MANAGEMENT AND PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

Einstein once remarked that ‘education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think’. A very important observation in the light of our present-day education system, especially in India. He also added that ‘education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school’. Our very own Rabindranath Tagore believed that ‘the highest education is that which does not merely give us information but makes our life in harmony with all existence’. He went on to set up Shanti Niketan which was based on this thought process. Vivekananda observed that ‘education is the manifestation of perfection present already in man, and divinity is the manifestation of the religion already in man’. On a more practical note, Aristotle observed that ‘education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity’. As they say in Sanskrit – "स्वदेशे पूज्यते राजा, विद्वान सर्वत्र पूज्यते", which means a king is honored in his country only, while one who is learned is honored throughout the world.

In order to understand this better, let us have a concise look at human history and the history of education – how we reached where we reached. Human beings have travelled a long way since they came out of the Paleolithic (old stone age) and the Neolithic (new stone age). The Neolithic age saw the beginning of the agriculture revolution which became the basis for setting up of modern civilizations. So, the modern civilization is estimated to have started from 5000 BCE (before common era). The advent of the consolidated empires and cultures as part of the progress of the civilization started around 3000 BCE. This is the time when the societies started becoming more modern and complex and developed the art of accounting and writing. The oldest civilizations and their major cities in the world were all formed around rivers. The oldest civilizations started in Mesopotamia (3000 BCE) and then in Egypt (3000 BCE). Mesopotamia was built around the fertile region between the Tigris and Euphrates River system and is comprised of modern-day Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Kuwait. Egypt was built around the river Nile. Similarly, the Harappa civilization (2500 BCE) developed in the Indus valley in India and the Chinese civilization (2200 BCE) developed in the Yangtze and the Yellow River system. It is estimated that writing developed in Mesopotamia around 3400 BCE, in Egypt around 3200 BCE, in China around 2000 BCE, and in Mesoamerica in 650 BCE. The earliest surviving written religious scriptures is the Pyramid Texts dating back to almost 2400 BCE.

From then on, in the next millennium, it was the rise of the Greek era. Mycenaean Greek civilization started to develop from 1600 BCE and ended by 1150 BCE. They were from the island of Creek, and they contributed remarkably to many fields like architecture, town planning etc. Simultaneously, the Vedic period in India, which laid the foundations of Hinduism, started around 1750 BCE, and ended in 600 BCE. Mesoamerica started developing around 1200 BCE and continued till 250 CE (common era, which is now the accepted form of Anno Domini or AD). These civilizations are mostly concentrated in present day Mexico, Central America, and Peru. This included civilizations like Olmecs, Maya, Chavin, and Moche. The sixth century BCE is a very important year for the human civilization. Lot of progress was made in the religious and philosophical spheres around the world. This century saw the rise of Chinese Confucianism and Buddhism as well as Jainism in India. Many scholars are of the opinion that even Zoroastrianism started in this century. Confucianism spread to Japan and Korea and Buddhism and Hinduism spread to many countries in the South and South-East of Asia. In the West also, starting with Socrates, Pluto and Aristotle made important contributions to the Greek philosophic thought processes in the 6th and the 5th centuries (BCE). These combined thoughts of the East and the West have influenced the entire thought processes of the world through the millenniums. These thought processes diffused through a large landmass of West Asia and Europe including Turkey and Egypt in the 4th Century BCE after the conquests of Alexander the Great. From then on is the story of growth of empires and civilizations across West and East. Agriculture and trade (including international trade) flourished and there was unprecedented growth in academics as well as in their economy. This period ranges from 500 BCE to 500 CE and is referred to as ‘classical antiquity’. The thought processes as well as the systems developed during this time forms the basis of modern human civilization. The Greek empire saw the development of the golden age known as the Hellenistic period in their history.

