Skilful stigma!
|
In training there are clear-cut answers to problems. In education there are more questions than answers. It's time to blend both to put paid to academic casteism.
|
LAST MONTH in Chennai, Nasscom arranged a roundtable on talent management where half a dozen experts made insightful comments which mirrored the industry perspective. But it was the president of Nasscom, Kiron Karnik, who spoke about an age-old but relevant distinction between education and training familiar to many.
Driven by immediate needs, the corporate captains would like several changes to be introduced in the curricula and the teaching learning process not always in the long term interests of education. In the short-term perspective, they would like students to be given training in specific skills.
In a consultation with employers in the UK, the issue of training in `skills' was summed up in the following statement: what we want is arithmetic, not mathematics. Understandable, but not acceptable, teachers are likely to say.
Means to an end
Education as an end in itself is a thing of the past as everyone knows. Education is now seen as a means to an end. If it is not good in itself, it will not be good enough even as a means to an end. Hence, the need to examine the deeper implications of the difference between education and training.
The distinction between education and training has long been a subject of much debate and discussion. Training is always associated with the idea of a closed system where the outcomes are clear-cut and precise whereas education can never be other than an open system where the outcomes are not certain.
What you expect in training is clear-cut answers to problems. In education you may not get all the answers, you may end up with raising more questions than answers.
We appreciate the fact that a true-bred academic is fiercely loyal to his discipline and would brook no distraction except undivided commitment. The Carnegie Foundation conducted a study sometime ago on this loyalty factor. Teachers were asked how they would rate the relative importance of the institution/department/discipline to which they belonged.
They all unanimously voted in favour of the discipline as their first priority and the peer group whose recognition they seek. Loyalty to department or institution comes second or third. In the purity of their pursuit of excellence, they would disdain any obligation to `train' students for a job. Can we dispute and find fault with their swadharma? Do we see a touch of professional hubris here or mere snobbery?
Integrated approach
We have often wondered why in our country a sort of stigma is attached to skills and training as though this area is reserved for lesser mortals. Vocational courses have always been marginalised and rarely given their due. Education is associated with the academic stream, and training with the vocational stream. This has promoted a sort of academic casteism whose impact is reflected in the public choice of courses.
We can still urge all stakeholders to opt for an integrated approach wherein the dubious distinction between academic and vocational streams is balanced, if not totally reconciled. Unless the spirit of this approach is understood and put into practice in the teaching-learning process, we will not be able to meet the needs of society successfully.
By Prof. C. Subba Rao
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Education Plus
Karnataka
Chennai
Coimbatore
Hyderabad
Madurai
Tiruchirapalli
Vijayawada
Visakhapatnam
