see the post here). This prevents the diffusion of technology, as lack of inclusiveness and openness in learning mean a lot of people are left out, unable not just to take advantage of technological change to improve their economic prospects but also missing out on applying the technological possibilities in solving their own day-to-day problems.
Now, I want to take this argument further: The college does not just fail those which it excludes, but also its own graduates. This is because the college, in its current form, does a really bad job at developing two most critical abilities that one needs to succeed in the globalised and automated workplaces (and societies). These are Compassion and Critical Consciousness.
However, before I argue about the limitations of the college, there are some definitional issues to be addressed. Compassion and Critical Consciousness are, one can argue, basic human abilities, one that guided us through the trials and tribulations of the whole human history. However, they have been somewhat changed and limited in the modern usage: The word 'Collaboration' has emerged in place of 'Compassion' (and it is worth explaining why) and Critical Consciousness have been set aside for Critical Thinking. College, its contemporary advocates claim, is needed to develop precisely these kind of abilities: Collaboration and Critical Thinking top their chart. Therefore, I intend to start by distinguishing these terms, and why we may need the basic human abilities, rather than the modern, self-serving and stylised terms, in the conversation.
Let's start from a point of consensus: I have no quarrels with the point that the big problems, social, economic and technological, can only be solved collaboratively, people coming together. This is indeed the lessons of human history. Even after the European Enlightenment, which put individuals in the centre-stage, and we suddenly had the new Hero archetype - the Genius - we have always known that great works of art and science came together only 'on the shoulders of the giants', not as ex-nihilio acts of creation but by exploration of and engagement with the 'adjecent possible' (Steven Johnson's term).
However, 'collaboration', in its current usage, is a business term, meaning working together based on converging self-interest of the participants. The current champions of 'collaborative thinking' throws the cloak of collaboration in its current sense on the entire creative expanse of human history: But this explains little and exposes the limits of 'collaboration'. People collaborated through history not because they wanted to get the best deal for themselves, but often with other motives - preservation of the group, curiosity, and indeed, compassion and fellow-feeling. The modern conjuring trick is to redefine feelings such as Compassion as a shot of a particular Hormone that they were seeking, thereby, doing for others while they were really serving themselves. But, even if it's definitionally accurate, its conceptual absurdity should be apparent when we consider that some of these collaborative efforts involved risking oneself, and even, in some cases, dying for others or the group. It is much more coherent to think in terms of the basic human ability (in fact, an ability shared by many other sentient species) to feel for others and do things without consideration of self-preservation.
Why do we need to look beyond 'collaboration' and bring back 'compassion' in the conversation? This is because the essential challenges of progress are long-term and civilisational. The world is not just a collection of Hotel lounges and 'changing the world' must start out there, and among people who are not like us. The understanding of others' experiences is an essential requirement of any transformation, and critical for the preservation of civilisation, and in time, of the species. Compassion is the key with which the technological possibilities can be for everyone, solving real problems for real people: Without this, technologies can only skim the rewards, divide the society and accentuate the big problems.
Like collaboration, critical thinking is recognised as an important ability, but so in the limited sense of dealing with 'information overload' (Howard Rhinegold's term for this, which understandably did not catch on, is 'crap detection'). The advocates for college education argue that college prepares a student for critical thinking, encouraging them to ask questions about the information they receive. However, it is important, at this point, to contrast the term 'Critical Consciousness', which is considered a basic human ability that helped us through the ages, with this limited use: Critical Consciousness is not just about validating information within a given structure, but to be able to question the structure itself.
Let me try to explain the difference with a limited example: An university graduate today would be expected to tell fake news from real by looking at the sources (did it come from a respectable newspaper, with reputations of editorial integrity?) and this would be considered an example of critical thinking. However, they would stop at that and go no further, usually taking research from a reputed organisation as credible and representing the 'truth'. Larry Lessig's point about looking beyond the research - and looking into who paid for it - would not be considered a necessity, as this would be too complicated. One would make an assumption of neutrality and professional integrity of the researchers (if only because they called themselves 'researchers'). However, we have empirical evidence that most research is indeed manipulated to represent the views of those who paid for the research, and hence we have so much conflicting research. The institutions we trust - newspapers, big 4 consultancy, think tanks - are often the worst offenders. However, questioning their expertise and integrity would directly undermine the university graduate's perception of herself, and put her entire frame of reference in doubt. Critical consciousness lay beyond that boundary; Critical Thinking, as advertised, remain within the bounds of the system, and is mostly focused on internal consistencies.
Why do we need to cross the boundary, and be 'pedantic' about information? Because new frontiers of knowledge and understanding lay outside the paradigmatic limits that our frame of reference constrain us to. And, while internal consistency is good enough when the system is working well, it is inadequate at times like this, when the possibilities seem to lie outside the current system, one that excludes more than includes, and creates more problem than it solves. When one sees "progress depends on the unreasonable man' written on Facebook, time has come to explore the limits of the system.
College, I argue, as a closed community, an institution supported by the modern state, undermines compassion and discourages critical consciousness. The quest of homogeneity - 'graduate attributes' as they are sometimes euphemistically called - is at the heart of the enterprise of college: It underpins its moral mission and business model. And, yet, the possibilities of compassion and critical consciousness both lie in the engagement with the other, not in the patronising way of doing 'social good' but in the inclusive way of extending 'full membership'. This the college can't simply do, and despite all the talk of 'widening participation', the college has only become even more homogeneous, defining its pursuit of excellence by ranking and selectivity. The college, therefore, is no longer fit-for-purpose, for their own self-declared purposes: For making societies prosperous and for enabling inclusive and democratic politics.
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
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
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.
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,
India's employment data is sobering ( see here ). The pandemic has wrecked havoc and the structural problems of the economy - service sector dependence, uneven regional development and health and education challenges - are more evident than ever. Something needs to happen, and fast. To its credit, the government acknowledges the education challenge. Belatedly - it took more than 30 years - India has come up with a new National Education Policy. It is a comprehensive policy, which covers the whole spectrum of education and perhaps overcompensates the previous neglect by advocating radical change. As I commented elsewhere on this blog, it shows a curious mixture of aspirations, cultural revival and global competitiveness put under the same hood. However, despite its radical aspirations, the policy document often betrays same-old thinking. One of these is India's approach to foreign universities. The NEP makes the case for allowing foreign universities to set up operations in Ind
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
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
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.