In India, the Maurya dynasty ruled from 322 to 185 BCE. The empire was built by Chandragupta Maurya and flourished under Ashoka the Great. From 3rd century CE to the 6th century CE, Northern India was ruled by the Gupta dynasty, and this is the golden era of Hinduism. This is because South India was also very stable during this period under the rule of the Dravidian kingdoms of Cheras, Cholas, and the Pandyas.

The Romans started developing in the 7th century BCE. Mediterranean played a very important role in empire building as well as economy guided by trade. The Romans were in control of the Mediterranean area by the first century CE. At that time the Roman empire extended from England to Mesopotamia. Then, again in 3rd century CE, the Roman empire was divided into the Eastern and the Western area usually under different emperors. The western wing fell to the Germans in 476 CE. The eastern wing with its capital in Constantinople went on for almost a thousand more years. This was known as the Byzantine empire and is generally considered as one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in the ancient world. The Byzantine empire, which was more oriented towards the Greeks rather than the Romans, was taken over by the Ottoman empire in 1453 CE.              

The period after the fall of the western roman empire is known as the post-classical era which began in 500 CE and ended in 1500 CE. In this era, the large empires broke down into smaller kingdoms. This era also marked the rise of Islamic culture resulting in the Islamic golden age. China also experienced the rules of Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, and early Ming dynasties. The advent of Islam started around the 7th century CE, and they started expanding from their base in Arab Peninsula. By 750 CE they had control over Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe. This was followed by the Islamic golden age in which there were huge progress in every aspect including science. The rest of the post-classical period was the story of taking over of the kingdoms by Barbarians, Mongols, and the Turks. In Europe, it was mostly the Vikings.  

The Middle Ages started from 1500 CE and this history is very well documented and known by everybody. This was the period of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. This period was marked by rapid progress in almost all walks of life and science played a major role in changing the lives of ordinary citizens as well. At the same time there were major wars between the two religions in the form of the crusade and then Napoleon also was constantly at war with the neighbouring countries. The early modern history was also that of revolutions which saw the rise of various nation-states including that of the democracies of USA and France. The later modern period was about the progress of Europe and their ambitions of dominating the world. The colonial rulers occupied a vast area of the world and completely changed the course of History. What we see today is more a result of what happened in the late modern age through foreign occupation on one side, and rapid improvements on the other side. Unfortunately, both India and China, were dominated by foreign powers and were unable to develop in the modern sense of the term. Africa and South America were also subjugated by the West European colonial powers. So, in a way, this period is the story of the rise of Europe and USA as world powers. The old-world including China and India were unable to progress and virtually remained in the classical antiquity era. The late modern era also saw the rise of Russia as a superpower and started dominating eastern Europe as well. However, Europe could not sustain this growth in the late modern era as the nations started fighting each other ending in the devastation of two consecutive world wars. The one thing that stands out among all these tumultuous events is that European society continued to grow and prosper even in circumstances when they were almost permanently at war. Scientific and technological developments as well as rapid progress in the arts went hand -in-hand with wars. This is a surprising and unexplained feature of the European society which India and China could not master. It seems that the world civilizations are at the crossroads again and one can only hope that no further destruction takes place anywhere in the world. It is a very good sign that the countries are now much more concerned about development of their people and the eradication of poverty and illiteracy than acquisition of wealth through domination of others. In the modern era also, wealth was concentrated in the hands of the merchants and the countries were not much concerned about the distribution of wealth. It is a welcome change that nations are now more focused on economic goals and not on accumulating wealth through control and domination of other cultures and societies.  

Having broadly seen the development of civilizations across the world, let us now try to get a bird’s eye-view of how education, over the years, has evolved in these cultures and societies. In tribal societies, formal education systems are absent. Instead, they pass on their culture from one generation to the next through the process of enculturation. This method is suitable for them as the primary objective of their education is citizenship – becoming a good member of the tribe. The noted anthropologist Margaret Mead called the process as empathy, identification, and imitation. The child participates in the everyday lives of their tribe, and this is how he learns. Sometimes, at the senior learning level, the child separates from the family and a senior community member takes charge of his education. Then the student is not restricted to the practicalities only. The child may be taught other subjects like culture, religion, history, and rituals etc.  

