Sunday August 31, 2008
The role of universities
The Third Space:By Neil Khor and Khaldun Malek
Can academic institutions influence civil society if they are no longer the place for individuals to learn to deliberate rationally and cultivate responsible civic and intellectual behaviour?
EVERYONE wants a degree. Access to tertiary education, both in the West and in Malaysia, is now seen by most as a human right.
These circumstances have altered the function of the university, so it might be wise to return to basics and ask ourselves what is a university?
A university used to be an institution that provided intellectual and instructional leadership. A place that challenged the capacity of individuals, to deliberate rationally in a spirit of free inquiry with ample respect for the opinion of others.
Free, humane and rational; these were its core values. But these values needed constant renewal and if adequately respected within; their cultivation will be encouraged without.
The most important lesson a university can possibly teach is the art of learning. – Filepic The University’s purpose was to teach those who wished to learn, to learn from those it teaches, to encourage research and original thought. Through its students and faculty, the university disseminated knowledge for the preservation and cultivation of responsible civic and intellectual behaviour.
A successful university never allowed its core values to be bound by any single ideology or dogma. A university experience provided a basis for the cultivation of independence of thought which underpinned a healthy democracy and formed the basis of civil commitments.
The philosopher William James, addressing a congregation of late 19th century women graduates, said that all knowledge may be put to two basic uses: it may serve an immediate and tangible purpose by guiding technical action; and it may serve more permanent less visible ends by guiding thought and conduct at large.
One is “know-how”, the other is “cultivation”. The former tells us “how” to do something, whilst the latter exhorts us to understand “why” we should do it. As Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us: “it is not just a question of how the law works, but more properly, what the law is.”
Therefore, the purpose of a university was not just the transmission of knowledge, but more critically the process involved in that transmission. It is in the cultivation of certain habits of the mind – reasoned and disciplined – that the benefits of a university education are most tangible.
Universities used to function that way.
Today, most academic institutions are struggling with the philosophical underpinnings of the university and its place in modern society.
The issues raised include the place of religion or moral values in the university setting, the competing claims of liberal and professional education (whether education should be look upon in its “usefulness” for the “real world”), and even the character of the academic community.
Over the past 20 years, higher education in Malaysia has changed rapidly, inheriting some of these issues.
Local universities have undergone tremendous changes due to rapidly growing demand for higher education as well as increasing social and physical mobility by larger proportions of people.
The result is that the numbers of “higher education” institutions have increased exponentially – both in the public and private sectors. Liberals call this the “democratisation of education”.
Such developments are further accelerated by the changing economic landscape. The philosophy of commerce is the pre-dominant ideology of our times reducing education into another form of commodity.
Hence the endless debates around a few themes: employability of graduates, rankings, and, as a corollary of both, the creation of an index as an indicator for quality.
Today, venerable institutions like ITM have been upgraded and are now universities. Its original aim of promoting vocational education was lost in the process of upgrading its status.
A serious and deliberate discussion about the place, nature, and virtues of different types of education – be it vocational, professional or academic – seems to have been lost in the pursuit of ever greater numbers of degree holders.
The advantages of having a system which catered to diversity – not just in terms of students but more importantly in developing the different types of skills and education consistent with the demands of civic, economic and social development – have been neglected.
But questions pertaining to the quality of education in general continue to generate considerable controversy. However, before the Asian Financial Crisis, during a time when supply exceeded demand, whether our graduates were “good enough” never seemed to matter.
Today, university rankings dominate the university fraternity. Everyone wants either to go to a “top” university or be a “top” university – at least according to the adverts in that infamous commercial magazine, the Times Higher Education Supplement.
The Government speaks of “research universities” and “apex universities”, all of which point to their commitment towards “excellence”.
They stress the importance of “world class research”, “key performance indicators” and so on. All based upon the belief that this will improve the reputations and standings of our universities internationally.
But ironically all these efforts to ensure that graduates will be “employable”, “marketable”, “competitive” and so on, may undermine the more cardinal reasons why universities exists in the first place.
As Donald Kennedy, President Emeritus of Stanford reminds us, “(because) of the impending transformation of education by economic and technological changes taking place? the life cycle of nearly everything has shortened – of useful information, of technologies, and of special skills.
“They suggest the importance of educating young people for flexibility and adaptability. Particular skills will lose their utility fast; the ability to reason, to think, and analyse well will be much more durable.
“Knowledge about our national culture and its historical antecedents will be an increasingly important asset, as the need to learn about and penetrate new occupational environments grows”.
Thus, perhaps the most important lesson a university teaches is the art of learning. But in our red-hot pursuit of “excellence”, we seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish between knowing and understanding. The capacity to “cultivate” has been forgotten. This, Prof Kennedy and other right thinking academics, worry will ultimately destroy the university.
Which brings us to the point we wanted to make at the beginning of the essay. If universities are losing the plot, how can they influence civil society meaningfully and positively? Perhaps it is time to go back to “basics”. Once more and this time to our local dons: What is a University?
- Neil Khor read English at Cambridge University and Khaldun Malek read Philosophy at Oxford University. They both believe that social reform begins in opposing views discussed with civility
Source:
RSS
