Once upon a time, I was a believer. I believed that the wonderful possibility of online higher education will make available affordable, high quality higher education for the aspiring middle-class students everywhere. Of all the vistas opened up by the Internet, this was the most transformative. This would have made a truly flat world; this would have resulted in a convergence of values and ideas, desires and languages.
That was then, the late nineties. Before the dot-com bust, before 9/11, before Facebook conquered the world. Most importantly, before I did a day's work for the online universities and met the first students who enrolled in them. Before the wonderful rhetoric met the real world and billions of dollars of venture capital was poured into online universities! And, before various failed schemes to improve higher education in the 'third world' came full-circle.
In between, I was in the frontline. I have this odd enthusiasm about what I do. Though I have not been successful in any sense, I have mostly been happy doing what I do. This feeling crystallised at a moment many years ago, which I still remember. This must have been late-nineties but I still recall the moment: This was a never-ending train journey to an interior town in India where my company just opened a computer education centre. The town, which was then well-known for being struck by a famine, was hundreds of miles away from the nearest big city and this was a sweaty coach-class train journey which allowed no sleep or respite from mosquitoes. As I couldn't sleep, I was spending the night looking out of the open windows. But it was a moonlit night and as the train went past the ravines of Western Orissa, I felt grateful. For nothing but the job I did: For the sense of purpose which made even my strenuous journey bearable. I never lost that feeling of elation, gratefulness for being given a purpose. I brought it to my job when I, many years later, started working for one of those online education start-ups which wanted to change the world.
It was only then I saw the problem: It was an American education which had no connection with or relevance to the local job markets or students' desires. It was all about playing up white privilege and the Indian propensity to think anything coming from the West must be good. For all its promises, only thing such education became is one of style, of superficial - and completely foreign - ways of presenting oneself. No one gave a damn about the student or her life; everything was constructed to scale, standardised to maximise profits. My feeble attempts to suggest facilitation through local learning centres fell flat, as that did not fit the business models. Instead, a false pride of being solely educated online was to be instilled in those poor souls who coughed up an American fee for the privilege of getting a piece of paper which they thought, wrongly, would allow them to become American someday.
And, indeed, it failed. Students were never satisfied, and this is not just because videos were forever buffering and the accents were indecipherable. It was because none of it ever made sense. The tutors, even when they had any interaction, did not understand where the students were coming from and what they want. Mostly, also, students did not want to tell the tutors anything that might be too foolish, seeing them more as potential sponsors for a future route out of the country rather than guides to help with education. When I spoke to the employers, they demanded skills which American universities wouldn't necessarily teach at a degree level. Except for the white privilege, and some reflected glory of my residency in London, there was nothing we could - or wanted to - offer.
There was more than one lesson for me. I saw first-hand why online education's great promise stumbles all the time: Education is a culturally determined, personally responsive activity. There is nothing fuddy-daddy in scepticism about the online higher education start-ups; they are predatory mercenaries whose realities never match the marketing. They did not care how the student actually experiences the education: They pretended to tell the students how they should be feeling. They dressed up the data to show completions, peremptorily counting out anyone who may not complete. They made the students feel guilty about not being able to cope, not being smart and self-driven enough to keep up with online education. They failed the students in more ways than one.
No contact centre would have solved this, of course. This is a fundamental design problem of online higher education, often funded with globalizing aspirations, that it seeks to deny everything that is culturally specific. They are founded on the assumption that there is one true way to educate and that way is defined by the respective licensing authority that the particular provider draws their legitimacy from. That the students from far-flung countries paid for that education is seen as an affirmation that they also agree that their needs are met through such an education. Any quirks in this neat worldview, such as the idea that the students may indeed be poorly informed, have no place in this conversation. Within this flawed universe, a distant, disempowered contact centre would have made absolutely no difference.
Indeed, I recognise that my previous charmed life of spreading computer education in the interiors of India was based on acts of such cultural invasion as well. But then we didn't pretend to educate beyond teaching people computer programming, which was often carried in parallel with college and whatever other activities that the student was doing. Indeed, it does not absolve me, as we imposed a certain 'right way' of doing things everywhere we opened an outlet, and my well-meaning visits were often designed to control and dictate, rather than listen and learn. In fact, all such acts of 'giving education' and my pretence of doing good are acts of cultural invasion, some mild and some egregious.
The trouble with online higher education is that, at its heart, there is blindness: An assumption that all people face the same realities and want the same solutions. The entrepreneurs do not take into account the different realities that their learners have: My suggestion that many poor learners in Africa or India may not have a room of their own to study in was once laughed off. Even the data that is obvious, Nairobi's 7 Mbps download speed as opposed to Singapore's 100 Mbps, is explained away as a temporary glitch. And, that an Asian student in an online classroom may keep quiet, or accept received opinion if it comes from a Western faculty member, isn't something factored into their worldview. In fact, Online Higher Education operates, to fit into the financial assumptions that help create them, with a strange conception of culture-free education [just like my ideas about computer training]. But education - as long as it is positioned to be the main activity to define career and character - can never be culture-free and impersonal.
A culturally-responsive and personal education are incompatible with the global scale of currently existing online higher education. And, this is exactly why the promises of online higher education remain unmet. Many enterprises bite the dust and many thousands of students waste their time, energy and money on it in the meantime. This should count among the many tragedies of globalisation.
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.