In ancient Egypt, education was controlled by priests who taught in formal schools. They taught subjects like humanities, science, medicine, mathematics, and geometry etc. Vocational subjects like engineering, architecture, and sculpture were also taught but outside the formal school structure. There were two types of schools – one for preparing as scribes and another for priests. The system was rigid with severe discipline. Drill and memorization were emphasised and thought processes outside the tradition was strictly discouraged. The Mesopotamian system was very similar to Egypt with students from the upper class taught for the position of scribes. The schools for priests were numerous and this demonstrated the superiority of priests in the intellectual life of the culture. In China, a complex education system was in place more than 3000 years ago. Chinese education was marked by its secular and moral character. Moral sensitivity and duty towards people and state were the primary objectives of the education system. There were formal schools and colleges which had adequate infrastructure. Students learned from bamboo books and morality and rituals were transmitted through word-of-mouth. Rote learning was discouraged, and education was viewed as the process of development of the individual from within. High degree of emphasis was placed on the family and respect for the elderly. The New World civilizations (pre-Columbian) of the Maya, Aztecs, and the Incas had highly developed educational systems for their priests and the nobility. The major objectives of the education system were that of cultural preservation, vocational training, moral and character training, and control of cultural deviation. In India, where religion was all pervading, study of Vedic Literature was a must for all children of the higher castes. Going and residing in the ‘ashrama’ from an early age was required for education. The nature of education imparted were dependent on the caste of the student and the nature of work he was supposed to do in the future. Those desirous of higher learning could join a university or participate in philosophical discussions in the “academy”. Catechism was followed in higher studies where the teacher would ask questions and the students would deliberate on that. The system became corrupted by 6th century BCE and then there was the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. They taught the students in monasteries and in simple common language. Then the Maurya dynasty changed the educational landscape. Large number of schools were set up and caste system was no longer prevalent. Taxila became a great centre of learning with famous professors heading their own schools. However, things went down after the death of the most celebrated ruler, Ashoka. Again, the era from 4th century CE to 8th century CE under the Gupta dynasty was very remarkable for India. Universities were set up and Nalanda became internationally famous. Many remarkable and extra-ordinary scholars were born during this period. Before the arrival of the Muslim invaders in 10th century CE, numerous “pathasalas’’ and “tols“ were established in present day Maharashtra and Bengal. Many donors came forward to run these institutions, and the kings also started patronising many of them. Girls were usually taught in their homes and there was a system of apprenticeship for vocational training.  

Ancient Hebrew teaching was also done by the family, and this remained in Jewish education as well. When the Jews settled down in Palestine in the 1st century BCE, they started preparing a professional class based on writing which was a very new system that time. It took a turn towards religion when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were subjugated around 5th/6th century BCE. Further down the line education was divided into three stages – namely, elementary, intermediate, and advanced. In spite of consecutive catastrophes, the Jews sustained their language, which was Hebrew. In Greece, the Mycenaean civilization (1400-1100 BCE) depended on their bureaucracy and their education was very similar to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Then the Greek Dark Age of obscurity came in from 11th century BCE to 8th century BCE. Then the Greeks resurfaced, and their education was very heavily dependent on Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad. The focus was then on military warfare. Then the works of Homer and Hesiod was spread across the entire area occupied by the Greeks. So, the nobility of the entire area became quite conversant with the fine arts of poetry, dancing etc. The objectives were to produce people who are good at military warfare, moral excellence, and educational cultivation as well. The reverence for Homer continued for a long time and the cult of the hero was created. This resulted in the concept of the Olympic games in 776 BCE. The Spartan culture was to subordinate the individual to the collective – commitment and dedication to the city-state was supreme as it was believed that the city-state is what made the citizens what they were – mankind. Sparta slowly became a military state, and this made them the most powerful state in the Greek kingdom. However, this is what also which brought them down. Athens was just the opposite. Military combat was only a sport. The civil life of culture was much more important. Athens moved towards democracy in 4th century BCE although the noble life was always preferred. Schools began to appear by the 5th century BCE. At the same time, students had to go through physical and military practice in the wrestling schools – quite like what Vivekananda had introduced in Kolkata two millenniums later. Then with the advent of the Sophists (adversaries of Socrates) the entire objectives turned to political action. This was the beginning of the art of logical argument, or dialectic, and the art of persuasive speaking, or rhetoric. Socrates was appalled by this development as he held the firm belief that virtue cannot be taught. According to him, money was a degrading substance, and the objective of life and education was not efficiency and power, but the disinterested search for the absolute (virtue). This meant knowledge and understanding. This comes very close to Vivekananda’s thinking as he also stressed on character building and search for knowledge.

