Through the medium of this blog I have been critiquing the education system that India follows many a time. My main complaint has been that the system is primarily there now to serve commercial purposes and nothing more. If some people are fortunate, they may get educated; but most are not and therefore all they get is a degree without the supporting knowledge. I have been saying that India is producing a horde of graduates and post-graduates none of whom are ultimately employable. And that is a sad thing since for all the claims that India is the second fastest growing economy in the world behind China and that India is one of the drivers of the global economy, one of the realities of India is that a vast majority of people are still untouched by any form of development and that even for the middle classes of the country, education is ultimately a tool for employment. And today's education system by not providing any kind of education to the people who require it, is actually nothing more than a white elephant on the economy of the country.
It has been my consistent argument that education in India should have been the sole responsibility of the State right from the primary level to the highest level and that it should have been provided free of cost. I have argued that students should go to the same government run schools, wear uniform and grow up without elitism creeping in. I have also been arguing that as long as private schools and colleges are allowed to run, they would concentrate on their primary motive which is to make profit and in order to do so they have been creating stupid agendas which do not pay any attention to the all round development of a child. Schools and colleges that are run out of commercial complexes with no playgrounds and other spaces in which co-curricular activities can take place and widen the horizons of students, are creating students who are atrophied in their mental growth. In the southern part of India and especially in the State of Andhra Pradesh, one sees that students are "oriented" into IIT or medicine and modus operandi of these schools that provide this orientation is to make a student a target of consistent and long hours of bombarding with questions and answers. This process usually starts in the morning at 6 AM and goes on till 9 PM. The student is not left with any time for any other activity so these students do not get to read any news and nor do they understand its importance, they do not play any games or participate in any sporting activity and are only used to robotic automaton conformity. They are incapable of thinking on their own and have to be spoon fed information which they will re-produce in conditions that are pre-determined. By pre-determined conditions I mean tests and the environment in which they are held. You change the conditions and you will find the student is not really able cope up with the changed environment.
It is here that the illiberalism of Indian education comes into being and is perpetuated by three parties. The disinterested State is the first, the private providers of education who tries to make their institutions look the most desirable for admission projecting to parents that they dedicate all their efforts for securing the future of the child (though in reality it is profitability of their own institution that is the only criterion) and the third is the parents themselves. Most often parents thrust their ambitions onto their children without consideration for the children's aptitude, interest and inclination. That there are hordes of engineers today who cannot find employment in anything other than information technology companies (if at all they can find employment that is) and medical doctors who if at all find employment, have to work as duty doctors in corporate hospitals for paltry salaries of Rs. 10,000 per month, is indication that all this brain washing of students does not work and therefore the aspirations of parents are not fulfilled. Yet there is no change in the thinking of parents, all of whom operate on the assumption that failure of the child and the consequent dashing of the aspirations of the parents is a phenomenon that is reserved for others and not them. This idiotic belief is akin to the idea that death shall come only to others and not to me. This lack of enlightenment among parents is what leads to this unfortunate illiberalism in education, one which is opportunistically used by the capitalist-educator who feeds of the parents' unenlightened system of beliefs.
One of the good points of the traditional Indian social system has been that it teaches the young to respect their elders. This good point has now been converted by stupid parents to impose their views and aspirations on their offspring without considering the idea that they the offspring are also organic entities possessing certain qualities, which if allowed to come out would shine and if stifled would fail. To see the child as an extension of the self is violation of the rights and entitlements of a person. And that is illiberalism at its highest. One of the most striking features of illiberalism can be found in the community of social science teachers. In my own experience, with the exception of one or two social science teachers all others uniformly expect their children to become engineers or doctors just like every other parent. In this part of the country there are certain teachers who are strong supporters of the idea that students should have a right to participate in democratic agitations and encourage students to participate in political movements. But these very same teachers are keen to protect their students from such democracy, and look for colleges and universities outside of Andhra Pradesh to educate their students so that they do not get disturbed by these democratic agitations. This selective application of rules for us as against the others is to me the highest form of selfishness where people are selectively discriminated against.
