There is little to disagree with many of the observations made by Ajay Gudavarthy and Nissim Mannathukkaren in their article “Comparing Harvard apples with JNU oranges”
(The Hindu, Op-Ed, December 27, 2012) that: world rankings of
universities do not give us an accurate picture of higher education in
India and elsewhere, an overwhelming majority of top-200 universities
are in rich countries and that the solution does not lie in emulating
Western models.
They are right in asserting that there are different ways to evaluate
higher education institutions. They mention “intangible features” such
as access to education and give the example of Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU) as an institution which has served this cause for
students from backward regions. Caste-based reservations in our
institutions have served a similar purpose. At the same time, they
concede that representation has come about at the cost of quality.
However, they evade or downplay several troubling issues and take up
somewhat frivolous ones. Let me begin with their complaints about the
problems and unfairness of the U.S. higher education system. They lament
the commercialisation of education and growing student indebtedness in
the U.S. First, it is not our problem. Second, India has done very well
in commercialising higher education without emulating the U.S. model.
They claim that American students are not trained to become “critical
thinkers” but “foot soldiers of the establishment.” Agreed. Now how
about asking this: what are we training our students to become?
Issue of context
Their biggest omission is context. They mention “different material
realities” and “different starting points” of different countries but do
not consider the same for India.
It is certainly true that 21st century India is still a poor country
whether we use the “Third World” label or some other. At the same time,
India, like China, is not just another poor country. It is certainly not
Somalia (not my example) even though in parts of the country, people
live in worse than Somalia-like conditions. The country has witnessed
high rates of economic growth for over three decades so that it now
counts among the largest economies in the world. At least some of that
growth has occurred due to the country’s ability to tap into the global
knowledge economy. The country and its peoples have also become more
connected to the outside world — whether through trade, travel,
technology or other means — over the past two-three decades. India has
the world’s largest pool of college-age young women and men, and more
women are taking to higher education. The country loses immense amounts
of foreign exchange as thousands of affluent and meritorious students
head abroad each year and far too few of the meritorious ones return.
It makes little sense to discuss higher education in India within the
old frameworks of “rich,” “poor” or “Third World” countries. China and
India belong to a different category of nations not just because they
are growing economies but because they are large and populous. They are
rich and poor, developed and underdeveloped, modern and traditional and
everything else in between in different ways. They are countries that
have arrived as global players or will do so in the coming future.
Clearly, they are quite different from other low- and middle-income
countries.
Given this context, the higher education sector has immense relevance
and issues of quality and comparison of India’s institutions with those
in rich countries is more than a matter of “time pass.” Further,
substantial improvements in the quality of higher education are
necessary for India’s economic growth and further development in ways
that are both interdependent and less dependent on rich countries. It is
only with a solid base of higher education that India will be able to
design and develop more of its own technologies and prioritise invention
and innovation to move forward.
Then and now
India’s higher education needs to aim much higher than a typical poor
country. If global comparisons are not fair, other measures of quality —
independent of government-created evaluation bodies or the print media —
need to be devised. If it is not fair to compare India’s universities
with those in rich countries, how about comparing them with what they
were like two or three decades ago? Have the same universities become
better over time?
Other than providing access to higher education, have there been
improvements in their quality? If the majority of engineering colleges
or management schools are as bad as employers say they are, why not rank
them in comparison to our own leading institutions, whether JNU or
others?
If one takes their reasoning — that vast disparities in wealth between
the West and the rest explains why third-rate institutions are found in
poor countries — to its logical conclusion, India must wait to get rich
before dreaming to build world-ranked institutions. This reasoning flies
against the commonsense view that a larger number of world-class
institutions, whether ranked globally or not, can contribute enormously
to India’s economic growth and dynamism in the coming decades. Instead,
Gudavarthy and Mannathukkaren apply a version of the age-old
modernisation theory — which posited a positive link between wealth and
democracy — to higher education: that wealth leads to the creation of
world-ranked institutions. Wealth has not brought democracy or
world-class universities to oil-rich Middle Eastern countries. Arguably,
precisely because these countries are not democratic, it is unlikely
that their universities will ever, with or without the help of NYU or
American University, reach the heights of western universities.
(Pushkar has a PhD in political science from McGill University. He
previously taught at the University of Goa, Concordia University, McGill
University and the University of Ottawa.)
No comments:
Post a Comment