Is Higher Education a Profession in Crisis?

Dr. Kali Charan Pandey Associate Professor Department of Philosophy DDU Gorakhpur University Gorakhpur – 273009 Email: & Ph. 0551-2200349 0-94510-50-439
“Imagine a young head, without much experience of life, being stuffed with fifty systems…and fifty criticisms of them, all jumbled up together – what an overgrown wilderness it will come to be! What a mockery of a philosophical education! It is, in fact, avowedly an education, not for philosophy but for an examination in Philosophy.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Thoughts Out of Season, III, p. 8. “The present system of education is all wrong. The mind is crammed with facts before it knows how to think.” Swami Vivekananda, CW, 8.280.

A recent evaluation report of the world’s universities and research institutions did not come as a surprise to most of us who are in some way related to the higher education. The report envisages that none of the Indian institutions of higher education figured in the top 300, while six Chinese institutions did.1 It is insignificant to illustrate that the quality of an institution is measured in terms of various factors such as research publications, patent, employability of its students, research facilities and output, emoluments of academics and academic ambience. These ingredients of quality of education to a large extent have been ignored in such a way that they have become marginalized. It is this state of affairs which is the cause of crisis in higher education. In this background, this paper is an attempt to delineate those constituents of crisis in higher education in India which are although important but unfortunately have been relegated to the margins in such a way that nobody seems to bother about them as if they are not issues at all.


The higher educational state of affair in India is like many scenes of a commercial cinema. Ordinarily many scenes of a commercial cinema appear unrealistic. While watching such a cinema we doubt the credibility of the happenings on screen, however, that doesn’t cause us to stop watching it. That is to say, the doubt about the unrealistic nature of the cinema is not exclusive. It is partial. Somewhat similar can be said about the constituents of the quality of education. When one is face to face with such a constituent in real life one may, many times, be surprised to note that how could that happen! One may doubt the fact itself which constitutes the – cinema - education. We keep on living with such doubts and let the disbelief be part and parcel of our routine life whether it is cinema or education. In our discussion on education, we shall come across many such facts which are not imaginary but which generally many of us are doomed to live through. The higher education constitutes of academic workers, administrative structures, systems, and conventional procedures. Academic workers or educationists include teachers, teacher trainers, academics and policy makers. These all are responsible for the crisis in higher education. The crisis is multi-faceted such as institutional mismanagement and structural rigidity, financial constrains and commercialization of higher education, equity vs. quality debate, political interference, undue emphasis on interdisciplinary and applied study and syllabi’s irrelevance, and integrity of academic workers, and issues about moral basis of education. Notwithstanding ubiquitous presence of these constituents of crisis, which have been either ignored or not given due attention, by and large, there is a general agreement that current state of affairs of education in general and higher education in particular in India is not only at its cross-roads but also passing through a worst phase.2 It is a cross road from where one can either move upwards to achieve a higher point in one’s attempts successfully or slip downtown where remains nothing but despair and further inputs of degradation of the individual as well as the community. So the question is: why not move upwards? Well, the answer is straightforward: for moving upward one needs to put much efforts as compared to those needed for slipping downwards. It’s easy to succumb to shortcuts and populist measures and not to pay heed to what actually needs to be done.


