Submitted by Looking Glass
There is nothing wrong with a public debate on education, but it should not be fired by the administrator public critique of the professor. University decorum dictates that staff-teacher problems be dealt with internally not in public. For Hilary to openly characterize Professor Howard’s suggestion as an “anti-intellectual knee-jerk reaction,” is unethical and distasteful. Is etiquette/decorum no longer part of the learning process?
Hilary is at best an administrator not an educator or economist. To describe him as an ‘intellectual’ probably requires definition. Economics, unlike chemistry or physics is a speculative discipline. Different circumstances require different approaches. As such analyses should be conducted within the resource capability of the country, not the purely philosophical or theoretical arena.
We are and have been producing a product for which there is no market, developing skills for which there is meagre demand. Cave Hill can be likened to a cloning institution, cultivating students according to established tradition and philosophy, which today runs counter to the demands of the country. The degree does not give decisive advantage in occupational competition where the supply is far greater than the demand. It does not follow that greater output of secondary students will lead to greater demand for entry, or that they all wish to attend. For some Cave Hill may be a “parking venue,” an alternative to unemployment.
Hilary claims the “recommendations if implemented would close the door on many working class families who produce 80% of Cave Hill student intake.” His approach is quantitative rather than qualitative, distributive rather than developmental. The goal appears to be one of generalized mass mobility. Sorry sir, free tertiary education is not a divine right for all and sundry. The emphasis should be on quality not quantity. Education should be a mark/work of distinction not a right of passage. Given the kind of education, the state of the economy, and the utterances of some lettered souls the system of mass education can be judged a failure. The theoretical benefits of education bear a diminishing positive relationship to reality when the economy and total population is considered.
Ours is a commercial economy with hardly an export based sector and highly dependant on fickle tourism; one in which mass or diverse production is not readily viable. Having borrowed to pay salaries and pensions we must now sell the remaining shares in the profitable Bank we once owned to support the one remaining publicly owned hospital. Given the current economic position—horrendous debt to GDP ratio and other deficits— and the long term prognosis, we can ill afford to continue to produce graduates (especial social sciences) for which there is no demand. The oversupply of graduates unable to find work at levels and remuneration appropriate to their ‘skills’ invites socio-economic tension and conflict at the individual and collective levels. This is likely to manifest in terms of attitudes and behaviour at the individual and political level.
Professor Howard has a point. Cost cutting and spending cuts are necessary just to keep the ship afloat. It makes sense to limit the inflow of students at this time, moreso given the extant diminishing returns to education and the demands of the country. To have professors willing to move beyond the boundaries of pure theory is indeed a blessing. They should be complimented not ridiculed. The knee-jerk reaction belongs to Hilary not professor Howard.
Is Cave Hill obliged to remain bound to a utilitarian ethical monism? If so then both faculty and students are expected to remain academically passive while at the feet of the master. It is a luxury we can ill afford. For both the individual and country investment in education will continue to experience diminishing returns. “If he (the administrator) is indeed wise he does not bid you (staff or students) enter his house of wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind…the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.” (The prophet p56)
Cave Hill should foster and encourage creativity, divergent thinking, independent decision making and originality in problem solving instead of textbook regurgitation; originality instead rigidity in dealing with divergent matters. The graduate should have learnt to question and enquire, to exercise relevant moral and intellectual judgement, and to be critical of existing mores and methods. Otherwise the institution of tomorrow will remain a monotonic extension of yesteryear. Has Hilary taken on an issue beyond the scope of his competence?
We need changes in substance and structure not physical plant. We need applied policy research to better understand vexing policies and to disseminate real knowledge about the nation. Very little is known about our hotel industry, demographics, the labour market, land use…Such knowledge is an essential prerequisite for effective government planning and policy. We need a department, and or Think Tank, for policy analysis and socio-economic research, from which to make recommendations and an up-to-date library.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.