Education
Are all-women’s colleges really that bad?
Well, I really do not know. When I was in college, I was pretty irritated by the fact that WCC did not admit men. It cannot. Simply because it is the Women’s Christian College. But today, when I read a few posts on same-sex education, it got me thinking again. Like Chandni and Sunita, I too was a vigorous advocate of co-educational schools for much of my life. But now, I am not so sure. What sporadic blogger said in her post is quite true.
“We are who we are, largely because we studied in an all-girls institution. And by that, I mean, we grew into people who are confident of their, our, ability. In several co-ed colleges, one sees that very few girls ever occupy union positions. If they do at all, they are elected into positions that are traditionally seen as a female domain-cultural representatives, literary representatives.”
This, to a certain extent is true. I studied 14 years in a co-ed school. Three years in a women’s college instilled the confidence that 14 years of co-ed failed to do. I was always rather talkative, but college channeled that urge to talk into something constructive and made me a debater. Now, let me say that any college could have done that. But the fact that I was accepted for what I was in WCC made a huge difference. Let me give you a rather personal example here. When I was in school, I was constantly judged on how I looked, how tall, how fat, how thin, how beautiful I was. I was judged on what boys (immature and even superficial young men) thought of me. If the class “cool guy” thought I was not worth talking to, nobody would. Not even the equally “un-hep” reject of the class. I stepped into college with a lot of apprehension. I constantly looked over my shoulder to see who was scrutinising my actions and judging my appearance. To my utter surprise, nobody cared about what I wore or how fair or how dark I was. To them, to the hundreds of girls I was surrounded by every day, I was normal. For the first time in life, I felt at home.
This was a personal experience. I will not say that co-ed is bad. But I would like to disagree with one point that Chandni makes. She says,
“In college we found girls who were 18 plus, behaving with the opposite sex, in a fashion that we did when we were 13. You know, the whole excitement and hype regarding “boys” when the hormones are in full swing and you suddenly see the “pests” with new eyes!”
Uhm…I do not agree. At 18, girls are not all that mature. Maybe growing up in a co-ed environment makes girls more confident. But, crushes do happen. At 18 or even at 23. Judging a girl as immature because she crushes on a cute guy is not fair. I blushed like hell when I first went out with my boyfriend. And I was at the ripe old age of 23. Hell! I still do sometimes. So?
I admit, at WCC, we definitely were excited at the prospect of culturals because they meant that guys would come. But we were barely out of our teens for goodness’ sake! And we were women. Of course we wanted them to come to college. As someone points out in the comments section, not all women from all-girls’ institutions behave like blubbering idiots in front of men. Some co-ed girls do so too. I think it’s hardly fair to blame a type of education system for that.
I just think that each has its advantages. I for one loved my time at WCC. I could do what I pleased (as long as Mrs. Phillips didn’t hear of it). I did not care a damn what I wore most of the time because we were all women. I have friends who used to turn up to classes in their nightsuits and pajamas because they woke up at 8:25 for an 8:30 class. It’s all fun. The shopping, the gossip, the late-night secret chats over cell-phone (because my hostelite friends had sneaked it in without the warden’s knowledge), everything was fun.
Devaluing education
The past week has been both exciting and hectic. Sometimes, exhausting too. But, in four days, I learnt more than I have over the past year. It’s been absolutely wonderful in some ways, and annoying in others. One particular incident made me see red. P is someone I met over the last week. She is a teacher. Just like me. She has a daughter, who studied at Sciences Po. Just like me. She learnt that I too belonged to her daughter’s alma mater and that somehow pricked her over three days before she finally broached the topic with me.
"You studied at Sciences Po, right?" she asked, in a rather patronising tone.
I looked up startled, wondering what I did wrong by studying there.
"Yes, I did," I replied.
"So, what the hell are you doing here at the Alliance?" she volleyed.
Eh? What did my working at the Alliance française have to do with my studying at Sciences Po? I asked her that and she came up with the weirdest explanation I have ever heard. As I said before, her daughter studied there and came back home, having changed her mind about the direction her life was going to take. She did finance, came back, and decided she did not want to work for any company any more. She was going to work for an NGO and do some social work.
So, what is the problem? Precisely that. Her parents could not digest the fact that she chose to come back with a Master’s degree in finance and choose not to work in a company and make loads of money. Why? Two reasons:
- They spent 12 lakhs on her education and expected to get some of it back
- She was a girl, and the fact that they spent so much on sending her to Sciences Po meant they could not get her married with as hefty a dowry as they could have.
So, why did P have a problem with me? Because she sees me working as a teacher at the Alliance and decides I have lost focus by virtue of having spent two years at Sciences Po. Just like her daughter did.
"But," I protested violently, "I have not lost focus.I have just decided to diversify."
"Ha! Diversify indeed. That’s just a bloody euphemism for losing focus," she retorted.