However, prior to our discussion on crisis in higher education in India, let us begin with conceptual treatment of education. The questions arise: What is education? How does education make a better human being? No one can deny that education can make a better human being in the sense that man gets transformed into a superior reflective being. The mental and physical well being depends on the quality of education. As Vivekananda puts it: “Education, education, education alone! Travelling through many cities of Europe and observing in them the comforts and education of even the poor people, there was brought to my mind the state of our own poor people, and I used to shed tears. What made the difference? Education was the answer I got.”3 It’s a well know fact that Plato’s Republic, which elaborately for the first time deals with the philosophy of education, is concerned with educating people in such a way that justice prevails in the society. Plato’s famous ‘allegory of cave’ shows that human beings are living in the world of ignorance. Education enlightens and brings us out from the cave of ignorance. In brief, for Plato the basic purposes of education are that (a) it is required for society as well as for the individual, (b) the education builds up character as well intelligence, and (c) the education is capable of transforming individual in a better human being. A similar point of view can be found in Vivekananda’s thoughts on education. For him, “We want that education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one’s own feet.”4 And further, “Education is the manifestation of the perfection already in man.”5 There is no doubt that education transforms human beings. Locke regarded the mind of an infant as tabula rasa – a blank sheet/ dark chamber - which is written with the experiences of life in due course of time. That is, the child learns through her own experiences. The education is different from one’s own experiences as it is intentionally and purposefully directed to transform the individual in a certain way through introduction of some skills. Better educated person is different from a poorly educated one as former has been trained and exposed to better skills and therefore supposedly has become better work force. However, gathering information is not education. It “is not the amount of information that is put into your brain and runs riot there, undigested, all your life. We must have life-building, man making, character-making assimilation of ideas. If you have


assimilated five ideas and made them your life and character, you have more education than any man who has got by heart a whole library…If education is identical with information, the libraries are the greatest sages in the world, and encyclopedias are the rishis.”6 Education is wisdom. Swami Vivekananda aptly put it as follows: “What is education? Is it book-learning? No. Is it diverse knowledge? Not even that. The training by which the current and expression of will brought under control and become fruitful is called education. Now consider, is that education as a result of which the will, being continuously choked by force through generations, is well-nigh killed out; is that education under whose sway even the old ideas, let alone the new ones, are disappearing one by one; is that education which is slowly making man a machine?” 7 That is why St. Augustine maintains, “We do not learn through the words which sound outwardly, but through the truth which teaches within us.”8 Debating is a significant part of educational learning. In Indian tradition debating, i.e. shashtrath (argumentation) was given supreme importance. It was an instrument to establish ones educational supremacy and wisdom. Buddhism believes that one can learn through discussion as it is only through discussion one can delineate between right and wrong. It holds that one can “combat by discussion any false doctrine that the teacher might take to or to get others to do it.” 9 The argumentative trait of classical Indian systems gets an endorsement from contemporary western idea of ‘circle-time’. The “Circle time involves sitting children or adults in a circle and discussing and sharing issues, themes and ideas. The teacher or a designated adult plays a facilitative role and encourage participants to realize that they can resolve the problem or deal with the issue themselves.”10 As different from traditional Indian educational system in which vada (argument) and prativada (counter argument) or purva-paksha (thesis) uttar paksha (anti-thesis) and nishkarsha (conclusion) form an essential element of a coherent system, these days debating “is out of fashion because of a widespread assumption that if you challenge people’s beliefs, opinions or arguments, this could damage their self-esteem, or worse. This assumption is having a detrimental effect on education at all levels.”11 Although education puts things as they are. However, it cannot be denied that ideological moorings are inbuilt into an educational and particularly higher educational


instructions of humanities and social sciences. It can be labeled as leftist, rightist, capitalist, socialist, secular, religious, spiritual etc. Thus although there is no doubt that education is concerned with transformation of individual through transmission of knowledge, various shades of ideological perceptions are bound to affect the quality of education. Thus a socialist holds, “…education, given the circumstances of a liberal democratic capitalist society, is concerned to transmit knowledge that distorts people’s views of the world; it is concerned to create easily satisfied ‘pigs’; and it is concerned to promote a pernicious type of ignorance rather than to overcome ignorance. Helvetius said that: ‘Children are born ignorant, not stupid: it is education that makes them stupid’; and he was essentially correct. Young uneducated children are ignorant of the world; educated adults are usually similarly ignorant, but because they have been given knowledge of a sort they fail to recognize their ignorance, and they mistake the theoretic relations they bear for knowledge of the real world, and even for wisdom.”12 In this context, Wittgenstein’s point of view, which may seem to be radical one, is pertinent and needs mention. It is well established that Wittgenstein was against university teaching because he realized that it is something which kills one’s ability to think and do any significant work. About Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm writes: “He believed that a normal human being could not be a university teacher and also an honest and serious person. Of Symethies he once said: ‘He will never get a lectureship. He is too serious.’…Wittgenstein several times renewed the attempt to persuade me to give up philosophy as a profession. He commonly did this with other students of his.” 13 Perhaps Wittgenstein realized that the critical learning and thinking which must be the core of any education does not get sufficient space in university system. Actually, “Education cannot and should not reassure us that criticism is unjustified and negative.” 14 John Passmore points out, “Every expert possesses in some degree, as part of his expertness, the capacity to criticize his own performance and the performances of others, but in Teachers this capacity is raised to the level of skill.”15 Passmore also enumerates reasons/obstacles of critical thinking and discussion:16


