Education, for whom?

Education, for whom?

 

7/6/13

 

It is the time of the year when change becomes perceptible.  The country is awaiting the arrival of rains after a harsh summer; the schools reopen to invite new students.  The cyclic world becomes boring without the spots of deviation, and we decorate these loci to get an excuse to celebrate.  Behind all these changes at the surface many hours of toil and perspiration have been invested, and if at all any celebration was warranted, it is for these acts of preparation.  All the summer’s vapors have collected into clouds, aggregated by the migration and winds, and waiting for the signaling for precipitation.  The struggles in this process sometimes show up in the form of thunderstorms and tsunamis, just to remind us that struggle is part of the cycling process. Similarly, behind all happy admissions and graduations there have been some struggles, many of which are quite popularized.  The training schools, the coaching classes, the late nights and early mornings, the study strategies and mock tests, the praying mothers and the drilling teachers, the important questions and the leaked papers all have become part of the lore of our schooling system.  There has also been the struggle of the institutions to attract admissions – the prospectus and the applications, the entrance tests and interviews, the marketing and the maneuverings, the litigations and the quota systems, the approvals and the accreditations.  From all these paraphernalia it appears that we have made great progress in our education system in the past couple of decades.  And we have numbers to show progress – more universities, more colleges, more graduates, more placements, more salaries on placements.  Is it really so?  Has the education system progressed comprehensively?  Is the correlation causative?

 

26/6/13

In spite of all the above statistics, many trade associations complain about the employability of the graduates.  Many attributes necessary for meeting the job demand are simply not present, so is the claim, and many industries take it upon themselves to provide these training.  There is often this debate about why such a gap may not be breached.  Some of the reasons, in my view, why such a gap has not only persisted for such a long time but has grown are these.  The institutions – both industry and academia – pay lip service to solving this problem. Sure, there are administrative decorations that are created to address this question, but at the grass root level the problem has not been addressed.  The industry often laments that the soft skills are lacking in the graduates, but the reality is, even hard skills are not as strong as it should be.  Just building soft skills can be disastrous.  For example, I have come across many colleagues in the various organizations I have served, people with very ‘strong’ soft skills, but their hard skills are suspect.  They are good in some or all of these attributes – networking, communicating, delegating, administering, etc.  The ‘hard’ skills, such as in areas of their qualification and training, are not strong enough to give confidence to their team members.  Such a situation is acceptable when the individual is at a senior level in the hierarchy, but at the lower level this is usually a liability and there is a need for someone to cover for the inadequacies.  This leads to non-coherence in the team among the members, and such a situation always affects the overall performance of the unit. 

 

Secondly, the best way to impart required skills is through training of the teachers.  Again, in this area, there has been not enough effort.  There are some systemic problems in the way the teaching career is designed.  It is not clear what is the role of research (as an activity) and its relation to teaching as a profession, in general, and in particular during different stages of a long career.  We have clear suggestions for how many hours one has to teach, i.e., be in contact with students, as stipulated by regulatory bodies.  Based on this premise the other activities may be determined.  The current structure is that fresh from college teachers are expected to spend more time in the classrooms and laboratories, and the older ones lesser.  This arrangement is to accommodate the idea that the older teachers are going to have more administrative duties.  The problem with this philosophy is that as the teams of teachers age year on year, the stage-wise transition from junior to senior cadre gets decided by the time spent, other contributions being equal.  This also makes the system administration-heavy.  Thus, in many organizations one finds that the administrative positions are more clamored and sought after, at the cost of the core functioning of the system, i.e., training and educating the students.

 

The (He)Art of Giving

The (He)Art of Giving

 

9/9/13

 

There are three recognized type of donors.  The first is the pompous.   They give alone (not as part of groups), but do it under glaring spotlight.  An event is created for this purpose, all the townsmen are assembled, and a big cheque, not only in the quantum of value but also, nowadays, in the symbolic physical size is given away.  These used to be the ways of the kings and queens in the past, but now their equivalents – the political leaders and the aspiring leaders give in this fashion. 

 

The second category is those who feel it must be done formally, with intent and purpose, with proper records, checks and balances,  and for the right reason, but generally given away not in the view of the unrelated audience.  This is the general majority group – the middle segment.  Members of this group want to be counted as givers, they want to make sure that the receiving process and the end purpose is something which is acceptable and agreeable to them.  They feel a sense of pride in the knowledge that their giving contributes to a goal they feel is not conflicting with their own beliefs and principles.  The purpose need not be a top priority for them in their scheme of things, but should not be conflicting with their values. For example, they may contribute to a temple renovation project, even if they might think of other things to be of a higher priority and greater significance at that point.  Usually the quantum of donation is small individually, and this may be camouflaged by getting together with other like-minded individuals and contribute as a group.  But as a category their contribution generally occupies the lion’s share in most fund raising programs.

 

Lastly, there are the anonymous donors, those who want their actions to be strictly private, and sometime deliberately so.  This is an interesting group, depending on the fund raising program. Many in this group are strong believers in the program being funded.  In some activities which are surreptitious, such as terror organizations, this is the major group of contributors.  Tracking of the funding source is made difficult, basically due to the legality of the activities undertaken and the funding mobilization process.  In more genuine activities, you also have people belonging to this group who want to get rid of their ill-gotten wealth for legitimate and respectable purposes.  For example, contributions to temple welfare through cash drop in collecting bins.  A recent trend is to donate to some ‘noble’ cause, such as education, either directly in their own name or through a mediator (benami).

