• University Sains Malaysia (USM) Penang hosted the first Asian conference on University-Community Partnerships last year; present in that conference were a number of grassroots community groups and medium-sized manufacturing companies from Penang. We learnt about the manner in which partnerships around training and employment of people with learning disability have been successful there.

• A partnership of three universities and seven colleges alongwith local civil society and local government has been working together to find sustainable solutions to problems of homelessness in Victoria Islands of Canada.

• In the Cape Town region of South Africa, universities, colleges, community groups, NGOs, faith institutions and municipalities have come together to find ways to enable every person’s access to affordable services for prevention and treatment for HIV/AIDS.

The days of working alone to generate knowledge, to prepare professionals and to address problems of human development are long over. But, the inertia for ‘doing it ourselves’ rolls on, just as the self-defeating belief that ‘we know the answers.’ As each of the above illustrations demonstrate, alternative ways of working together are being tried out around the world. These alternatives are based on ‘reimagining’ universities as spaces for learning and sharing not only amongst the academics and students but also amongst the larger society. The knowledge resources available in such institutions of post-secondary education can then be mobilized to serve larger societal goals of human development than merely career advancement of professors and their formally registered student body.

It is this perspective that has been inspiring CU Expos in Canada during the past decade. Community-University Expositions are occasions to share practical experiences in promoting such a perspective of partnership in actually solving problems in communities. They bring together several hundred practitioners, researchers, policy-makers and administrators every three years. The next CU Expo is being held in the Waterloo Region of Ontario state of Canada during May 2011 on the theme ‘Bringing Global Perspectives to Local Action’. It is being co- hosted by a consortium of NGOs, community organizations, university departments and others; the lead organization is Centre for Community Based Research in Waterloo, which has been working with this methodology for the past three decades.

As post-secondary educational institutions begin to reorganize themselves to meet the growing demands of Indian economy, it may be important to learn from the Canadian and global experiences in this regard. As new policies for establishing and financing universities are being framed, it may be worthwhile to consider incorporating such perspectives of partnerships in communities to define their priorities and agendas.

Indian experiments can be showcased; university associations and NGOs can be mobilized; resources can be generated.

The question is our own will; our readiness to embark upon a new way of producing knowledge and mobilizing it for learning and change.

Rajesh Tandon
23 August 2010

In conceptualizations of civil society, universities and other institutions of post-secondary education are dealt with rather ambiguously. Academia is generally considered part of civil society, as part of the ‘third sector’, beyond the state and the market. However, many state-funded, state-governed and state-controlled academic institutions tend to behave more as extensions of the state. Applying the twin criteria of self-governing and autonomy from the state rigorously may lend most such institutions not to be classified as part of civil society. Thus, in such a system of classification, Harvard University may get included in civil society, but not Delhi University.

Yet, contemporary times are witnessing ‘for-profit’ commercial initiatives in setting up institutions of post-secondary education. Do they thus become part of the market in such a classification system? Are such institutions then apart from civil society? Should such institutions engage with civil society? Should institutions of post-secondary education become an ally of civil society? Should civil society partner more vigorously with such institutions? Should civil society demand greater accountability from such institutions, and vice-versa?

In many societies around the world, universities and other academic institutions have offered ‘space’ for independent thinking and critique; such institutions have been sites for anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy struggles and movements; many social, political and revolutionary activists have gained protection in and support from such institutions. In this sense of the history of democratic struggles, such institutions (and their inhabitants—students, professors, deans, etc) have been champions of strong and independent civil society. Therefore, universities need to engage with civil society much more proactively and regularly, both as a part of, and apart from, civil society.

This recognition has gained acceptance more readily in academic institutions in North America and Europe than in Asia and Africa. Service learning, engaged scholarship and partnerships with civil society in research and teaching are now regularly being attempted and institutionalized in America and Europe. It is precisely because of this trend that most Asian students applying for admission in MBA programmes in USA are asked to produce evidence of volunteering with civil society; such evidence has gained growing recognition in the premier institutions of North America as a defining criteria for admission to higher education programmes.