a) the beliefs and personal point of view of the teacher which he does not wish to submit to critical scrutiny. b) the social practice may not allow a teacher for critical reflection. c) a teacher might have not undergone such a training which encourages critical thinking. The reason for the lack of critical thinking can be traced to many factors including institutional mis-management and structural rigidity which is basically related with UGC’s functioning and rules and regulations of the University system. It’s a proven fact that there is a space for improvement in administrative and managerial structures of UGC in order to make it more responsible and responsive for the current state of higher education in India. Structurally UGC has to be replaced with some other system. As Pitroda maintains, “The present regulatory system in higher education is flawed in some important respects….The system, as a whole, is over-regulated but under governed. The KNC believes that there is a clear need to establish an Independent Regulator Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE).”17 Apart from teacher’s training for critical thinking, which has been rightly regarded as the hall mark of higher education, quality of education is also a cause of concern. Amitabh Matto rightly points out that the quality of education depends on factors such as “emoluments, infrastructure, institutional flexibility (that includes academic and administrative governance) and the elimination of political interference. This, of course, is by no means an exhaustive list but serves as a useful guide to building a first-class university faculty.” One might be tempted to add some more factors such as academic ambience and autonomy, adherence to semester system, a system of studentfeedback, and performance oriented award scheme which are helpful in the realization of self-actualisation needs. The salaries to university and college teachers and auxiliary staff have been rightly addressed by the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission. The previous experience in this context shows that the State Governments sooner or later implement recommendations of the pay commissions in their universities. Thus the issue at hand is not that professors are under paid and therefore now it has become illogical that due to pay structure only a second grade brain prefers to join an academic assignment as


compared to other lucrative jobs such as management, computer, engineering, and administration. But the loophole even now lies at some other point. We have to understand the reason as to why a graduate, irrespective of his stream, prefers to join civil service? Why does civil service remain first choice of young graduates? Actually salary is not the only cause of preference of civil services over academics. The bureaucratic and political structures of the country is such that it will never allow an academic better salary than his counterpart in civil services and in this sense it can be rightly said to be following its British legacy. The general perception is that since British Raj Indian Bureaucracy has not changed its power wielding complexion which is in itself a source of temptation. Many teachers rightly believe that academic is a profession in which frustration steadily but definitely inter into the later stages of the professional life. As opposed to this, a civil service provides much inputs of self-actualisation. Another cause of preference of civil service over academics is that academic autonomy, which is counterpart of ‘power’ of bureaucracy, is regularly being curtailed. Moreover, perks and working conditions of academics have no comparison with that of civil services. Thus, Mehta rightly points out, “It is a matter of shame that when we appoint a lower division clerk in the Government, we ensure that he gets a table and a chair. But when we appoint a teacher we throw him into an overcrowded staff room. You can imagine his plight. Either he stays away or sooner or later joins his colleagues who have over the years learned to while away their time in non-academic activities. No wonder our institutions are characterized by cheap politicking, debilitating texture of partisanship and allurements of power.”18 So if we wish our universities to prosper as a temple of intellect, we must take care of the above issues, so that the academic could be brought at par with bureaucracy and the mad race for getting into civil services could be stopped. Another ingredient of the crisis - financial constrains and commercialization of higher education - has been put in the form of a debate, i.e. how to maintain a genuine balance between quality and quantity of education? That is, should there be an expansion of the centres of higher learning or should we concentrates on improvement in the quality of education? Former president of India A P J Abdul Kalam seems to hold the second option. He says, “Rather than creating new institutions in engineering and technology alone, the existing 300 universities and affiliated colleges should be empowered with