By this time, I had lost my patience and simply walked away. I don’t need to justify my life’s choices to some random stranger who thinks I am ruining my life. But, this incident set me thinking. Why exactly did P think her daughter was wasting her life? Was it really money? Or dowry? I doubt it. I think this reflects a deep-seated attitude in the Indian psyche that only education that results in monetary gain is worthwhile. It was never supposed to be this way. Education is supposed to enlighten. My heart bleeds to see well-educated people equate the value of education to the quantity of money you make. I may not make millions. I may not even make a few lakhs. But, the fact remains that I love my job. I chose to do what I am doing today. I was not forced into it. Also, I believe that no education is useless. I have learnt something every year of my life, irrespective of the effect those years have on my financial status. Why do we forget that every little piece of information adds value to our lives? Why do we forget that no education, however "useless" it might seem is really so? Education has a value that is far beyond simply monetary. I only hope parents realise this truth when there is still time. It makes me grateful to have parents who think like me. Life would have miserable otherwise.
It’s that time of the year!
There! It’s that time of the year again. The annual obsession with marks and ranks has begun. So has the rat race to the state’s top colleges. All this hype and hoopla regarding the marks set me thinking. What exactly do parents want out of their children? Just marks and grades? Are they honestly not bothered about how well they are learning their stuff? In the frenzy of getting marks, are students not forgetting the reason they are going to school? In case nobody remembers, it is to acquire a well-rounded personality. What is the use in getting an unholy 99% if you can’t make yourself a cup of coffee or talk intelligently of the IPL? I honestly believe that the gender of the child notwithstanding, they must be taught some basic survival skills. Making some coffee, going out to a supermarket to pick up provisions, buying their own books and CDs…these are just some of them. Nobody is going to do all this for them all their lives. Versatility is a quality that only gets rarer by the day. It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
That said, on to my next rant. I can’t understand why engineering is considered the only thing “worth” studying. A cousin actually cried three hours after she got her Class XII results because she had not got “good” marks. A Times of India article reported the state second rank holder cried all day because she missed the first rank by a mark instead of rejoicing that she came second. I mean…what the hell? What are we teaching our kids? The afore-mentioned cousin still insists she will only do IT or ECE engineering because they are the only professions that “pay”. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned passion for something? When did education become a low-risk, high-return investment option? It makes me scream when I see sane, healthy 17-year olds behave as if there was no tomorrow on the day of their exam results. Get one mark less than expected and they act as if the sky is going to come tumbling down. My cousin insists her parents must pay a whopping capitation fee to get her into the IT course she wants. If I were a parent, I would tell her to go to hell. I only hope I manage to retain this sanity when I am the mother of a 17-year old.
IIT and the obsession with exclusivity
I came across this article, and this one too, by Prof. P V Indiresan, in the Business Line. One talks about how exclusivity is the USP of the IITs and the other argues that India does not really need any more IITs. I might have been convinced if the esteemed professor had not made such a mess of his arguments. Initially, I wanted to simply rant. Now, I prefer countering each of his arguments with my own counter-arguments. In the meantime, check out this excellent retort by Abi. Ok, on to the real arguments the professor puts forward.
His first argument is that India does not need engineers of the quality the IIT produces simply because the economy expects them to sell soap or analyse stock market trends rather than apply the complex theories of thermodynamics they learn at IIT. He claims that
“Many youngsters struggle to get into an IIT not because they love the knowledge they can obtain there but because IIT education offers entry to lucrative careers. (…) Suppose, we have a similar business school which offers an MBA programme directly the way National Law Schools do. In that case, will not our brightest opt for a direct MBA and discard IIT?”
What the hell? So, the only kind of knowledge that recruiters value are those that an MBA degree can offer? I am sorry, but I don’t agree. Companies and organisations need good mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers just as much as they need good managers. IIT graduates may not pursue engineering in India. They may choose to do an MBA after their B. Tech from IIT. But, that’s their personal choice. What I do with the degree I obtain is my problem. That doesn’t mean that the government should stop offering those degrees. I have a degree in History, another in International Affairs. I am not using either at the moment. Does that mean that I forget what I studied? Or that what I studied is “thrown into the dustbin” as Prof. Indiresan claims? I think not.
His second argument is equally flawed.
“If high incomes can be earned without a university degree, people will mostly bypass college education. I know of the proprietor of a famous chain store in the old days of Madras who refused to let his sons join college for the fear college education will make them too arrogant to be humble before customers.”
Frankly, that’s ridiculous. In addition, his claim that most students play truant and miss classes at the slightest excuse because all they want from college is a degree that will help them be short-listed to superior jobs, is simply unacceptable. He is a teacher. One with several years’ experience. Must he necessarily be so insulting and demeaning of students? Does he imply that students will only join the IITs for their brand value, and nothing else? Those of you who have studied in one of the IITs, please tell me. Can you actually get an IIT degree without putting in some serious effort into your studies? Isn’t that the real difference between IIT and XYZ College? Any new IITs will necessarily have those qualities right?
“Thus, the stark fact is people are not interested in higher education but in good income, better security. If these could be ensured immediately after high school education, few will bother to attend college. Further, most jobs need skill training rather than academic scholarship. If we were to look at history, great economic empires were built not by university scholars but by skilled apprentices. Few of the richest — Gates, Buffet, Mittal, Agarwal — people in the world today will attribute their success to university education.”
