|
Education
Dwindling quality of higher learning
THE PROBLEMS of higher education in our country today are more non-educational than educational in character. Attempts have been repeatedly made to solve these problems in educational terms but all these attempts have failed primarily because it was assumed wrongly that the problems were educational whereas in actual fact these are fundamentally non-educational. For example, when somebody cannot enter the institutions of learning because of his inability to bear the cost of education, poverty is a matter of `capability deprivation'. Thus the notion of capability is essentially one of freedom. The range of options a person has in deciding what kind of a life to lead, in this view, lies not merely in the impoverished state in which the person actually lives, but also in the lack of real opportunity — given by social constraints as well as personal circumstances — to choose other types of living. Even the relevance of low incomes, meagre possessions, and other aspects of what are generally seen as economic poverty relates ultimately to their role in curtailing capabilities, that is, their role in severely restricting the choices of people to live the life of their choice.
However, this is not to deny that a good many problems can and ought to be solved within the ambit of the educational structure and organisation, but chances of success in this regard are severely restricted because non-educational factors impinge upon educational factors much too negatively and unrelentingly. Therefore, no attempt to reform the present educational problems can succeed unless there is close coordination between educational planners and decision-makers in other areas like social and economic development. It is unbelievable that educational planners are unaware of this fact. But even then it is rather strange that no sincere attempt has yet been made to rationalise the system by coordinating education with other related areas in the wider context of national planning.
It is sometimes argued that since education is a State subject, the Union Government has no responsibility or authority in this regard. This argument holds no water because even though education is a State subject, formulation of National planning and policy is certainly a Central responsibility. And, therefore, education being a vital agent of national development, it cannot be treated in isolation, outside the ambit of national planning. The absence of coordination has given rise to a variety of problems which constitute a serious drag on the process of nation-building. Take, for example, the problem of numbers. The student population has already crossed the six million mark and most people will agree that the country is finding it extremely difficult to educate such large numbers properly and successfully.
After the U.S. and China, ours is the third largest educational system in the world. If the number keeps on increasing at the present rate, in the near future we would have perhaps the largest educational system in the world. Should the present rate of expansion continue it would not be improbable if within the next few years we outstrip the U.S. in this regard. Can the country afford to spend so much on education when educational income is growing at a much slower rate? This is a very serious problem and it should top the list of priorities of the Planning Commission. There are few people who hold the view that under the present condition investment on education is nothing but a huge wasteful expenditure. This view is not entirely baseless.
That question apart, do we have jobs for all the people who are being educated? According to the latest figure available, the number of educated job seekers registered with the employment exchange has crossed four million mark. Why the Government has not yet seriously addressed this problem is just an enigma. The problem of brain drain is closely connected with this situation. One reason why highly brilliant students choose to migrate to the developed countries is because they find it easier to get lucrative jobs there. We educate our brilliant students not because there is anything like manpower planning under-riding the educational structure but because we hope that there would be jobs for them. This hope is not based on ground realities.
As a result of brain drain, who are the losers and who are the winners? Obviously, India is the loser and the countries, which utilise the talent of our scholars for their own purpose, are the winners. There is nothing, which can compensate this colossal loss. Although the phenomenon of brain drain is nothing new, what has the Government done to arrest this drain? Just nothing. This is not only surprising but also unpardonable.
Another problem arises from the psychology of a substantial number of students who, after finishing their school education, choose to go for college education. It is not the academic bug that has bitten them. What they are looking for is a way to enter a decent life. They are led to believe that they need a degree without which all doors of employment are barred to them and so whether they want to study or not they are inexorably driven into the portals of a college. Why this superstition has not yet been exploded? Why does not the Government realise that a disillusioned generation in drift needs to be invested with a sense of purpose, which cannot be done under the present system of education.
Here it is worth asking why despite an impressive body of opinion in favour of doing away with the requirement of a degree for entering into government service, such a step has not been taken, indeed not even seriously debated? Probably this would imply such a radical departure from the status quo that the existing structure of education and employment would come tumbling down! But is that the whole explanation? Are we sure that the structure is not already crumbling? Are we also sure that in trying to protect the structure we are not sacrificing something equally important, viz., the productive capacity of our young men and women?
In India, education is looked upon more as a value in itself rather than an instrument of change and development and it is for this reason education is not governed by any Central policy which is clearly reflected in a multiplicity of educational institution with varying standards and orientation. In fact, the populist demand for higher education has also meant a dwindling of its quality. Educational planners have forgotten that education must be geared to development in its entire ramification and must train people for bringing about a new social order. This is the crux of the problem.
Satyabrata Rai Chowduri
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Education
|
