Features
University Education in the 21st Century
The basic principles that we should work on include –
a) Breadth of knowledge in context, not depth that is
essential only for those going on to do research
b) Better communication skills including teaching
skills that will facilitate the sharing of knowledge
c) Thinking skills that promote innovation and
analysis of different perspectives
d) Social awareness and sensitivity that contributes to
coherent and productive planning and action in the
world of work
———————-
Text of keynote address on ‘The Future of University Education’ delivered by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha at the Sabaragamuwa Student Symposium, yesterday.
It is a pleasure to come back to Sabaragamuwa, and the more so this time as it is after several years. And though I am now old and lazy, and was a bit put out when I was told the text of my presentation was needed in advance, the topic given me, ‘University Education in the 21st Century’ was convenient. For I had been in fact reflecting on the subject, for the posts I now put up daily on what I term my political Facebook Account, that of the Council for Liberal Democracy.
The series that I called ‘Productive Initiatives’, as a contrast to the depressing series I am also writing, about the destruction wrought by J R Jayewardene and his political heirs, also however turned out depressing. For unfortunately most positive initiatives in education in the 20th century were promptly subverted, beginning with Kannangara’s Central Schools which J R Jayewardene soon straitjacketed in monolingualism.
It was the second great educational innovator of the last century, Prof Arjuna Aluwihare, who conceived the idea of Affiliated University Colleges, from which this University springs. He engaged in such innovation because by the eighties it had become clear to many youngsters that the education system was a mess. Though we prided ourselves on our literacy rates, and on providing free education up to university level, it was clear that the quality of the education provided was abysmal as far as many students were concerned and did not help them to gain decent employment.
There were of course many other causes for the radicalization of the young, and the insurgency that burst out at the end of the eighties. But the Youth Commission report that President Premadasa commissioned noted clearly the need to expand opportunities for rural youth. And though the school education system continued a mess, Arjuna Aluwihare as Chairman of the UGC proposed a radical new approach to tertiary education, and set up what were called Affiliated University Colleges, intended to provide a broad education to youngsters, including compulsory English and wider general awareness, instead of concentration on one or more subjects with no effort to relate them to the world of work.
His ideas were not supported by the majority of universities which were happy to continue doing the same thing for a few more decades. The only university which embraced the idea enthusiastically was Sri Jayawardenepura, which had a very dynamic Vice-Chancellor, Prof S B Hettiarachchi. So USJP conducted programmes in five AUCs, including the flagship programme of the AUCs, the English Diploma course.
This was open to students who had not done English at the Advanced Level. Very few schools in fact offered English at that level, so the intake at the three universities which offered English as a Special Subject was largely confined to students from Colombo and Kandy. This meant that only a few students offered English each year at these universities, but the Departments got vast amounts of funding on the grounds that they were producing English teachers for the nation. Given their exclusivity, hardly any of their products went into teaching except at a few elite schools.
I had long complained about restrictions on the study of English at tertiary level, and when I mentioned this to Arjuna he promptly got me involved in his new programme, which I had not known about before. And I believe I have every reason to be proud of what I achieved. One of my brightest colleagues at USJP, where I first returned to the University system, once told me that there was no point in being a teacher unless one’s pupils turned out better than one was oneself. When I look at my students who excel here, and at the Uva Wellassa University, and in the Department of Technical Education and Training, I feel that at least the English programmes I began in the early nineties have succeeded. Those I started later have done less well, but that is another story, once again to do with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s wickedness.
However, while the Science courses that Aluwihare initiated also I believe did well – and full marks again to this university in particular for that – the AUCs and their successors failed in other respects to live up to his vision. For instance the general courses he had thought of, essentially to increase the general knowledge of youngsters woefuly deprived of this in schools, fell into the trap that affected general courses elsewhere. They were stuffed full of specialist knowledge, and did not engage students to think of the realities of the world they lived in. Sri Lankan studies for instance regurgitated what students had learnt in school, without helping students to position Sri Lanka in the modern world. Unfortunately there was no clear understanding of soft skills, which we are now told at every turn is what the Sri Lankan education system fails to inculcate. And no one thought in those distant days of studying what happened elsewhere, of looking for instance at the development of what are called Core courses in American universities.