Then Pluto arrived at the scene with his school – the Academy. Pluto believed that good government could come only from educated people and society where kings are philosophers and philosophers are kings. His approach to education revolved around dialectic which he believed establishes the truth. Pluto’s 15-year program of education prepared the students for top positions in the government. It was his belief that students who studied dialectics and mathematical reasoning can really understand the Good, the True, the Beautiful, and the Just. Isocrates, on the other hand, stressed more on literary aspects rather than geometry. This debate has gone on for generations to this day. Then came Aristotle. He said – ‘no one will doubt that the legislature should direct his attention above all to the education of youth’. His preference was for limited democracy, and he was particularly inclined towards logical structure and classification for systematization. Brittanica says – ‘’This systematization extended to a youth’s education. In his first phase, from birth to age seven, he was to be physically developed, learning how to endure hardship. From age seven to puberty his curriculum would include the fundamentals of gymnastics, music, reading, writing, and enumeration. During the next phase, from puberty to age 17, the student would be more concerned with exact knowledge, not only carrying on with music and mathematics but also exploring grammar, literature, and geography. Finally, in young manhood, only a few superior students would continue into higher education, developing encyclopaedic and intensely intellectual interests in the biological and physical sciences, ethics, and rhetoric, as well as philosophy. Aristotle’s school, the Lyceum, was thus much more empirical than Plato’s Academy’’.

The Roman education system was about assimilation of the Greek system with some minor changes. The subject of law became very important in the Roman era as it was much more technical than the Greeks. Otherwise, it was an adaptation of the Greek education system. Not much is known about the Roman education system before 7th century BCE. Later, they went along with the learnings from the Hellenistic period. However, getting classical education – which meant proper Greek education – was a mark of accomplishment in the Roman era. One must remember that Roman society was mostly composed of farmers and warriors. So, Homeric education slowly waned away but lot of schools were established. These school systems were later destroyed by the invaders from Central Asia. This education system, however, was continued by the Christians as they needed literate citizens who can interpret and understand the Bible – on which, their religion depended on. This was accelerated as the nobility of the Roman empire started to convert to Christianity around 4th century CE. The history of education from then on was that of the Byzantine empire, the Persian civilization and very importantly, the Islamic civilizations. After that the entire world education system was driven by the European countries – through the Middle Ages as well as the Renaissance and even up to the Modern period. The modern world is influenced heavily by the Western system. This Western system has its roots in the Greek education system which was influenced by the works of the three great philosophers – Socrates, Pluto, and Aristotle. This article will spend a little more time on the philosophies of education of these three philosophers. A recent article (2018) by Martin Mares of University College, London sheds a lot of light on this topic.