How can such a perspective be encouraged in institutions of post-secondary education in Asia? How can contemporary efforts in developing new policy frameworks incorporate such perspectives in India? In our race for higher enrolments in post-secondary education, we should not loose sight of the long-term vision of the roles such institutions play as a part of, and along with, civil society in India. What can we do to make this happen in India?

Rajesh Tandon
30 July 2010

The recently announced draft Bill for Foreign Institutions of Post-Secondary Education in India has received mixed responses from educationists and policy-makers. While some have welcomed this proposal, many others have questioned the incongruence between the stated purposes and the various provisions and rules in the draft Bill. These debates have brought into focus a range of issues that confront the provision of educational programmes to meet the growing needs of Indian society and the economy. The provisions of this Bill were recently debated in an Indo-Canadian seminar in Ottawa, jointly organized by Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada (AUCC).

The dialogue in this seminar was aimed at ‘Striving for Excellence in Strategic Engagement with India’. To discuss the complexity of developing partnerships in India, several panelists from Canada and the UK presented their experiences. In addition, some case studies which are ‘striving for excellence’ in the provision of educational programmes for Indian students were also shared. Most standard and commonplace examples from several large and prestigious Canadian universities were about expanding the access of Indian students primarily in engineering, technology and management courses. These partnerships with Indian providers of post-secondary education thus focused on delivery of standard courses (which are available to students in Canadian universities) in India. Some partnerships had construction companies as Indian counterparts since they are setting up educational campuses in India!

The race to expand access for Indian students seems to be dampening the exploration of innovations in designing and delivering educational programmes that have relevance to Indian society, not just the Indian economy. Two examples shared in this seminar are worth describing here. The first one is a programme of research and education on a wide range of topics covered under the Indo-Canadian Studies being carried out by Simon Fraser Valley University. The demand for such educational provisions from the local Indo-Canadian community led the university to design this innovative programme in partnership with Punjab University. It offers a wide range of courses, including in business, which students in Canada and Punjab need to become good citizens of Canada and Punjab, and to appreciate and support distinctive features of both societies.

The second innovative programme has been designed by University of Victoria (Uvic) in partnership with PRIA. This master’s programme in community development has its curriculum and pedagogy jointly prepared by faculty from UVic and practitioners in PRIA. It is aimed to professionalize the education of development professionals for students around the world. It combines practical knowledge from field projects with academic knowledge.

These two innovative examples shared in the above seminar seem to suggest that the proposed regulatory framework for internationalization of Indian post-secondary education may be exclusively focused upon the pressures of expanding access in a narrow bandwidth of subjects (technology and management) that the growing Indian economy demands today. This framework doesn’t seem to incentivize innovation in globalizing post-secondary educational provisions in India (and the developing world), which may well be required for building, and rebuilding, Indian society as it faces several tectonic shifts (like rural to urban migration). Mere focus on engineering and business education, and that too provided in pre-packaged formats, may reflect the short-term needs of a growing Indian economy, but not the long-term challenges faced by a rapidly changing Indian society.

It would be a pity if the proposed policy and legislation for regulating post-secondary education in India ends up stifling innovation and merely incentivizing delivery of pre-packaged curriculum in a cost-effective manner for a limited range of disciplines.

Should the debate around such concerns be raised?

Rajesh Tandon
21 June 2010

This post arises from my role as Chair, FIM-Forum for Democratic Global Governance

Twenty civil society leaders from around the world engaged Canadian host Sherpa* Leonard Edwards and Sous Sherpa Graham Flack on 11 June 2010 in Ottawa around the issues of accountability of the G20 to the citizens of the world (in preparation for the forthcoming G20 Summit in Toronto to be held on 26 and 27 June 2010). Since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, G20 summits of leaders of the world (in Washington, November 2008; in London, April 2009; and in Pittsburgh, February 2010) have taken a number of important decisions related to global financial governance.