autonomy and funds to transform themselves into a world-class institution.” 19 On the other hand, Planning Commission’s Approach Paper to the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) published in December 2006 holds: “India has a well-developed and comprehensive higher education system which has served us well thus far, but is now inadequate. The extent of access it provides is limited. Only about 10 percent of the relevant age group go to universities whereas in many developing countries, the figure is between 20 and 25 percent. There is an overwhelming need to undertake major expansion to increase access to higher education. The system also suffers from a serious problem of quality. While some of our institutions of higher education have the potential to become comparable with the best in the world, the average standard is much lower. High quality institutions are finding it difficult to get quality faculty given the enormous increase in private sector opportunities for the skills most in demand.”20 Likewise Sam Pitroda maintains:“The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) believes that an emphasis on expansion and reform of our school system is necessary to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity o enter the world of higher education…. The higher education system needs a massive expansion of opportunities, to the tune of around 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrollment ration of at least 15 percent by 2015.”21 As such the apparent dichotomy, as envisaged in above points of views, can be abridged with a proper balancing act between quality and quantity of higher education. One point of view holds that higher education should not be meant for everyone and only talented and deserving ones should be allowed to enter into higher education. Otherwise, such students after completing their courses find no way to hold a career. Those who cannot complete perish in the end and living with shattered dreams they are forced to do menial works which would not have been the case had they have studied vocational courses. Other point of view is that in a welfare democratic state such as India, everyone should be provided with an opportunity to decide ones own future course of occupation. This point of view gets support from the fact that in India there is a need to expand centres of higher education so as to provide opportunity to everyone. It might be that in remote corners of our country many brains do not get opportunity to grow due to confinement of good centres of higher education to a few cosmopolitan and metropolitan


cities. Both points of views have their pros and cons. We should not emphasis on the quality meant for elitists at the cost of suppressing opportunities to many potential brains and on the other hand there should not be mushrooming of private college and universities as trends are been established these days. It is not a proven fact that “the expansion of our system of higher education is not possible without enhanced levels of financing. This must necessary come form both public and private sources.”22 However, the crux of the issue is that we must look for a judicious balance between public and private funding keeping in view the quantity and quality of education. The quality has to do with scholarships as well. Sam Pitroda recommends: “There must be a well funded and extensive National Scholarship Scheme targeting both economically under-priviledged students and those from historically socially disadvantaged groups.”23 At this point the debate between equity vs. quality becomes relevant for discussion. Here ‘equity’ stands for equal opportunity for all citizens to have access to higher education. There is a need to broader access of higher education and at the same time quality has to be maintained. Moreover the problem becomes acute when we face the dilemma as to whether the access of higher education should be tried for socially or economically groups or individuals. In brief, there is a need to maintain a balance between equity and quality and also so far as equitable distribution of education is concerned there must not be distinction on the basis of caste and creed but economic backwardness must be the sole criterion. It is essential so that no student, due to financial constrains, is left uneducated in the best manner and human resources and best brains can be brought to the main stream of the development of the nation. But, in an academic environment when everything is poisoned with political interference, which is coupled with social engineering, how could such a thing as this recommendation will not remain only a wishful thinking, or in what manner it will get implemented, is still to be seen. Another issue related to the point of quality education is regional imbalances. The cleavage between the quality of higher educational institutions of North and South, Centre and State is such that it creates a sort of intellectual elitism worst for a social democratic country like India. The intellectual elitism causes a feeling of backwardness in the mind of all those who are not associated with best and hampers the morale


