Over last several years, I have worked to find that Holy Grail of Education: A degree that leads directly to a Job!
I did write about this search on this blog, all the dead ends, disappointments and revealations that came along the way. Starting with perfect innocence - that this is the best thing that can happen to corporations whose difficulty in finding skilled personnel - I came to learn the ground realities of the trade, that the skills gap is usually 'someone else's problem' and long-term solutions are no good for the managers focused on quarterly targets.
Despite this, however, I got somewhere. Almost implausibly (to me, at least), I got some advance commitments on hiring graduates we could train. It was a commitment with all the expected checks and balances, but that provided that keystone for building a demand-led degree. And, indeed, the first one is always the hardest: Once that one commitment was signed off, it was easier to have conversations with other companies, because they could follow a template.
But this post is not about my conversations with corporations, which I wrote about elsewhere. This is more about the insights I had later, once we designed the programme around the hiring commitment and took it to students. The proposition, however imperfect, is the nearest one could get to the holy grail - an explicit demand, a clearly articulated way to get there, a degree that leads to a job!
This part of the story has many angles: We had to explore the question of pricing, payment mechanisms, the actual structure of the course, communication and branding. But there is one insight, a challenge, that stood out above all else, stemming from the simple idea of customer segmentation, but one that may undermine the whole proposition of 'demand-led' education.
That the students who are looking for education is not looking for a job, at least not immediately, and those who are looking for a job are not looking for education.
I am not making a philosophical statement, though there may be a philosophical point here. Nor, having spent most of my working life in For-Profit Education, I am inclined to make the case for greater purpose of education, though there is such a case to be made. This, for me at the current time, is simply a question of tactic: How to deal with the divergence of student expectations in building a demand-led education proposition?
Let's take the easier part of the proposition first: Those who are looking for a job are not looking for a degree. If we talk about the job being the point of all the endeavour, those who engage with it are simply focused on the job itself, and the process of a degree education to them is irrelevant. As a proposition, asking someone to pay to get a job is easier, though may not be ethical, than asking them to pay and spend time educating themselves with a degree to get that job.
The other side of the proposition works in parallel: Those who are looking for a degree are looking for the usual attributes that come with it - recognition, ranking etc - rather than the job that awaits in the end. It is indeed just a matter of thinking, and possibly the conversation would be completely different if this was not about a degree leading to a job, but a shorter, 'job-training' proposition: But, then, we have always assumed that this - the perfect combination of academic credentials and employer demand - would be the future of Higher Education.
The point is, it could be. Nothing in this limited experiment invalidates that broad proposition about the future of Higher Education. This may simply be too novel to believe in, ahead of its time. May be the market, India, which is a conservative educational market, is not suited for this kind of proposition yet, because degrees, in India, have all kinds of cultural connotation and marriage-market premiums attached to it. But, it would perhaps be equally mistaken to treat these insights as outliers, because the countries with most youth unemployment problem are usually those which are most conservative about its Higher Education.
One can plausibly conclude that such conservatism about Higher Education is indeed the key reason for Education-to-Employment transition, but that does not help us derive a solution. The conservatism about Higher Education, as in India, is rooted in history and culture of the country, and is unlikely to change in near future, or without a significant social unheaval. In real terms, then, despite all the common-sense appeal of demand-driven degrees, this may not be a solution to the education-to-employment transitions at all.
Indeed, I know my formulation of 'demand-driven education' is limited and wrong, and this is exactly what is causing the problem. I am defining it as an award tied to some kind of job guarantee, and there are obvious problems with this approach. Education is, by its nature, a forward-looking enterprise, shaped by expectations rather than here-and-now acquisitions. However, the tangibility of those expectations have always been the problem, and investors, educators and education entrepreneurs are forever in the quest of making it more tangible: I assumed that I reached the promised land, only to discover that tangibility often turns expectations to dust.
The other problem indeed is the degree, which is a closed framework, stuck to regulatory structures and cultural assumptions. The construction of demand-led education is not simply about attaching a clearly defined job with a degree, but making the framework of a degree open enough to accommodate the demands of the labour markets in general. Educators, stuck to the frameworks generally treat openness and flexibility as a deviation. I remember an educational experiment from the 90s when an educational institution came out with a 'blank semester', a semester whose contents would be defined at a future time: This was not well received, and soon became an object of ridicule: And, justifiably so, as it sought to box the future within one semester of a pre-defined curriculum.
My next quest begins here: To create a model of demand-led education, combining the insights of local labour markets and open frameworks.
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.