The G20 summit in Toronto follows on the heels of the G8 summit in Canada (on 25 and 26 June 2010), and is being co-hosted by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of South Korea (who will host the next G20 summit in Seoul in November 2010).

Organized by FIM-Forum for Democratising Global Governance, this was the first ever structured civil society dialogue with the G20. As G20 begins to acquire a growing influence in shaping decisions related to global governance, it is of utmost importance that civil society voices from around the world are heard by G20 leaders so that G20 and its leaders continue to conduct themselves in ways that deepen democratizing of global governance institutions, processes and decision-making.

Over the past two years, G20 has focused its attention primarily on issues related to rescuing and repairing the global economy. Hence, the Toronto summit is primarily focusing on furthering the operationalization of the framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth of the world economy. The engagement of civil society leaders in Ottawa thus focused on specific issues related to macroeconomic policies.

It was pointed out that various bailout and rescue packages in different countries have angered citizens as taxpayers’ funds have been seen to be utilized to ‘bail out’ those institutions (banks and others) which have been responsible for causing the financial crises in the first place. Civil society asked G20 to utilize stimulus packages to focus on the transformation of national and global economies into ‘green economies that eradicate poverty’. The design of the future architecture of global economic institutions should be such that it primarily supports food security, employment and social economy (which provides livelihood to more than a billion people around the world). This will require clear and transparent regulation of global financial flows.

One of the major decisions of G20 in its London meeting of 2009 was reform of the World Bank and IMF, including greater capital infusion and broader mandates to them to support the global economy. While incremental improvements in voting rights have been made in the World Bank, reforms in the IMF are still being resisted. G20 had announced that strengthening of the capital base and new roles of these International Financial Institutions (IFIs) was conditional on key governance reforms of the IFIs. Civil society demands G20 leaders ensure that full reform of governance structures and mechanisms of IFIs be completed latest by the end of 2010 (including procedures for recruitment of heads of these institutions on an open, transparent, global, professional and competitive basis).

Democratic accountability of the G20 as an institution of global governance was at the centre of civil society’s engagement in last week’s dialogue. The first concern in accountability is to ensure that G20 doesn’t marginalize and undermine other multilateral institutions like the UN system. G20 leaders should, therefore, commit themselves to supporting and energizing multilateral institutions and the UN system to follow through and deliver on such commitments as Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). G20 leaders should publicly signal their support for agreements on climate change and human rights, specially the rights of women and indigenous peoples.

After years of civil society engagement with G8, various models and forms of effective dialogue and constructive engagements with civil society globally have evolved. Civil society leaders asked Sherpa Leonard Edwards to negotiate ways in which such practices can be carried forward to G20 as well. In particular, the forthcoming Accountability Report of G8 was seen as a mechanism that G20 could also adopt in reporting outcomes of its decisions and their consequences to the citizens of the world.

The Canadian host promised to take these issues, concerns and demands of civil society to his fellow G20 sherpas, and to explore ways in which future G20 engagements with global civil society can be institutionalized for transparent and accountable functioning of G20 as an institution of global governance.

The Globe and Mail (Toronto) of 14 June 2010 has more on this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/blog-global-view/g20-keeps-it-friends-close—and-enemies-closer/article1603578/

Dr Rajesh Tandon
June 13, 2010

When Open University system began in UK some half century ago, it was in response to the needs of those times—how to enable those who missed out on furthering their education due to war, work or family circumstances? This system opened up new opportunities for post-secondary education for millions of adults. In India, the foundation of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 1985 was inspired by similar objectives.

In this approach to post-secondary education, reading materials were mailed to the students, and assignments and examination papers were ‘mailed back’ by the students to their university and instructors.

