TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Is education fit for future?
Geopolitical rivalry will determine the future of resources allocated to education, research and development and technology.
Change Size
Options: While online school is an another option to reduce COVID-19 clusters, some parents are facing the challenges of online school. (Kompas.com/Nirmala Maulana Achmad) (Kompas.com/Nirmala Maulana Achmad)
E
ducation is the most controversial of subjects. Parents quarrel about the quality of education for their kids, just as societies are deeply divided on education as it defines the future. Is the current education system fit for purpose to cope with a more complex, fractious future, fraught with possible war?
According to Stanford University’s Guide to Reimagining Higher Education, 96 percent of university chief academic officers think that their students are ready for the workforce, where only 11 percent of business leaders feel the same. As the population and work force grew, the gap between skills demanded by employers and education received by the school leavers is widening, so much so that many are finding it hard to get the jobs that they want.
As technology accelerates in speed and complexity, the quality of education becomes more important than ever. Is it for the elites or the masses?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognized that the aim of education is for knowledge, but there was always a different view as to have knowledge for the individual or whether education must prepare the individual to fulfill the needs of society. Feudal systems hardly paid attention to the masses, whereas most ancient institutes of higher learning were for elites, either for religious orders or in Chinese history, to prepare for civil or military service, but blended with self-cultivation.
Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has just produced a fascinating study on the implications of higher education for national security. Covering the period 1950-2040, the study acknowledged that the United States attained uncontested power status, because she had the highest levels of educational attainment and manpower.
In 1950, the US, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, had 45 percent share of world population aged 25-64 with completed tertiary education. By comparison, India had 5 percent and China about half that. By 2020, the US’s share had dropped to roughly 16 percent, whereas China was catching up, whilst India had just under 10 percent. By 2040, depending on different estimates, China may double her share to between 15-20 percent, whereas India would have overtaken US with 12 percent leaving the US third with 10 percent.
It is a truism that education matters for economic growth and power. Every additional year of schooling for children is estimated to add 9-10 percent increase in per capita output. If you add in “business climate” with improvements in education, health and urbanization, these factors explain five-sixths of differences in output per capita across countries.
Under the liberal world order, America encouraged the spread of global education, so much so that the global adult illiteracy (those without any schooling) fell from 45 percent in 1950 to only 13 percent by 2020.
This worldwide expansion in education was good for the world, but it also reduced the comparative advantage of the education and technology front-runners, particularly the US. The AEI study reported that the share of global adult population with at least some tertiary education increased from under 2 percent in 1950 to 16 percent today and would approach 22 percent by 2040.
In 1950, eight of the top 10 largest national highly educated working age labor pool were in advanced countries. By 2020, their share was half. By 2040, this is likely to be only three out of 10. In essence, India and China would take the lead in total highly trained manpower, especially in science and technology, with the US “an increasingly distant third place contestant.”
The AEI study illustrates why increasingly American universities will be more selective in their future foreign student intake, especially in science and technology which may have impact on national security matters. As late as 2017, Massachusetts Institute of Technology manifested global ambitions in its strategic plan, “Learning about the world, helping to solve the world’s greatest problems, and working with international collaborators who share our curiosity and commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry.”
That global vision may be cut back in light of the growing geopolitical split into military blocs. Western universities may no longer be encouraged to train foreign students into areas where they can return to compete in key technologies.
In short, geopolitical rivalry will determine the future of resources allocated to education, research and development and technology. No country can afford liberal education in which every student is encouraged to do what he or she wants to do.
Students today want to be more engaged in the big social issues, such as climate change and social inequality, but at the same time, expects more experiential immersion into careers that are more self-fulfilling. Instead, institutes of higher learning are forced by economics to provide more short-term courses to upgrade worker skills, using new teaching methods and tools, especially artificial intelligence, virtual reality etc.
At the national level, governments will push universities into more research and development and innovation to gain national competitiveness, including R&D on defense and national security sectors.
This means that the education pipeline or supply chain will also be bifurcated like global supply chains that are being disrupted and split by geopolitics. The conversation on what should go into the curriculum for education is only just beginning. Much of this is to do with funding. As higher levels of education are more expensive, especially in the high technology area, whilst governments budgets are constrained, universities will turn to private sources of funding. The more society polarizes, the more likely that such funding would turn towards entrenchment of vested interests, rather than solutions to structural problems.
Education is controversial precisely because it is either a unifying social force or a divisive one.
One thing is clear. Whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more. The Soviet Union had the second largest share of educated manpower during the Cold War, but it did not save it from collapse. Will our future education system provide leaders who are able to cope with the complexities of tomorrow?
As the poet TS Eliot asked in his poem The Rock in 1934, “where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” That question is being asked not just in universities, but by society as a whole.
***
The writer is a columnist for Asia News Network.