So where students should have been given first and foremost better communications skills, and the ability to work in teams, they were instead given detailed knowledge of science and history, formulas about systems for the former, catalogues for the latter.
Later, when I joined Sabaragamuwa University, having already been involved in developing curricula for the degree courses it was developing, both for new students and for those who had completed AUC Diplomas, I decided I should study Core courses as they were being developed in the United States where they had first started.
They had developed initially because American schools were not like British ones from which students could proceed to specialize because they had been provided there with soft skills and wider knowledge. American High Schools as they were called provided more basic education and those going on to university needed catch up teaching as to the knowledge and skills better schools provide.
But in the early 19th century there was not too much of this. Later, by the end of the 20th century, the few core subjects introduced a century earlier had to be expanded as the range of skills needed for productive employment in a changing world also expanded. Derek Bok, President of Harvard for many years, led seminal changes to the system, which I was able to study. And though we did not do as well as Harvard, I think the Core courses we started here back in 1997 equipped our students well for the world of work. And I was able to introduce something similar at the Military Academy when we looked after their degree course.
But none of this had a wider provenance. So that is why, a quarter of a century after Prof Aluwihare showed the way, we have the Prime Minister in his budget speech highlighting ‘the need to build a knowledge-based economy, and the need to promote sport, particularly among the young generation. The Prime Minister also points out that education reforms are important to tackle issues especially among unemployed young generation’.
I would find this funny, if it were not so tragic. Six years ago, when I wrote to him to say the country needed reforms instead of the elections that had turned into his substitute for action, I drew attention to the need of the following –
a) A new Universities Act that provides meaningful training that promotes employability free to those who need it, whilst facilitating the establishment of other centres of excellence through private/ public partnerships
b) A new Education Act that ensures holistic education, with greater stress on skills and competencies that are developed through extra-curricular activities such as Sports and Social Service and Cultural Activities
But of course nothing happened. And if the inaction of the last year is anything to go by, nothing more will happen and instead we will simply hear more and more platitudes about the need for reform.
This is the sadder in that reform would be so easy. I have no regrets personally about having resigned from the post of State Minister of Higher Education five years ago, in time to avoid all taint of Yahapalanaya crookedness and incompetence. But it was sad for the country since those who took over – and indeed had been put on top of me – had no idea about what was required. The last Chairman of the UGC did try, and I am sure the present one will also try. But what the country needs is thoroughgoing reform that is based on general social needs, and that is inconceivable to those stuck in the ivory tower concept which we still cling to, in terms of not 20th century but rather 19th century British models.
The basic principles that we should work on include –
a) Breadth of knowledge in context, not depth that is essential only for those going on to do research
b) Better communication skills including teaching skills that will facilitate the sharing of knowledge
c) Thinking skills that promote innovation and analysis of different perspectives
d) Social awareness and sensitivity that contributes to coherent and productive planning and action in the world of work
Together with these let me draw attention to something that is particularly relevant to what we are concerned with, the research that students have engaged in. I should note though that when I was responsible for preparing a new curriculum for what was a new university, way back in 1997, I was not keen on what was described as a thesis. Not only did I feel that our undergraduates would simply reproduce material culled from others, I also thought that they would not be properly supervised. And though I agreed in the end to what we called a dissertation, I insisted on an oral viva because it was vital to check that students understood what they were presenting.
This may seem excessively cautious, but those were days in which plagiarization was rife in the universities. I recall interviewing someone for a senior position who had no idea of what anything in his master’s thesis meant. His response was that some authority had said this – which the thesis itself had not acknowledged – and I sent a rocket to the Colombo university Vice-Chancellor who was gracious enough to admit their error. He promised that in the future they would insist on an oral test to check on the understanding of the candidate as to what was in the thesis. But whether this happened I do not know, and of course nothing could be done about those masquerading as scholars on the basis of what they had copied.