This system thus began to be viewed as ‘second chance’ system for those ‘poor folks’ who couldn’t make it to the ‘real’ system of post-secondary education—the real system being the traditional class-room based teaching system of universities. Distance education thus began to be viewed as a ‘second class’ system with poor quality of teaching, with poor teaching materials and for poor students.

During the past decade, this has begun to change dramatically. Globalisation and economic growth is demanding highly and adequately trained human resources in a wide variety of knowledge and skill sets. Learning new knowledge and skills in the same profession has become imperative to succeed and even remain ‘employable’. Life-long Learning is no longer a theory; its practice has moved far ahead of the policies needed to support it. European Union’s policies, legislations and funding of lifelong learning programmes is now an integral part of its future economy and society.

Parallelly, the information technology revolution has made distance learning even more accessible and creative. Open Distance Learning (ODL) methodology in post-secondary education is gaining momentum in many professional education programmes.

Therefore, the growing future requirements for educating and re-educating human resources in all countries can best be met through distance education. New knowledge can be harnessed regularly; it can be done by students who do not have to leave their work, family or habitats; it can be accessed relatively inexpensively; most qualified and specialist teachers and resource persons can be involved in teaching (without going anywhere).

Thus, around the world, the learning revolution triggered by information technology is being harnessed in upgradation of professional competencies through open and diverse routes of post-secondary education for adults. It is now possible to complete a doctoral programme in OD through this mode in USA; many programmes for education and certification of para-medics in south-east Asia are being conducted in distance mode; post-secondary degree programmes in agriculture sciences in Australia are being offered through distance mode; MA in Public Administration (as well as in School Administration) in Canada is being conducted in this mode.

Rajesh Tandon
May 24, 2010

Two major educational reforms have been in the news recently in India. The new ‘Right To Education’ (RTE) law has become effective from April 1. This provides for the possibility that primary education is now an entitlement for all children in the country. This is great; it should have been so 60 years ago. India is enacting this right after 76 other countries have already done so.

However, it is not very obvious how this right will be accessed by all children, specially those belonging to poor tribal and scheduled caste families. In India, several dozen rights already exist in our statutes. For vast majority of poor people, none of these have been accessed adequately. Legislating rights and delivering them with dignity are two different things. How is the Right to Education going to be different? What will happen to teachers and their supervisors and education secretaries and ministers if some tribal children proclaim that their ‘right to education’ has been violated? Nothing, I guess? Then, what’s the point?

Apart from legislation, there is no dearth of government programmes to provide ‘universal education to all’. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan or SSA is one such flagship programme. Yet, what has it and many other such programmes managed to deliver? (For some aspects on this read Delivering Girls’ Education in India: Making Panchayats Responsible by Shruti Sharma, Mosaic Books, March 2010). In the discourse on entitlements, there has been no commitment to reforming the educational system that is currently not working. Delivering on promises: that is the key. How is the RTE Act going to do this?

The second big-time news item was the reported approval granted to the Foreign University Education Bill by the Union cabinet. All kinds of speculations have been made about the veracity, or otherwise, of this bill, and its potential impacts. It has been stated by proponents of the bill that foreign universities will now come to India in large numbers, thereby reducing the foreign exchange outflow by 200,000 students going abroad for studies. Others argue that top class foreign universities would not be attracted since government regulations and local political conditions are not encouraging of independent educational enterprise. Imagine Mayawati and Gehlot beginning to send their ‘grassroots’ activists to invade Lucknow and Jaipur campuses of Harvard and MIT!

I think all Indians not only have a right to education, they equally have a fundamental right to foreign education. Many students are already accessing foreign education in India as well as abroad. The demand for foreign education (or anything else) is based on perceptions of quality and global branding. Compare this with Levis jeans. Till such jeans were produced in India, a few Indians were buying them from overseas. Now that they are produced in India, many more Indians are buying them (even those who do not go abroad); and, still, many Indians continue to buy jeans abroad, Levis or otherwise. Access is the key; those who remain in India and have some resources, buy Levis made in India. Those who have global access and resources, still buy Levis abroad.