 

A fourth group, although not directly recognized one as such, is those who are forced to donate in spite of their willingness, belief, or knowledge about the purpose of the donation.  Many organizations have made ‘donations’ as a prerequisite for a service.  You might include taxation also under this category, if you will. 

 

In the past three to four decades many of the charitable and particularly religious endowments have become very wealthy very quickly, all through legitimate fund raising activities.  Sometimes this has been the bane of the institutions since they have not thought through and created a fair policy for managing their wealth, and this has led to unfair or illegal practices within them.  But the fact that many organizations have become very wealthy very quickly is a sign of general growth in prosperity and the growth of generosity in the populace.   

 

History tells us that the periods of prosperity and unrest are distinguished by the health of charitable organizations during the period.  In periods of peace and prosperity the public institutions such as temples flourished, and the consequence of that were regular rains, harvest, the ponds in the vicinity of temples full of water and life.  The periods of unrest were marked by invasion, damage to public monuments such as temples.  Seldom had the invaders gone about destroying the properties and life of ordinary citizens, they were usually collateral.  It was understood that by destroying the sites of cultural and communal activity the society was quickly captured, rather than going about destroying the fabric of the commons.  Thus, we find the vestige of such ideology in our old temples and public courtyards, and the stories about their preservation.  The ideas of warfare have changed.  However, what is still valid is the idea that the strength of a community lies in the strength of its institutions – whether it is temples or churches, schools or theaters.  The need to support them through community contributions is an indicator of the strength of the community.  And, this is a two way street – stronger the community, stronger the institutions, and vice versa.  Both the structures support each other to grow, and by weakening one, the other will also collapse.  In recent times we have had a lot of debates about public (government) support for institutions of art – visual and performance.  In many communities and countries the institutions of art have become threatened due to reducing support.  Is it because of the development of technologies to confine them to restricted enjoyment instead of unrestrained enjoyment?  This is an idea I would like to explore in a subsequent piece.

 

Vacation

Vacation

 

2/6/13

 

The idea of a vacation in the corporate or business world is a tool of incentive or a point for negotiation between the employer and employee.   At the time of joining a company, the HR manager usually illustrate the various schemes offered by the company to keep the prospective employee interested.  Some smart people use this to their advantage by negotiating terms and conditions of the different offering – particularly the vacation part – whether it is paid or unpaid, how many days, what frequency, any non-taxable option, items for reimbursements, etc.  In the academic world, on the other hand, the idea of a vacation is quite bland and nondescript.  Usually it is merged with holidays or study breaks, and hence there is no clear appreciation of its role and purpose.  In many (most) institutions, there is no concept of financials associated with this concept.

 

So, why vacation?  The idea is that the mind requires some rejuvenation to perform at peak levels, and this may be achieved by a break from the routine.  However, this concept itself is wrong.  Only the body requires a break, but not the mind. Most assume that in a white collar job, only the mind is engaged.  Not so.  The job still requires a lot of contribution from the body – going to the place, being there, making the usual chit chats, moving things, etc.  In fact, even in white collar jobs, the bodies’ contribution to the overall performance can be as high as that of the mind.  Thus, a vacation gives the body a chance to retune and rejuvenate.  Many productive people do not disengage their mind during their vacation, and this is considered dedication by the company / institution.

 

But what is vacation? It is an act of vacating, emptying the physical as well as mental assets.  It is a kind of spring cleaning, to move things around so that the cobwebs are dismantled and removed.  For removal of physical webs there are many tools available, and it is a question of putting them to use periodically.  But for the mental cobwebs, the ideas and notions, the concepts and practices, the feelings and anxieties, the tools for removal is not very obvious.  Even after a vacation to the other part of the globe these cobwebs might still remain.  On the other hand, for some people a few isolated minutes at the office might be good enough to remove the cobwebs.  Thus, the concept of vacation for a white collar job can be confusing and not contributing to the individual’s or the organization’s benefit.

 

In many academic institutions the concept of vacation is completely distorted.  Many activities such as training, research and consultancy are reserved for vacation time, as though these activities are not part of routine activities.  Internships and training programs are scheduled during this period.  Many programs are staggered so that the physical infrastructure could be put to use more efficiently, while the intellectual infrastructure is taken for granted.  The only concept of a vacation in an academic institution is ‘away from classroom’.

 

Is there a consequence to all this?  To the student, the vacation marks an end of a semester / year, a beginning to new courses and new learning, and a sense of progress (a senior class).  For students who have the misfortune of not clearing all courses, there could be a feeling of trepidation of coping with new subjects and the puzzle of clearing the old courses.  I am not sure how much this affects their learning process, but if you go by the empirical record of their academic progress, it is often times less than their potential would allow them to be. Fortunately, this stigma and restrained learning lasts only till their study program, which is not very long.  Soon enough, once they leave this formal academic system, they could be as productive as their capabilities would allow them to be, even if their academic credentials might indicate otherwise.

 

It is the faculty who bear the brunt of the adverse consequence of the inappropriate use of vacation.  Although to the faculty, the end of vacation means a new set of students, there is very little newness in the subjects to be taught, methods of engagement and evaluation process.  Also, there is very little novelty in other things that have to be done – research, training, grant writing, administration, etc.  The mental cobwebs are not even recognized, let alone not cleaned, and faulty processes are not adequately addressed to be corrected.  Systems tend to deteriorate, per laws of thermodynamics, unless fresh energy is pumped in constructive ways.  Vacations were created for this purpose, but have been hijacked by the tourism sector.  And indirectly this affects their students as well, in what they receive from their teachers.  It is time to wake up and smell the coffee; a new semester is looming at large.