professional workmanship. I find no reason as to why a professor when joins a central university should be paid a better salary than what he was getting in a state university? Has be become much qualified overnight? There is an argument that there should be some institutions of higher learning which could be endowed with the centre of excellence. There is no objection against the concept of such an institution. There is also no problem if academics of higher learning are provided with better infrastructural facilities such as better library, internet, foreign trip, and opportunities to attend lectures by dignitaries etc. In brief better ambience to work is available in plenty to all those who are associated with institutions such as IITs, IIMs and Central Universities. But what crime an academic of a state university has done that he has to retire three years earlier than if he would have had joined the elitist institutions? Why should he be paid comparatively lesser salary? Why should he not be provided be a good library, good academic exposure, and good opportunities to go abroad? It’s ridiculous that if there are two universities in the same city – one Central and the other State – then there is a differential treatment in the perks, emoluments and ambience academics get there. What an irony that a better brain, if happen to belong to a State University, gets paid less! How could it be expected that such a work condition would not affect his morale, work ethics, performance, and will to excel in ones profession? The disparity among the educational institutions of higher learning is so severe that there is a mad race to join an elite institution. Gone are the days of the argument that a backward place needs better academics so that its backwardness could be cured soon. As in this age of professionalism everybody is racing to join an elite institution, those who fail in such an attempt are regarded as second graded brains! How strange it is that in the era of brain drain and out-sourcing no one talks about the fact of an academic’s leaving of Bihar University and his joining of JNU/DU! The strangeness has to be found in the fact that perhaps, at the current stage of education, Bihar needs much better brains than JNU – not only for progress but also for halting of the train of students who rush to Delhi for better education. One could argue as to what is wrong with students moving to better place of learning as such an phenomenon is bound to happen. Actually, the wrongness has to be seen from the perspective of those students who do not get the exposure of outside world and simply become over age for certain examinations. Don’t


they also deserve a better education? How could a student of a remote and regional university complete with students of DU/JNU in the UGC’s NET? The available facts should be an eye opener to educational policy makers. During my research days at Delhi University I remember that there were no acquaintances or friends who had not got through NET. As different from while teaching at Bihar University and now at Gorakhpur University I rarely get a student who has got through NET. (And by the way if any student cracks NET his picture is invariably published in the newspapers as if it’s an event – an event which also works as a prelude to future matrimonial). From this perspective it’s a welcome step that new IITs and Central Universities are being established throughout India. It will certainly work as a catalyst to remove the causes which create disparity in the quality of educations offered to various sections of society. By and large the difference between central universities and state universities is the same as the difference between public schools and government schools. The research infrastructure, facilities and exposure in the former are far better than the letter. So what stops one from joining public schools or central universities? Why should one get admission in government schools or state universities? The answer lies in the bitter fact of financial un-affordability. If one is fortunately born in those families of the country which are not poor, one begins with public schools and English medium instruction. The poor and poorest of the poor families cannot send their kids to public schools. Therefore, these kids remain aloof from English schooling and they end up doing everything through vernacular languages and cannot afford to face the elite and English atmosphere of central universities. I have come across many students with education background through vernacular languages who could muster courage to get admission into humanities and social sciences of central universities but could succeed doing nothing in the end. The basic cause of their failure, I guess, has been their poor school education through vernacular languages. The problem begins with financial un-affordability of sending one’s kid to public school and results in creating another problem of twin levels of work force - one manufactured in central universities and the other in state universities - which are normally so different in their abilities achieved through learning that the later cannot stand to the former in any competition between them. Thanks to some political gimmicks