A similar dynamic is likely in case of education too.

Therefore, foreign educational institutions need to be able to partner with local institutions to offer affordable education to local students. In addition, many Indian students would continue to go abroad for higher education, and that should be encouraged as well.

The confusion in all this discourse is that enough attention is not being paid to reforming Indian higher education system. Opening up domestic markets to international suppliers and competition doesn’t automatically improve domestic supply. Take the case of the much-touted liberalization in the aviation and telecom sectors over the past decade. New private providers, with or without foreign collaboration, have emerged in these industries and ‘revolutionized’ the provisions. But, neither Indian Airlines nor BSNL have made any significant progress. Why? Because, the governance of these PSUs has not been reformed.

That Indian higher education institutions need to be ‘reformed’ is well-known for long. That the political will to reform them, moving away from political and official control has been absent, is also now known!

Imagine the possibility that the original conception of ‘vishwa vidyalayas’—homes of global knowledge—could be operationalized in today’s global order! Our own higher education institutions should be attracting scholars and students and research grants from around the world—like the vishwa vidyalayas of Nalanda and Taxila!—and in turn enriching the quality of global brands in higher education.

Here’s to ‘vishwa vidya’—education for all, desi and videshi.

Rajesh Tandon
April 14, 2010

Holistic Development of Higher Education in India

During the past year, many committees and reports have happened on reforming higher education in India; several conferences on higher education reforms in India have been held. Many delegations of universities and higher education institutions have come to India from UK, USA, Australia, Canada and European Union seeking opportunities for collaborations and partnerships. One pattern that is common to all these discussions is the almost exclusive focus on programmes of teaching of technology and management. Is higher education reform only relevant to these two disciplines? Are international collaborations across institutions of higher education mainly concerned about courses in engineering and business?

A cursory look at the student enrolments and courses offered by Indian university system indicates that a large proportion of them (students and courses) are in disciplines of humanities, arts and social sciences. How are these courses being taught? What is the quality of research and teaching in humanities, arts and social sciences? By all accounts, research in these disciplines has been moribund for decades, and teaching has remained limited to rote learning in stagnant classrooms.

Most of the debate on reforming higher education system in India continues to focus on engineering and management disciplines; most international partnerships are aimed at these faculties only. New IITs and IIMs are always on the agenda of policy-makers and educationists. But, nobody seems to be bothered about the quality and relevance of higher education in humanities, arts and social sciences. Why is it so?

Are these disciplines not relevant as subjects for higher education? Should higher education institutions not improve the quality and relevance of research and teaching in these faculties?

Is the agenda of inclusive growth likely to be pursued with engineers, accountants and managers alone (with a few economists thrown in)? Which domains of knowledge will contribute to addressing the challenges faced by exclusion of muslim, scheduled caste and scheduled tribe families? Given the continuing challenges of gender justice and equality in Indian homes, communities and work-places, will we not need to upgrade research and teaching in gender studies? Will social sciences be relevant to our designing policies and strategies to strengthen democratic governance in the country? Do we need to study human and ecological geography to understand dynamics of climate change? Should holistic preparation of professionals include a strong component of study of Indian and European literature? Is study of philosophy—Indian, Oriental, European— not crucial for our ethical and moral foundations? Isn’t the method of critical historical analysis relevant for understanding histories of Indian and transnational business? As Indian corporations—public and private—are going global, should there not be foundation courses on African, Chinese and Brasilian cultures and traditions in the professional education of entrepreneurs and managers? Are theories of learning and education relevant for promoting 10% growth per annum over the next two decades? Given the pressures of modern life, and growing numbers of suicides of students, managers and farmers in the country, should the academic disciplines of psychology and psychoanalysis not be Indianised in depth? Given that our cities and urban population are growing so fast, isn’t the faculty of urban studies need stronger academic place in higher education?