It is important to understand the backgrounds of these pathbreaking philosophers in order to understand their philosophies. Socrates came from a long line of traditional saints and so he never founded a school. He did not follow any structured way of teaching and learning. He roamed around Athens and would ask questions from his followers. The answers to these questions would form a part of his teachings. This information came from his student Plato. Socrates adopted this method as he believed that our soul is immortal and so is knowledge. So, he used to say that he does not teach. He only reminds the students of the knowledge that they already possess from earlier births. This is so close to the explanations of old Indian Vedic literature – as given by Vivekananda. It was the belief of Vivekananda that all these qualities of perfection and divinity is already present in man. It is our duty – the duty of the teachers and gurus – to rekindle that spirit in the minds of the students. Socrates employed the method called dialectic which was through questions, answers, and critical thinking. This is where Einstein comes close to Socrates. Einstein also believed the same thing when he talked about education’s purpose is to train the mind to think. It is astonishing to even think that great people like Socrates, Einstein, Vivekananda, and India’s Vedic knowledge – across completely different geographies and completely different time periods of world history – all point in the same direction. It may not be out of place to remember here that the Greek God Zeus ruled as the king of gods in Mount Olympus – very similar to the concept of Brahma in our country. Like us, the ancient Greek civilization and society was polytheistic. The thinking patterns of the best minds across the world were quite the same across geographies, and time periods as well. Socrates was a liberal and he was not in favour of any examinations or regulations. The subjects he focused on was justice, politics, and beauty, a way of life, and law. Socrates believed that the students could learn a lot by themselves by simply questioning and thinking of answers through critical thinking. He depended on the student’s willingness to join the debate. This is the way, he believed, to expand knowledge which in turn helps us to understand better the world around us. That is why Socrates famously said, “An unexamined life is not worth living for a living being”. We know of many highly accomplished people even in the modern world who are self-taught. The question is how we encourage more debates and discussions in our formal education system. In the business management schools there is a method of teaching with cases which are used to having discussions in the classrooms. In most schools this is not utilized properly. In other streams of formal education, there is prevalence of one-way teaching. In most streams of formal education, passing examinations with good marks is the sole motto. So, we are moving away further and further from the original thinking of Socrates and our very own Vedic teachings. Education in our schools and Institutions do not ignite our minds anymore. The child learns from the very beginning of his school days that he just has to pass some examinations before he is certified educated. This then is the ticket to a good life. It can be argued simultaneously that what Socrates says is impractical in todays’ world. An education system without any systematic structuring will only create chaos. There is no doubt that some methodical structuring is required. The doubts and questions are about the methodologies. Are we sure that the schooling or even the higher education processes as practiced in the west is the best and that copying their systems is necessary and sufficient for a third world education system? On a very surface level, it can be observed that our students are not taught to live in harmony with their surroundings and so we are just mass producing unhappy, dissatisfied, and dejected individuals whose only motivation and drive in life is self-interest. One is told that that even the engineering designs of major construction projects are copied in India. However, it is not that the views of Socrates were accepted without questioning even during that period. Pluto, a student of Socrates, deviated considerably from the viewpoint of Socrates. Aristotle, a student of Pluto, took those arguments further and instituted concepts and processes which became the corner stone of the modern western education system.