The oral test was essential, but I am glad Sabaragamuwa has moved further on this and makes students present their research and respond to questions. But I believe too that we should go further, and ensure that research is practical and at undergraduate level oriented towards community development.
This was one of my last proposals when I was Minister, when I suggested to Vice-Chancellors that they should focus all research at undergraduate level on the area in which they were situated. So political science students could for instance look at the work of Grama Niladhari Divisions and Divisional Secretariats, economists could look at enterprises and employment opportunities in the area, sociologists at family structures and welfare statistics, English students at English education, Sinhala students at writing skills amongst students, geography students at water problems – which six years ago I told the then President was one of the greatest problems we had to face, something that thankfully, if six years too late, the current President has acknowledge.
I suggested then to the Vice-Chancellors, who seemed to think this a good idea though they promptly forgot about it after I resigned, that the students of each final year should focus on one administrative division, so that the university could then prepare a comprehensive development plan for that division based on the research of its students. That research would of course have included consultation of the people of the division, consultation that now rarely occurs when development plans are made.
Politicians will of course think this unwarranted interference, but in a context where many politicians can neither think nor plan, there has to be some sensible input. Of course I may be being unfair to politicians in this area, for I had thought of the need for such interventions after much work in the North and East. In those areas what were termed District and Divisional Development Committees had in the period between 2010 and 2014 been entrusted to scoundrels such as Bathiudeen and Hisbullah and Piyasena – and two of them, enthroned then, went on to engage in even greater destruction over the next five years too.
Such individuals would resent academic involvement but I have no doubt sensible politicians would welcome this. Of course the plans prepared by universities would be subject to further discussion, but they would provide a better basis, with greater factual input, and greater input as to what the people want, than any plans prepared by politicians or even any central government agency could have.
So let me leave you with this suggestion, which I hope the Dean and the Faculty will take up, with the support of your new Vice-Chancellor. Focus on a socially productive outcome in your next cycle of research, one that will allow staff and students of the Faculty who are concerned citizens to work together coherently to make things better for the community in which you are situated. That is what the university of the 21st century should make a priority, development with precise knowledge, deeper understanding, and social sensitivity.
Author
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Author
-
There’s an ill more dangerous and pervasive than the Coronavirus that’s currently sweeping Sri Lanka. That is the fear to express one’s convictions. Across the public sector of the country in particular many persons holding high office are stringently regulating and controlling the voices of their consciences and this bodes ill for all and the country.
The corrupting impact of fear was discussed in this column a couple of weeks ago when dealing with the military coup in Myanmar. It stands to the enduring credit of ousted Myanmarese Head of Government Aung San Suu Kyi that she, perhaps for the first time in the history of modern political thought, singled out fear, and not power, as the principal cause of corruption within the individual; powerful or otherwise.
To be sure, power corrupts but the corrupting impact of fear is graver and more devastating. For instance, the fear in a person holding ministerial office or in a senior public sector official, that he would lose position and power as a result of speaking out his convictions and sincere beliefs on matters of the first importance, would lead to a country’s ills going unaddressed and uncorrected.
Besides, the individual concerned would be devaluing himself in the eyes of all irrevocably and revealing himself to be a person who would be willing to compromise his moral integrity for petty worldly gain or a ‘mess of pottage’. This happens all the while in Lankan public life. Some of those who have wielded and are wielding immense power in Sri Lanka leave very much to be desired from these standards.
It could be said that fear has prevented Sri Lanka from growing in every vital respect over the decades and has earned for itself the notoriety of being a directionless country.