The above are merely illustrative sets of questions; holistic development of Indian society requires contemporary knowledge in all aspects of human endeavour. Indian institutions of higher education, therefore, need to be able to modernize, upgrade and improve the quality of curriculum, research and teaching in all disciplines of humanities, arts and social sciences, as well as engineering, accountancy and business management. These domains of higher education require considerable attention, reforms and resources; they can also benefit from international partnerships across higher education institutions in many countries of the world.

May be others do not see the point I am trying to raise with you? May be our experience of classrooms in humanities, arts and social studies were so pathetic that we do not care if they are needed at all? What do you think? Please do not hesitate to say I am ‘barking up the wrong tree’?

Rajesh Tandon
March 15, 2010

The perspectives on post-secondary education have followed two broad trajectories. First trajectory has looked at post-secondary education as a livelihood enhancing capability, as any economy moves towards a greater share of service sector. In this sense, knowledge economy requires ‘knowledge labourers’.

The second trajectory on post-secondary education is rooted in the framework of life-long learning; it looks at learning new knowledge as part of being in and contributing to a knowledge society. In knowledge society, we share a ‘knowledge commons ‘which is collective pool of ideas, innovations, wisdom and theories evolved throughout humanity.

These two perspectives lead to different emphases in the design of policies and institutions that promote post-secondary education. The former approach makescompetition as the basis for entrance into educational institutions. That’s why most students spend long hours and much money to attend various ‘preparatory’ courses,institutions and tuitions during and after secondary education. Millions of such ‘preparatory schools’ have sprung up to feed the demand. The quality of these ‘preparatory schools’ remains uneven, and there is no mechanism to ensure any regulation, other than the market itself. It was, therefore, heartening to note that hundreds of students going to such a coaching centre in Patna (India) protested vehemantly against poor quality ofteaching there.

In the second perspective, education, and therefore research, could become relevant to society at large. Selection of research topics and learning from field projects may be embedded in specific questions on which ‘new’ knowledge may be needed. In this manner, in the province of British Columbia, in Canada, various ministries and government departments share policy-relevant research questions with institutions of post-secondary education, and then provide scholarships to those students who agree to study them as part of their post-secondary education.

Many other such practical manifestations of these two differing trajectories can be mentioned. The key question is how to integrate livelihood-orientation with the perspectives of life-long learning. In the knowledge society, learning throughout life is invited; in the knowledge economy, learning again and again is necessary.

Do we have examples where the requirements of knowledge economy and the expectations of knowledge society been integrated organically?

Rajesh Tandon

When I was in highschool, my parents and I, both, almost assumed that I would proceed to some post-secondary educational programme. The dominant careers then had essentially three routes: a) prepare for civil service; b) become an engineer; c) or a doctor.Professional institutions for the latter two, and a university degree for the former were the primary educational routes available and sought.

There was no distance education; polytechnics were considered good for those who couldn’t make it in engineering colleges; if you couldn’t qualify for civil service, then you would become a ‘master’ (teacher). If there was no route to post-secondary education left, then you could open a shop or join in the family business.

Things have changed somewhat in these 40 years. Now, many more avocations, careers and educational routes are available. Becoming an entrepreneur and doing your own business is considered height of innovation, leadership and demands highest education. Competency-based learning and open & distance education have become more widely available as professional education routes.

It is in this changed context that University Grants Commission in India created a category of ‘deemed’ universities. These were supposed to be ‘degree-granting’ institutions in a specialized professional field.

Now comes the Report of a Review Committee set by Ministry of Higher Education in Government of India which makes a serious criticism on the ‘quality’ of education being offered in these ‘deemed’ universities. The Report recommends de-recognition of 44 amongst them. Nearly 200,000 students are studying in these 44 institutions, and their future (as that of their predecessors) is in jeopardy, for no fault of theirs.