Apart from this type of teacher there is also the other type; one who is so convinced about one's own enlightenment that he or she believes that he or she should decide what is good for the student. This self-aggrandized teacher believes that the student will come up in life only if guidance is given to them. So there are those who will decide what goes into curriculum and how it should be taught. While I do not contest the right of the teachers to prepare curriculum, I certainly question things such as incorporation of mathematics and physical sciences into social sciences courses and drastic things such as a course should be taught only from one ideological point of view and not from any other since all other ideologies are wrong (according to the teacher). This is nothing less than indoctrination and not giving the student to make an informed choice about the world view or the vantage from which they would choose to view the world. There is nothing wrong in instructing students on the shortcomings of particular ideologies but to decide that they do not need to know anything about those ideologies is morally unsustainable. The University Grants Commission of India, according to hearsay (and therefore this should not be taken as true) is considering the idea that there should be blurring of lines between social sciences, mathematics, physical sciences and biological sciences so that a student gets to learn all. In my view, if this is indeed true, this will be stupidity of a monumental kind which will destroy education in India completely.
What I have in my own mind is something radically different from this. I believe that schooling is the most important stage in the life of a person and if one finds education repugnant at this level then they will carry these memories with them for the rest of the life and therefore could become educationally challenged which in India means that a lack of fitness for employment. My own experience with myself and with a lot of students has been that some kinds of minds are suited to some kinds of disciplines and these are obvious from the time that they get into their teens. I therefore believe that all early schooling should be devoid of specific curriculum and they should be allowed to experiment with various things pertaining to the various walks of life. Specialized curriculum with syllabus made up of disciplinary content should come into being only at the junior college level. This will spare the students the agony of learning things that they will never use in their life and forget that information the day after they take their examination. I have in my life done simple equations, simultaneous equations, integral and differential calculus, I have studied the innards of frogs, earthworms and cockroaches and today none of that is useful to me in what I do. So why make students agonize over something that they cannot do, if in the end, that is not going to impact on their lives in anyway? To most people mathematics that includes additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions would be fine to live life. Teach that maths to those who have no aptitude for engineering or the pursuit of mathematics at a higher level. Similarly with the biological sciences and the social sciences. An introduction to those aspects of social sciences and biological sciences that have some significance to daily lives would be adequate, for those students who do not have an aptitude for these courses. Such education in my opinion would allow the student to concentrate upon things that they like and enjoy studying, and when people pursue what they enjoy, then they usually do well. And here I rest my case.
Interesting post. And surprising too, to say the least. As I see it, you are mainly advocating two things:
ReplyDelete1. No formal studies until the junior college level (the age of about 16).
2. No "blurring of lines between social sciences, mathematics, physical sciences and biological sciences" as proposed by UGC (at the junior college level or at the bachelor's level?)
While I can see your point in advocating the first point, I would not want to see it happening mainly because I cannot trust individual educators to care enough to want to lead a child in his / her intellectual exploration in the absence of curriculum that they are boxed into right now. As it is, the education within these structures is happening at the barest minimum level. If that structure was taken away, I think the whole system would simply collapse.
The second point, from what I see, looks like a form of the 4 year bachelor's degree in the States where students are given the freedom to dabble in courses that they find interesting for about the first 1-2 years and then get to choose their majors. Why would you think that would be a problem? I'd think students would be much more likely to make significant decisions about what they would like to study at the junior college or bachelor's level rather than at the school level that you are proposing. And if so, they should have an opportunity to sample different disciplines at the introductory college level to make that decision.
And finally, are you saying that education is/should be only for employability?
Clarifications first. I did not say no formal studies till junior college. I am only saying that the form should not be rigid. I have also said that no specific curriculum should exist and that does not mean that curriculum should not exist. Curriculum should be loosely framed and should give the student the scope to explore things and it is here that the role of the teacher is important. By the time a student is 15 years old, the teacher(s) should be able to identify the inclinations of the student and help him/her channel energies into that direction.
ReplyDeleteI would say again that what I am opposing is the kind of blurring of lines that the UGC is proposing. Technically that means we are talking about degree or under-graduate level. The UGC's idea of blurring of disciplinary lines is that a maths teacher will come and teach maths to social sciences students and a life sciences teacher will teach life sciences and go away. This does not help the case of integrated knowledge since linkages between various sciences are not made. But if for example a teacher is able to understand that the Systems theorists and Structural-Functionalists tried to liken an amorphous system to a human body and tried to look at conflict in the system as being akin to a symptom of illness and then discuss the pros and cons of these theories the interest of the student is likely to be aroused. If then one can make a comparison of how various systems of medicine have dealt with symptoms and disease and apply that to the understanding of the System the student's understanding will be much more enriched. So in effect I am suggesting that we need teacher who are not tied down to their own disciplinary boundaries before blurring of disciplines can be attempted. You know the kind of teachers that exist in schools and universities in India, and do you think they are capable of something like that?