I am sorry professor, but I think you have got the whole issue wrong. There can be no such thing as over-expansion of university education. While it is true that primary education must be strengthened to bring it on par with university education in India, to say that university enrolment must not be expanded is stupid and short-sighted. We need qualified engineers, just like we need qualified doctors, lawyers or accountants. To say that engineering education need not be expanded or reformed simply because the market wants good managers is like saying we must not grow wheat because the market demands rice. Stupid. Period.
The second article dazzles the poor reader with lots of scientific theorems, but behind all of it lies a single flawed logic. Because the USP of the IITs is exclusivity, there must necessarily be a shortage. If the shortage is filled, there will not be any difference between an IIT and a street-corner polytechnic. There again Prof. Indiresan seems to have thrown logic out of the window. The presence of half a dozen good B-schools in the US do not diminish the brand value of Harvard. Similarly, as Abi points out, the presence of multiple campuses of the University of California does not make UCLA any less sought-after. So professor, the lay person might be impressed with all the jargon you insist on using in your articles, but beyond the glitz, it seems to me to be a truckload of bad arguments, flawed logic and downright short-sightedness.
Education, reservations and reform
Here is a brilliant economic analysis of the reservation policy by Atanu Dey on his blog on development. It is, at first glance, very impressive. He uses economic theory, common sense and impeccable argumentation to prove that reservations are untenable. But, all is not right with his reasoning. I can still spot a few weak links in the arguments, though I am no economist.
First, he states, rather unambiguously, that
“Let’s pause here for a moment to reflect on this: there is no shortage of jobs for qualified candidates. In fact, there is a shortage of qualified people. The shortage arises from the limited supply of seats in educational institutions. That shortage of seats is mandated by the government. The government mandates the shortage and then assigns itself the power to dictate how the rationing of seats will be done. That rationing is motivated primarily by vote-bank politics.”
First things first, as someone points out in the comments section, there is no real shortage of seats as mandated by the government. In fact, thousands of seats are left vacant at the end of counselling for engineering admissions every year in the state of Tamil Nadu. According to Wikipedia, Tamil Nadu has 40 universities. This page should provide more information on the state of education in Tamil Nadu. According to the statistics given above, the state has over 1000 colleges providing professional education, in addition to 255 engineering colleges, and 13 medical colleges. Admittedly, Tamil Nadu is one of India’s more progressive states, but with good governance and political will, there is no reason why even the BIMARU states must not do as well. Secondly, the question of supply of education is a tricky one. Must all education necessarily lead to a degree? What about companies that recruit graduates of arts and science courses and train them to perform the work expected of them efficiently? One good example would be the TAS, which trains and qualifies young recruits. So, actually speaking, the claim that there is an artificially created shortage of education is a myth.
Dey suggests that higher education must be opened up to private enterprise. I agree. But the point here is, it already is. Sure, there are regulations and processes such as accreditation, but that must remain in order to maintain the quality of education. Then is the emphasis on separating education and testing. I agree again. But, that’s what board exams and university exams are all about right? An autonomous arts and science college under the Madras University is free to decide on its syllabus. It’s free to do what it pleases during the academic year. At the end of the semester, the students are tested on what they were taught during the semester. The exam process is overseen and endorsed by the University which then delivers the degree. What more can be done? I don’t really get the point.
Third, the pricing issue. Privatisation of education and a total absence of control will lead to anarchy. Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating the nationalisation of colleges, or complete government control. Far from it. Education is already quite private, to a very large extent. Prices are sky-high. What the government can do is to provide scholarships, grants and stipends to those who deserve it. To contend that private colleges will charge less than government ones because they run their companies better is both ridiculously short-sighted and foolishly optimistic. I am no fan of government control, but this logic simply does not appeal to my brain. Private companies want profit. So will private colleges. In such a situation, how exactly will they agree to offer education at a lower cost than the government?
I can foresee one negative fallout if Dey’s idea were implemented. India will go the way of the United States. While colleges in the US are some of the best in the world, it a fact that many who finish grad school spend half their lives trying to repay their educational loans, pay off home mortgages and rid themselves of debt. And in a country like India, which is trying desperately to improve its enrolment in institutes of higher education, this is a really bad idea. A situation like this will lead to a decline in overall education levels and India’s already abysmal human development indicators will only fall further.
This said, I do agree when Dey says reservations are a terrible idea. Only, my reasons are entirely different from his. I read in the Times of India yesterday that the cutoff marks at the IIT-JEE had been reduced. While I did not exactly understand the logic behind the marking scheme, I also read that there was to be a 10% relaxation for OBC candidates. Suppose I am an OBC candidate. The normal cutoff mark in an entrance exam is 70%. But, I am given a 10% relaxation because I belong to the OBC category. That means I just need 63% to qualify. So, essentially, the government is telling me this, “Since you are underprivileged, and have been oppressed for centuries, we consider you to be less intelligent than your upper-caste counterparts, and hence incapable of scoring the mandatory 70%. We are being generous and giving you a chance despite your questionable intellect.” I am sorry if I am being hyper-sensitive, but I find the attitude both patronising and demeaning. And that’s the reason I am so against this practice of norm-relaxation.