If these were purely private institutions, students and their parents would have paid a greater attention to the quality issues themselves. But, recognition of the ‘deemed’ status for these institutions by the government creates a sense that these institutions are under regulation by some public authority.

That the regulators and their officials are ‘hand-in-gloves’ with these institutions, and provide them official recognition through corruption, was not publicly known (until recently), and students and their parents assumed their ‘bonafide’ credentials, until proven otherwise. In that sense, it is the government regulatory agencies and their officials who should be strictly penalized, not those students who are studying there.

The larger issue in this chaotic scenario is the need for legitimizing multiple routes for post-secondary education in India, and around the developing world. Mere literacy, primary or highschool education will not be enough in the world of tomorrow. Additional and continuing educational upgradation will be required for career and life improvements. Various forms and channels of post-secondary educational routes will need to be nurtured in each society within the larger framework of life-long learning.It is in this regard that new policies and mechanisms need to be evolved in India, and elsewhere.

And, this approach can be best promoted by students and their parents, who are the primary stake-holders in this regard.

Whither students’ unions on this account? Whither parents’ associations? Who else will raise the voice of sanity in this chaotic silence?

This is the month of Basant Panchami, the day we celebrate the Goddess of Learning—Saraswati. Have you noticed that the reverence to the goddess has diminished, of late.

And, today is 60th anniversary of India’s Republic Day; have you noticed that even after sixty years of being an independent republic, India has yet to discover the value of education and life-long learning in its future?

Rajesh Tandon
January 26, 2010

I had some very interesting encounters recently. I was invited to be a Guest Speaker at an Institute of Management in Delhi on its convocation day. This Institute has been set up by some seniors from my alma mater—IIT, Kanpur. The convocation ceremony was well-designed, had all the appropriate rituals, and was largely managed by the students themselves. As a young, private Institute, it may not have the ‘market recognition’ as of now, but it surely is operating on some values that reminded me of earlier days of post-secondary education, where ‘graduation’ had some meaning.

The second encounter was as a keynote speaker at a premier Malaysian University in Penang, which had hosted the first Asian conference on ‘University-Community Partnership’. This University had recently been accorded an APEX status by the Malaysian Government, and provided substantial additional funding for its research, teaching and outreach activities. The argument made by this University to secure such a privileged status was its commitment to sustainable development and service to ‘bottom billions’. It argued that this path of exploration was indeed academic excellence.

The third encounter was largely virtual; I just recently read full-page advertisements where a leading Management Institute was offering special recognition awards to ministers and politicians from a certain state, as a ‘recognition’ of their contribution to the nation.

What a contrast, indeed? It is possible for a publicly funded and governed University to demonstrate excellence in emerging concerns of human survival for the poor majority; it is possible for a privately funded institute to ‘reconstruct’ some of the academic traditions lost in most public institutions of higher education in our countries, emphasising values of learning, respect for teachers, and responsibility in ‘graduating’; it is also possible for a private post-secondary institution imparting professional education to act in a totally unprofessional manner.

So, the critical question about the re-construction of post-secondary education in our society is about leadership. The profession of educationists, and institution-builders among them, is today mired by mediocracy, indiscipline, pettiness and rigidity; there is hardly any innovative and risk-taking type of leadership in view, which is necessary to build institutions of higher education in public and private domains. Intellectual independence, liberal scholarship and rigorous teaching, once hallmarks of great institutions of post-secondary education, have withered away.

It is, therefore, not surprising that many recent applicants for clerical jobs have had engineering and management education; curriculum, syllabus and teaching materials in many institutions of post-secondary education have not been revised for 3-4 decades; teachers and professors have not kept a pace with recent writings and research in their academic domains.

How to catalyse leadership and institution-building in post-secondary educational institutions? How to ensure that a vast diversity of actors are able to work together in this field? How to nurture learning among teachers and their ‘bosses’ first? Where has all the passion gone? Or where have all those with passion gone?

Rajesh Tandon
December 14, 2009