All these ills and more are contained in the current controversy in Sri Lanka over the disposal of the bodies of Covid victims, for example. The Sri Lankan polity has no choice but to abide by scientific advice on this question. Since authorities of the standing of even the WHO have declared that the burial of the bodies of those dying of Covid could not prove to be injurious to the wider public, the Sri Lankan health authorities could go ahead and sanction the burying of the bodies concerned. What’s preventing the local authorities from taking this course since they claim to be on the side of science? Who or what are they fearing? This is the issue that’s crying out to be probed and answered.
Considering the need for absolute truthfulness and honesty on the part of all relevant persons and quarters in matters such as these, the latter have no choice but to resign from their positions if they are prevented from following the dictates of their consciences. If they are firmly convinced that burials could bring no harm, they are obliged to take up the position that burials should be allowed.
If any ‘higher authority’ is preventing them from allowing burials, our ministers and officials are conscience-bound to renounce their positions in protest, rather than behave compromisingly and engage in ‘double think’ and ‘double talk’. By adopting the latter course they are helping none but keeping the country in a state of chronic uncertainty, which is a handy recipe for social instabiliy and division.
In the Sri Lankan context, the failure on the part of the quarters that matter to follow scientific advice on the burials question could result in the aggravation of Islamophobia, or hatred of the practitioners of Islam, in the country. Sri Lanka could do without this latter phobia and hatred on account of its implications for national stability and development. The 30 year war against separatist forces was all about the prevention by military means of ‘nation-breaking’. The disastrous results for Sri Lanka from this war are continuing to weigh it down and are part of the international offensive against Sri Lanka in the UNHCR.
However, Islamophobia is an almost world wide phenomenon. It was greatly strengthened during Donald Trump’s presidential tenure in the US. While in office Trump resorted to the divisive ruling strategy of quite a few populist authoritarian rulers of the South. Essentially, the manoeuvre is to divide and rule by pandering to the racial prejudices of majority communities.
It has happened continually in Sri Lanka. In the initial post-independence years and for several decades after, it was a case of some populist politicians of the South whipping-up anti-Tamil sentiments. Some Tamil politicians did likewise in respect of the majority community. No doubt, both such quarters have done Sri Lanka immeasurable harm. By failing to follow scientific advice on the burial question and by not doing what is right, Sri Lanka’s current authorities are opening themselves to the charge that they are pandering to religious extremists among the majority community.
The murderous, destructive course of action adopted by some extremist sections among Muslim communities world wide, including of course Sri Lanka, has not earned the condemnation it deserves from moderate Muslims who make-up the preponderant majority in the Muslim community. It is up to moderate opinion in the latter collectivity to come out more strongly and persuasively against religious extremists in their midst. It will prove to have a cementing and unifying impact among communities.
It is not sufficiently appreciated by governments in the global South in particular that by voicing for religious and racial unity and by working consistently towards it, they would be strengthening democratic development, which is an essential condition for a country’s growth in all senses.
A ‘divided house’ is doomed to fall; this is the lesson of history. ‘National security’ cannot be had without human security and peaceful living among communities is central to the latter. There cannot be any ‘double talk’ or ‘politically correct’ opinions on this question. Truth and falsehood are the only valid categories of thought and speech.
Those in authority everywhere claiming to be democratic need to adopt a scientific outlook on this issue as well. Studies conducted on plural societies in South Asia, for example, reveal that the promotion of friendly, cordial ties among communities invariably brings about healing among estranged groups and produces social peace. This is the truth that is waiting to be acted upon.
Author
By Sanjeewa Jayaweera
It was on 3rd January 1972 that our family arrived in Karachi from Moscow. Our departure from Moscow had been delayed for a few weeks due to the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It ended on 16th December 1971. After that, international flights were not permitted for some time.
The contrast between Moscow and Karachi was unbelievable. First and foremost, Moscow’s temperature was near minus 40 degrees centigrade, while in Karachi, it was sunny and a warm 28 degrees centigrade. However, what struck us most was the extreme warmth with which the airport authorities greeted our family. As my father was a diplomat, we were quickly ushered to the airport’s VIP Lounge. We were in transit on our way to Rawalpindi, the airport serving the capital of Islamabad.