Precisely because you cannot trust educators to care enough about students, at least let them interfere least in a student's life in the formative years. While examples of teachers who have inspired students to take up a certain line of education are hardly available, examples of those who have turned students away from disciplines are copiously available. Look at your life and education and you will see what I am saying.
Thanks for writing. As always I hugely appreciate that. And no I am not saying education is only for employability. If it was that then I would have agreed with the idea that engineering is most suited for students. All I am saying is that while it is important in the context of a country like India it cannot be the overriding reason and that employers also should look at different kinds of people and not the usual stereotypical ones; those who can crack a GMAT kind of exam or do well in stress interviews.
Thank you for writing too. I enjoy reading your thoughts. :)
ReplyDeleteIn response to: "So in effect I am suggesting that we need teacher(s) who are not tied down to their own disciplinary boundaries before blurring of disciplines can be attempted." -- How do we make such teachers in the first place? UGC's attempt might be a step in this direction. And junior college or graduate level might be the place to do it as students at that stage in life are better able to make decisions regarding their course of study than at the school level. Even teachers who are tied down to their discipline will possibly stir the interest of a student who might be interested in a discipline and is wanting to try it out.
And I fail to understand how you oppose a multidisciplinary education at the undergrad or graduate level, yet still want students to experience the same in a less rigid format in the school years. The teachers in school are no different from the ones in college. They are still bound in their own particular disciplines.
The other part of my argument regarding this is that education to the high school level is partly about inculcating enduring and good study habits and discipline in a student. If educators 'interfere' least in a student's life in the school years, who will take up the role of a guide or educator then? Do you think we can expect the parents to take up the slack? What will be different then than the current practice where children are pushed into medicine or engineering by parents? Or would you expect the child himself to be interested and proactive in acquiring an education that focuses on his areas of interest? The intellectual curiosity inherent in students needs to brought out and shaped by someone. And the structured school system now pretty much exposes the student to all of the different disciplines.
Yes, there are bad teachers, but they will always be there. You cannot escape that. But if you're advocating a different kind of education where the student is free to study his areas of interest, then I would like excellent educators who can help him in that pursuit. Failing that, I would want the existing current system as a safety net where the student is exposed to various subjects and then makes a choice about his areas of interest at a higher level. This might have a lesser chance of the education failing the student even if teachers are bad or tied down their own in disciplinary corners.
I do not oppose multidisciplinary education at the undergrad level. I only oppose the way the UGC is doing it. If people were acquainted with multidisciplinary education at the school itself then at higher levels things will become much more simpler. Discipline in life has very little to do with following disciplinary tracts in school.Inculcating discipline in life should be the task of parents not of teachers. Obviously I am militating against parents who push their children into engineering or medicine, that is there in the article already. My only disagreement with you is over the idea that unless "taught" in a particular way, students will not do well in life. My experience in OUCW was that students had become incapable of thinking for themselves and had to be spoonfed. That is what I meant when I said people are being trained to crack exams without giving them the knowledge. I have seen my niece studying only questions and answers for her 10th class. All her text books were in pristine condition, untouched by anyone. That they are badly written is another thing. Education as it stands today is question and answers. Despite this kind of education there are people who are doing well in life and have knowledge, which for me means that this system is redundant. So why not experiment with free thinking in early life to bring out the creativity of a child? Why not allow the child to experiment and feel the joy of education? Please watch the movie Pink Floyd - The Wall. You will understand what I am saying.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't say that unless taught in a particular way, students will not do well in life. I'm only saying that unless we have top quality teachers (which currently we don't), a multidisciplinary approach at the school level might not work. It might even be a step back as students will be left adrift with nothing to fall back on if the structural syllabi were taken away.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, I agree with your vision and applaud it. In reality, it needs a lot of ground work to be implemented is what I'm trying to say. In the current educational environment, it would be bound to fail.
In the end, I guess we're agreeing on the basics but looking at how and whether it can be implemented a little differently.
Usually people agree to disagree but we seem to have disagreed to agree :-). Thanks for your comments. I will think about them seriously.
ReplyDelete