of some political ideologies which are against English that the gap between these two have been on rise. Although we can hope that such political ideologies will have no future in a highly conscious democracy as India. Library of a college/university is the soul of an institution of higher learning. Actually an institute’s stature can be measured through its library. Only the institution which has a good library can motivate its students/scholars/teachers to be acquainted with what is happening around the academic world which is growing fast. Many universities of various states clearly do not enjoy the developments in the field of INTERNET and computer technology. In this age of information technology it is too much to expect from a faculty or scholar to produce a state of the art research or innovation if he doesn’t know how to operate computers. Even traditional subjects of Humanities and Social Sciences such as philosophy and languages cannot be enriched without the use of latest technology. The fact is that libraries of many state universities are in a junk situation and no one, not even successive vice chancellors, take a note of its condition. And, thefore, Library is invariably at the back burner of many university heads. Leave aside the talk about facilities through INTERNET such as Jester etc., many university libraries do not have even functional cataloguing system of books and journals. A crucial issue of the crisis is political interference which is hampering autonomy of universities at various levels. University administration at various levels gets invariably affected by political dictates. The so called administrative autonomy exists only on paper as many appointments virtually turn out to be political appointments. Thus V R Mehta rightly points out: “There has been a serious onslaught on the university autonomy in recent years. A nexus seems to have developed between teacher-politicians, students-politicians and the politicians in the town. The Vice-chancellors and other academic bodies are either too weak or find it impossible to mediate between political elements within and such elements outside. The elements which are determined to subvert the university autonomy for narrow political or personal gains seem to be thriving. The UGC was created as a buffer between the state and the universities. But I doubt whether it has the necessary will, determination, perspective and means to act as a shield for the universities.” 24


Another issue deals with academic appointments. Sam Pitroda holds that the appointments of Vice Chancellors should be free from political interference.25 Although it is a vital point but only that will not be sufficient as similar is to be done with regard to appointments of chairmen of Higher Education Commissions of various states. Actually, “The leaders of our institutions have, with very few exceptions, deserted the field. They speak a language that would have been unthinkable not only in Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum, but even 50 years ago in the sector of which they are now the inglorious stewards. Of course, our Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and their Deputies and Pro-Vice Chancellors, have to square up to a new enforced agenda of participation and cost effectiveness. They put up their little fights on the minor matters. But their abdication of moral responsibility is abject.”26 Moreover, the fact remains that there is a need to monitor as to what is happening in a selection committee. This is point to ponder as to how could some academics with their nexus to political bosses get themselves on board of almost every selection committee meant for selecting teachers? Personally for me, if there is a God, I will pray him that, if you could do any change in world of facts, please insert a letter of admonition in the minds of selection committee members for a teaching post in Indian universities that their acts would be met with suitable award/punishment after death, if not in their life time. Related to this is the issue of prime concern that many teachers are no longer enjoying their subjects. It is a fact that “teachers are now not focused on subject knowledge because the subject has been sidelined in favour of social policy and state education has been politicized for non-educational instrumental ends….Teachers are rarely rewarded for the depth of their subject knowledge, their scholarship or their ability to stretch pupils with intellectual rigour and pedagogy.”27 Further, undue emphasis on interdisciplinary and applied study, and syllabi’s irrelevance as that has not been revised are also causes of concern. Not a single department, whether it is humanities and social sciences or science, seems to be unaffected in giving preference to applied aspect of study as compared to traditional theoretical study. There is a fashion to talk about interdisciplinary aspect of researches in almost each and every subject. As such there is no harm in interdisciplinary and applied study, however, the limit must be drawn in order save traditional theoretical study.