We quickly realized that the word “we are from Sri Lanka” opened all doors just as saying “open sesame” gained entry to Aladdin’s cave! The broad smile, extreme courtesy, and genuine warmth we received from the Pakistani people were unbelievable.
This was all to do with Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike’s decision to allow Pakistani aircraft to land in Colombo to refuel on the way to Dhaka in East Pakistan during the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It was a brave decision by Mrs Bandaranaike (Mrs B), and the successive governments and Sri Lanka people are still enjoying the fruits of it. Pakistan has been a steadfast and loyal supporter of our country. They have come to our assistance time and again in times of great need when many have turned their back on us. They have indeed been an “all-weather” friend of our country.
Getting back to 1972, I was an early beneficiary of Pakistani people’s love for Sri Lankans. I failed the entrance exam to gain entry to the only English medium school in Islamabad! However, when I met the Principal, along with my father, he said, “Sanjeewa, although you failed the entrance exam, I will this time make an exception as Sri Lankans are our dear friends.” After that, the joke around the family dinner table was that I owed my education in Pakistan to Mrs B!
At school, my brother and I were extended a warm welcome and always greeted “our good friends from Sri Lanka.” I felt when playing cricket for our college; our runs were cheered more loudly than of others.
One particular incident that I remember well was when the Embassy received a telex from the Foreign inistry. It requested that our High Commissioner seek an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Zulifikar Ali Bhutto (ZB), and convey a message from Mrs B. The message requested that an urgent shipment of rice be dispatched to Sri Lanka as there would be an imminent rice shortage. As the Ambassador was not in the station, the responsibility devolved on my father.
It usually takes about a week or more to get an audience with the Prime Minister (PM) of a foreign country due to their busy schedule. However, given the urgency, my father spoke to the Foreign Ministry’s Permanent Sectary, who fortunately was our neighbour and sought an urgent appointment. My father received a call from the PM’s secretary around 10 P.M asking him to come over to the PM’s residence. My father met ZB around midnight. ZB was about to retire to bed and, as such, was in his pyjamas and gown enjoying a cigar! He had greeted my father and had asked, “Mr Jayaweera, what can we do for great friend Madam Bandaranaike?. My father conveyed the message from Colombo and quietly mentioned that there would be riots in the country if there is no rice!
ZB had immediately got the Food Commissioner of Pakistan on the line and said, “I want a shipload of rice to be in Colombo within the next 72 hours!” The Food Commissioner reverted within a few minutes, saying that nothing was available and the last export shipment had left the port only a few hours ago to another country. ZB had instructed to turn the ship around and send it to Colombo. This despite protests from the Food Commissioner about terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit prohibiting non-delivery. Sri Lanka got its delivery of rice!
The next was the visit of Mrs B to Pakistan. On arrival in Rawalpindi airport, she was given a hero’s welcome, which Pakistan had previously only offered to President Gaddafi of Libya, who financially backed Pakistan with his oil money. That day, I missed school and accompanied my parents to the airport. On our way, we witnessed thousands of people had gathered by the roadside to welcome Mrs B.
When we walked to the airport’s tarmac, thousands of people were standing in temporary stands waving Sri Lanka and Pakistan flags and chanting “Sri Lanka Pakistan Zindabad.” The noise emanating from the crowd was as loud and passionate as the cheering that the Pakistani cricket team received during a test match. It was electric!
I believe she was only the second head of state given the privilege of addressing both assemblies of Parliament. The other being Gaddafi. There was genuine affection from Mrs B amongst the people of Pakistan.
I always remember the indefatigable efforts of Mr Abdul Haffez Kardar, a cabinet minister and the President of the Pakistan Cricket Board. From around 1973 onwards, he passionately championed Sri Lanka’s cause to be admitted as a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) and granted test status. Every year, he would propose at the ICC’s annual meeting, but England and Australia’s veto kept us out until 1981.