Pluto descended from a long line of aristocrats and his views were different from the liberal and free education system of Socrates. Plato was much more utilitarian in approach. He believed that the goal of education was not individual wisdom as believed by Socrates, nor was it the good life as articulated by Aristotle. The goal of education, as envisioned by Pluto, was the usefulness of the citizen to the city-state. He stressed not on the development of the individual in terms of gaining wisdom, but on becoming a good and useful citizen. His view mirrored what was happening in Indian society’s post-Vedic period – that of social stratification which is known as the infamous caste system in Indian society today. He also brought in the concept of virtues at that time. That means a soldier has to master the virtue of courage – at the same time education will help the soldier to balance between courage, cowardice, and recklessness or what we call foolhardiness. The virtues he preached were prudence, courage, temperance, and justice. According to him education is a must to remove ignorance from the minds of people, but examinations were an important part of his propositions. The person who clears all the examinations by the age of fifty was thought of as the ideal ruler. Higher education was not for everybody and those who failed in the examinations were allotted to different professions. The most important part of the proposition was that the education system has to be controlled by the state. Many aspects of this education system have been carried forward to this day. Aristotle, student of Pluto, picked up and continued from where Pluto left. He further modified and refined the ideas about what an education system should be and what should it deliver. The main issue to discuss, debate, and conclude is the purpose of education. The primary question that needs an answer is whether education should focus on the development of the individual only or should it have a larger purpose of utility and service to the society, culture, and nation. The challenge with the latter is who will define and how ‘utility and service’ would be defined. The objectives and goals of our societies change over a period of time. Also, in modern multi-party democracies the expectations and policies of different governments are different. So, there is always a danger of education system getting coloured by the belief system of the ruling political party – as happens in Communist countries or in dictatorships. The ideals of the modern education system are that it should be free – meaning, freedom of thought and action. The focus is the development of the critical thinking mind which looks for answers to the multitude of unsolved problems and questions that plague this world. This is applicable irrespective of whether the questions are of a higher order academic values or are a manifestation of the practical on-the-ground issues. The issue still remains – education for the sake of education or education with a purpose. Many modern societies are grappling with the conundrum that education is producing professionals who are supposed to be experts in their profession, but the vast majority has degrees which apparently does not have any value in the employment market. Are this vast majority then contributors to the society or are they a drag on society. The broad idea is that everybody and every little job contributes, but how do they add economic and other relevant moral and social values to society. So, the questions remain unsolved through millenniums and civilizations and education has been trying to adapt to the times as best as possible. A management degree is a ticket to high paying jobs, but do they really contribute to society. If yes, can it be in any way quantifiable? These management jobs, as it exists today, does not add anything to the moral and cultural values of our society. All it does is to add some economic value. Should that be considered as enough in today’s society or does it, in any way, fulfil the obligations of building the moral and cultural fibre of our society/nation. The Britishers build an education system for us with the express objective of producing clerks for their administration in India. They, naturally, did not bother about building our country in any way. India is following that same path for decades. Tagore experimented with Shanti Niketan with his firm belief of us living in harmony thus producing well rounded individuals who are apart from being good persons are also good citizens. Shanti Niketan has, over the years mostly in the past, produced some of the best minds in the world across different fields of work. Not only that – it has produced outstanding individuals in every walk of life. The schooling system of Ramakrishna Mission initiated by Vivekananda has also produced exemplary outcomes. Similar efforts must have been made in many other parts of the country. So, the answer to the conundrum is quite near us in our own homes. We could have easily built on that and should have changed our system long time back. Better late than never. The argument that these systems are dated and not very suitable for a modern education system does not hold much water. The creation of a system where India gets the best of both worlds by combining them and by taking a holistic view of the entire system is very much possible and executable. A large part of this initiative should come from the government and for the initial part at least, private parties should be kept out of the process. This work is beyond the capacities, mental as well as physical, of private parties in India. These are never ending debates, but Aristotle tried to produce some guidelines and his thinking gives us a certain sense of direction to the whole endeavor.  

