be more college-like, they want college to be more like a factory. Recently, Professor Malcolm Gillies, the recently retired Vice Chancellor of London Metropolitan University, argued that the City (which is the shorthand for investing world in London) should learn from Academia's Slow Values (read his essay here), a suggestion that will be dismissed out of hand by the new Czars of Higher Education. However, what values matter come to the fore as For-Profits are allowed greater legitimacy, and Governments increasingly believe that getting businesses involved in Higher Education is the solution to expand Higher Education and solve the problem of Middle Class jobs.
However, the problem is only getting bigger because the nature of Higher Education business remains directly at odds with the investment approach of the Higher Education Investor. And, this is poorly understood because this is such a contested issue - no serious researcher or commentator of Higher Education would ever examine For-Profits with an open mind, and the For-Profits and their investors would just be dismissive about what the academicians say. Caught in the middle are indeed people who wants to create new Higher Education institutions that innovate and move with time, and can only find money to do so from the investing world. In the absence of an unified theory of what makes Higher Education work, failing For-Profits become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Indeed, the ambition of For-Profits is to create a new type of university, but it is almost always self-defeating as a model. For example, most For-Profits claim that they exist to prepare people for the changing nature of work and careers, and yet, they must market themselves as easy avenues for yesterdays jobs, because these are only ones their prospective students have any ideas about. Their business models stand on minimising human interaction and contact, running directly against the serendipitous nature of human learning, and their focus, dictated by the logic of investment, on the outcome rather than the process of education denude the experience of the possibilities of chance encounters, detours and accidental knowledge. The oxymoron of result-oriented research should be more apparent, but the whole For-Profit teaching approach, focused on if-you-do-this-you-will-get-that ensures that the gift culture, of sharing knowledge and experience, of being of assistance to other people, is effectively undermined. And, while this industrialised process may produce industrial age machine operators, we are so far past that time and requirement that For-Profits only worsen the existential crisis of the middle class.
The other side of the coin is, of course, the Government bureaucracies that run public institutions, but operate with essentially the same business logic of measurability and control, in a time-limited way. The public institutions, therefore, face the other side of the same problem - there is nothing educational about a bureaucratic institution. The only concerns become Sex for students, parking for faculty and sports for the alumni (Clark Kerr's words - the last one only uniquely applicable to the United States) - and indeed, the culture of the faculty room become all too Machiavellian to entertain any idealism about education.
One may indeed point out that the idea of the college as a community of scholars and students united in the pursuit of knowledge is just an ideal, and such a college may have never existed. However, the point is not one of tradition but one of appropriateness - if we believe that the collegiate ideal is good for innovative work and attempt to replicate it at our businesses, why should we not attempt to create learning institutions on similar models? While we recognise the value of collaborative work, a gift culture, long term thinking in our most cutting edge enterprises and value idealism in world changing social organisation, why do we permit our cynicism to let our colleges degenerate so precipitously? And, since I invoke the accusation of cynicism, I must clarify that I see it everywhere in Higher Education. The faculty room culture in public institutions, a combination of patronising highhandedness and indulgent self-centeredness, is as guilty of cynicism as the charade of academic values put up by For-Profits with pretentious buildings (or virtual storefronts, as is becoming more common), luminous but never-present advisory panels and degree parade of the adjuncts who are all too busy simply surviving. This model simply does not work - it does not even make money when the subsidies and state support is withdrawn - and yet, all other ideas, any idea, is rejected out of hand, by both sides of the divide.
Higher Education has a future, simply because an uneducated universe is a self-destructive prospect. The need for innovation in Higher Education is urgent, but the solution is not just to embrace For-Profits (or reject it). The innovation would take a new form of business, socially engaged, long term and informed by the right values. Instead of just watering down quality standards and letting For-profits slip in, the Governments need to look elsewhere - innovating governance structures, which let such institutions raise money and operate effectively. Higher Education can be a business, but it is a different kind of business - a point we missed all along!
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
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
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.
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. Reli
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: 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
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
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
I spent the last week at the Ideas for India conference in London. This conference had different strands, and brought the diaspora Indians, India watchers and a number of delegates from India together. Because Rahul Gandhi chose to attend - a rather last minute thing which changed the published agenda somewhat - the media narrative revolved around his 40-odd minutes of talk. And, of course, a sense of discomfort hung over the whole conference: A wholly new thing for me and it shows how much India has changed. Somehow, the people in India seemed to think that no conversation about India should happen anywhere else in the world, a strange thing for a country which is anxious to assert its global importance. Additionally, anything outside the official channel is seen as conspiracy. Gone are those days when the presumptive opposition candidate, the current Prime Minister, could freely interact with the diaspora Indians and slam Dr Manmohan Singh's lack of initiative; today, this wou
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.