Further, many times it seems that no one takes notes of the state of affairs of curricula of various subjects as they remain unrevised for many years. The incredulity in revising the syllabi comes from academics itself who do not bother to update themselves with current developments in the subject and therefore in order to avoid teaching latest in the field choose non-inclusion root. This results in teaching outdated matters and use of redundant techniques. Now it has been realized that “of utmost importance is the requirement that all universities revise or restructure curricula at least once in three years.”28 Of course, for good or for bad, the crisis in higher education is not catastrophic one. In one sense it is good that it is not something which is so catastrophic that our existence could be put into jeopardy. In another sense, it’s not been of catastrophic nature is something bad because it’s danger does not seem to reach any body’s ear. Had it been catastrophic perhaps remedial measures could have been taken much faster. However, it is definitely a chronic crisis which is proliferated like the vicious circle of poverty. Like one remains poor because one is poor, the crisis further causes its own accumulation. The way out from this crisis, among its various constituents, seems to be the future efforts of academic workers which have to be based on moral commitment of professionalism flavoured with value orientated approach. As Nixon puts it: “It is to intellectual workers that we must look to reconstruct the moral agenda and refigure higher education for all our futures.”29

Notes and References



Quoted in B.K. Joshi, “Equity vs. Quality”, in Ira Pande, ed., Beyond Degrees: Finding Success in Many remarks can be cited to support this point. Karan Singh points out, “Sixty years after

Higher Education, Harper Collins Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.143.

Independence, the general condition of our universities is a cause for concern. While there are certainly half a dozen or so centres of excellence, excluding the IITs and IIMs, the standard in several universities has not reached the desired level.” Ira Pande, op.cit, p. vii. A similar point has been raised by Sam Pitroda: “Reform in the education system is critical for meeting the challenges posed by demography, disparity and development, and for creating an empowered generation for future….We need to bring about a paradigm shift in our education systems with the perspective of enhancing access and employability, and generating long-term qualitative changes that enable us to compete in the global knowledge economy.” India Today, May, 11, 2009, p. 32. Pitroda has maintained his position in a very straight way elsewhere as well: “…it is important for us to recognize that there is a quiet crisis in higher education in India, which runs deep. Furthermore, the time has come to address this crisis in a systematic, forthright manner.” Sam Pitroda, “Of Grades and Graduates”in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., p.45.
3 4 5 6 7 8

Swami Vivekananda, CW, 4.483. Ibid., 5.342. Ibid., 4.358. Ibid., 3.302. Ibid., 4.490. St. Aurelius Augustine, Concerning the Teacher and On the Immortality of the Soul, Appleton– Mahavagga, I, 25, 20. Lynn Revell, ‘Circle Time’ in Dennis Hayes, ed., The Routledge Guide to Key Debates in Education, Dennis Hayes, ed., op.cit., p.1. Harris, Kelvin, Education and Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, Boston and Henley, Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, Oxford University Press, London, p.30. Alan Hudson, “Educating The People”, in Dennis Hayes, ed., op.cit.,p. 21. John Passmore, The Philosophy of Teaching, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., London, 1980, p.170. Ibid., p. 171-2.

Century-Crofts, New York, 1938, p. 46.
9 10

Routledge, London and New York, 2007,p.55.
11 12

1979, p.129.
13 14 15 16

17 18

Sam Pitroda, “Of Grades and Graduates”in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., p.39. V R Mehta, “The Killing of Higher Education”, UGC Golden Jubilee Series, p.4. This lecture was

delivered by Prof. Mehta at Ranchi University on 19 September 2003 as part of the UGC’s Golden Jubilee Lecture Series. It can be accessed at
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, “Knowledge Into Power” in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., p.29. Quoted in Bibek Debroy, “Adjusting to a knowledge Economy” in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., pp. 33-34. Sam Pitroda, “Of Grades and Graduates”, in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., pp.38-39. Ibid. p.40. Ibid., p.44. V R Mehta, op.cit. Sam Pitroda, “Of Grades and Graduates”, in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., p.42. Jon Nixon, “A Profession in Crisis?” in Dennis Hayes, ed., op.cit., p. 168. Clair Fox, “The Philosophy Gap” in Dennis Hayek, ed., op.cit., p. 25. Sam Pitroda, “Of Grades and Graduates”, in Ira Pande, ed., op.cit., p.42. Jon Nixon, op.cit., 2007, p. 168.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.