I always felt that our Cricket Board made a mistake by not inviting Pakistan to play our inaugural test match. We should have appreciated Mr Kardar and Pakistan’s efforts. In 1974 the Pakistan board invited our team for a tour involving three test matches and a few first-class games. Most of those who played in our first test match was part of that tour, and no doubt gained significant exposure playing against a highly talented Pakistani team.
Several Pakistani greats were part of the Pakistan and India team that played a match soon after the Central Bank bomb in Colombo to prove that it was safe to play cricket in Colombo. It was a magnificent gesture by both Pakistan and India. Our greatest cricket triumph was in Pakistan when we won the World Cup in 1996. I am sure the players and those who watched the match on TV will remember the passionate support our team received that night from the Pakistani crowd. It was like playing at home!
I also recall reading about how the Pakistani government air freighted several Multi Barrell artillery guns and ammunition to Sri Lanka when the A rmy camp in Jaffna was under severe threat from the LTTE. This was even more important than the shipload of rice that ZB sent. This was crucial as most other countries refused to sell arms to our country during the war.
Time and again, Pakistan has steadfastly supported our country’s cause at the UNHCR. No doubt this year, too, their diplomats will work tirelessly to assist our country.
We extend a warm welcome to Mr Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He is a truly inspirational individual who was undoubtedly an excellent cricketer. Since retirement from cricket, he has decided to get involved in politics, and after several years of patiently building up his support base, he won the last parliamentary elections. I hope that just as much as he galvanized Sri Lankan cricketers, his political journey would act as a catalyst for people like Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene to get involved in politics. Cricket has been called a “gentleman’s game.” Whilst politics is far from it!.
Author
Believe me, seeing certain videos, on social media, depicting action, on the dance floor, at some of these entertainment venues, got me wondering whether this Coronavirus pandemic is REAL!
To those having a good time, at these particular venues, and, I guess, the management, as well, what the world is experiencing now doesn’t seem to be their concerned.
Obviously, such irresponsible behaviour could create more problems for those who are battling to halt the spread of Covid-19, and the new viriant of Covid, in our part of the world.
The videos, on display, on social media, show certain venues, packed to capacity – with hardly anyone wearing a mask, and social distancing…only a dream..
How can one think of social distancing while gyrating, on a dance floor, that is over crowded!
If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Coronavirus makes its presence felt…at such venues.
And, then, what happens to the entertainment scene, and those involved in this field, especially the musicians? No work, whatsoever!
Lots of countries have closed nightclubs, and venues, where people gather, in order to curtail the spread of this deadly virus that has already claimed the lives of thousands.
Thailand did it and the country is still having lots of restrictions, where entertainment is concerned, and that is probably the reason why Thailand has been able to control the spread of the Coronavirus.
With a population of over 69 million, they have had (so far), a little over 25,000 cases, and 83 deaths, while we, with a population of around 21 million, have over 80,000 cases, and more than 450 deaths.
I’m not saying we should do away with entertainment – totally – but we need to follow a format, connected with the ‘new normal,’ where masks and social distancing are mandatory requirements at these venues. And, dancing, I believe, should be banned, at least temporarily, as one can’t maintain the required social distance, while on the dance floor, especially after drinks.
Police spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana keeps emphasising, on TV, radio, and in the newspapers, the need to adhere to the health regulations, now in force, and that those who fail to do so would be penalised.
He has also stated that plainclothes officers would move around to apprehend such offenders.
Perhaps, he should instruct his officers to pay surprise visits to some of these entertainment venues.
He would certainly have more than a bus load of offenders to be whisked off for PCR/Rapid Antigen tests!
I need to quote what Dr. H.T. Wickremasinghe said in his article, published in The Island of Tuesday, February 16th, 2021:
“…let me conclude, while emphasising the need to continue our general public health measures, such as wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding crowded gatherings, to reduce the risk of contact with an infected person.
“There is no science to beat common sense.”
But…do some of our folks have this thing called COMMON SENSE!
