The above title is a red herring: This is no how-to guide on building universities. Indeed, I am no expert, and not pretending to preach. Rather, as I could not possibly title something like "Wondering How To Build An University" without being considered crazy or pompous, most likely both, I settled for this less offencive title.
However, the troubles with title offers some insight why the discussion is problematic. People do build things and organisations, but universities are not one of them, at least by common imagination. Despite being an empirical fact, hundreds of universities have been granted license in the last few decades, and an urgent demographic necessity, there is no other way to satisfy the growing middle classes, university building is seen to be something that takes hundreds of years, much beyond the imagination and scope of a single lifetime. Hence, while knowing 'How To Build A Company' is interesting and useful, claim to know 'How To Build An University' is crazy and pompous.
There is some justification in viewing university-making as a long term exercise. The globally acclaimed universities have histories stretching many centuries, and they make a big play of it. Many universities still use Latin where they can - on logos, in certificates and in graduation ceremonies - making a claim to a history even if none exists. The university architecture often invoke a past, often in gaudy and artificial fashion. And, where the universities do not exist and are urgently needed, like in India, regulators whet their appetite for stability and history by overtly defining land requirement first, defining the university by its campus and not by its content or activity. In short, university is a heritage product, and it is somewhat jarring if one claims to 'build' (or even explore building) a heritage product.
However, there are two things about universities and heritages. First, the universities are not that old. There are a handful of universities, in Europe and North America, which have history from before nineteenth century, and their modern forms, take Harvard if you like, have only emerged in the early Twentieth century. Second, heritage is a funny business - as some universities which are really old, like some in Egypt and China, want to refresh themselves and look modern and forward-looking, while others, which are really new, like the ex-polys in England, try their best to look as old as possible. Third, it is important to note that heritage has become a really interesting attribute rather recently, partly as a consequence of the search for authenticity by the newly-affluent Chinese and Indian students, who demand fragments of Latin and colourful robes as a part of the feel-good package of 'traditional' education.
My broader point is that this heritage business is indeed at odds with education. Illusions and vanity, dear as they are for the Higher-Ed marketers, are tools of confusion, not clarity. And, difficult as it may seem to build heritage, it is really not - as many of the theme parka and hospitality businesses have already perfected the trade. In fact, Higher-Ed as a heritage business is as counter-productive as it can be, with unintended consequences such as monkish indifference of the faculty, certificates of unintelligible value and students obsessed by social lives rather than moved by any greater purpose. The institutions in the heritage bubble are tools of social decay, rather than constant regeneration, as we expect universities to be.
My rephrased question, then, is this, how to build an university to perform the social functions that must be performed, to create a socially engaged, economically productive and morally imaginative student community? We may indeed be at the breaking of times, and even without being too apocalyptic, which will indeed be not out of place in the current circumstance, we should still appreciate the need for new engagements with society, value of economic re-alignment and re-imagined citizenship. Universities that will be built, in line with demographic necessities, can not simply be in the heritage businesses, and must answer the 'how to build' question.
And, this is a difficult question to answer. Apart from the lure of the 'faux heritage', the other influence on the university making is the regulatory guidelines, which usually define universities in terms of its real estates. Apart from making the university an enterprise open to builders and landowners, and excluding educators from the conversation, this has an additional consequence in defining what an university is. A high fidelity definition of university has become, within a space of two decades perhaps (as universities got built), a collection of buildings and sporting facilities, and nothing much else.
The problem with this definition is that this puts the cart before the horse. Universities are, first and foremost, communities. They are communities of values, ideals and practises, and only by fostering these communities, an university can be successful. The real estate, the campus and all that, facilitate these communities, but they do not define the universities by themselves. In fact, if anything, the emphasis on real estate obscures what makes an university - people and their connections, is the short answer - and completely disregard some of the essential ingredients of a 21st century university, the online communities and conversations that must play an essential part.
Coming back to the original question of 'building', it is perhaps important to realise that at the heart of our discomfort with 'building universities' lie our expectation of university as a settled form. Universities, in this imagination, are not to be messed with, but rather sustained, even if new capacities have to be added, through an extension of symbols and language, and appeals to an invented past and imagined values. And, this imagination is wrong, and counter-productive, and perhaps central reason why the world we built are falling off its seams. Asking the question is an essential first step, an opening of a possibility outside the current boundaries, and while what follows will perhaps be an inevitable game of practicalities and compromises within the current regulatory systems (the state must be satisfied), the point of an university is best realised within the new imagination rather than in tradition.
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.
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
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,
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
It's not often that I get to do things I like, but, as it happens, the lockdown came with a little gift. I was asked to develop, by an Indian entrepreneur with a strong commitment to education, a framework for a Liberal Education for one of his schools. And, as a part of this exercise, I was asked to develop a critique of Indian Education, if only to set the context of the proposal I am to make. I claim to have some unusual - therefore unique - qualification to do this job. I am, after all, an outsider in all senses. I have lived outside India for a long time, but never went too far away, making it my field of work for most of the period. I have also been outside the academe but never too far away: Just outside the bureaucracy but intimately into the conversations. I worked in the 'disruptive' end of education without the intention to disrupt and in For-profit without the desire for profit. Along the way, the only thing I consistently did is study educatio
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
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.