Aristotle also believed that education is one of the pillars of the polis as only education can produce a ‘complete man’. According to him, this is the basic requirement for a prosperous society. However, there is a rider. Aristotle thinks that a student must first learn the philosophy of life. That means he must be very conversant with the ethics, politics, and morality or moral ideals of the society at that point in time. This is not very easy, and this is what is missing in our modern education system, at least in India and one believes, even in the western education system. This is in spite of the fact that Aristotle’s thoughts of education form the basis of the core belief system of the western education system. Aristotle believed that this method of learning will ensure more cooperation which results in a well-organized society where they become capable of working for the common good. In this way Aristotle answers a very pertinent question. According to him welfare or development of the individual Is the same as the welfare or the development of the society or polis. This is a very important viewpoint as then it clarifies the basic question of whether education is for the individual or for the usefulness and utility of the society. If education of the individual is the same as welfare of the society, then the modern state does not have any second thoughts on their investments in education. Highly educated Indians migrate to the foreign shores – is it a bane or a boon is in our discussions for a considerably long time. Now if we agree with Aristotle the society can find out ways and means of maximum welfare to the society by this highly educated individual. In this context one has to remember that the concept of city-state or that of nations separated by geographical boundaries will lose its importance over a period of time. Countries still depending on military power will become more and more backward and will drop out of reckoning in this new world where commonality of culture and purpose will define the progress of nations and their relationships. In the management education system in India, the state has taken an excellent step by building IIMs in each and every state. Now, the state should think about building a second tier of management institutes in each state. This is like the presence of NITs in addition to IITs in the engineering education system. This NIMs (National Institutes of Management) will produce MBAs which will cater to the industry specifically in India while many IIM pass-outs may concentrate in making their mark in world class organizations across the globe. They will be able to bring in investments to India while the NIM pass-outs will be able to run the Indian industries efficiently especially in the manufacturing sector. However, the need of the country now is to concentrate and strengthen the primary school system across India. Here the curriculum and the implementation of education as a primary compulsory activity have to be ensured. The normal issues plaguing the system needs to be addressed at the earliest. Almost of equal importance is the curriculum building of the children who needs to understand the socio-cultural and moral fibre of country. What is of more importance is to keep in mind that these children are going to run the country in future, and they will form the backbone of the socio-cultural and moral fibre of the country. This comes from the Aristotelian belief that citizens with high moral and ethical values only will result in a successful society. That is why, time and again, Vivekananda used to talk about ‘character-building’ as first priority. This should start from the child level only. Building curriculum for higher education then becomes much easier as information on this area is available freely all over the world. The rest is a matter of investing in and building proper educational infrastructure including good quality faculty, laboratories etc. Not everybody will make it to higher education and hence higher education should be reserved for the deserving meritorious with proper academic credentials. For this the entrance examinations will have to be uniform – CAT only for MBAs with different cut-offs for different level of institutes. However, there should be an overall cut-off. No student can do a MBA if they score below 50 percentile in CAT. Similarly, there should be an overall passing out examination. There should be an All-India test for all second year MBA students in order to get their degree. That means, any student who wants his degree has to qualify in the passing-out test for MBAs, which is an All-India test similar to CAT. This system can be extended to all other streams of study from stand-alone institutes to universities. This is because it is common knowledge today that except a few institutes and universities at the top, we are producing sub-standard professionals. The less we talk about studies in the general stream which produces so-called graduates, the better. The system that India is following now is close to what Socrates propagated. There is liberty and freedom, but corrupt minds have succeeded in totally abusing and misusing this system. We are leaving a lot to chance. This means it is the law of probability at work. If there are large number of students in the system, some of them will have the self-motivation to climb to the top of the educational hierarchy. Unfortunately, this does not work for a country. Individuals may succeed very well but the country does not benefit in the overall scheme of things. For that higher education has to be elitist in terms of merit and lot of scholarships and other support systems should be initiated to bring out merit from economically poor strata of the society. What the country needs to understand is that quality of education is totally dependent on the rigour and discipline of the system. Liberty in education is not the permission to do whatever you want and then get away with it. Strict rigorous systems with liberty and freedom for critical thinking and creativity and creation of harmony with the surrounding environment is the objective and recipe for success in higher education. Primary education is a different ball game. Primary education of a minimum standard should be made available to every child in the country. What is important is the content and method of this education system. Apart from making them literate, the idea is to train their minds in such a way that they become good citizens apart from becoming good individuals in the future. This is where moral ideals, ethics, and character building comes in. This will not happen through lectures and a punishing curriculum where loads of information are literally thrust down the throats of the little children. Developed world has moved away from this model long time back. There is a need to keep the academic curriculum light in the initial years. However, the student/child should be engaged more in sports and cultural activities in such a way that s/he is able to make the correct choices in the future. The child should get to learn according to his or her natural inclinations in a way that their full potential is realized by the time they grow up and are in a position to make their choices and decisions. This may sound too idealistic from our current position, but these are achievable objectives in a comparatively long period of time. We got to start – make a beginning, somewhere and sometime. India has the intellectual mind power to conceptualize such a system, but the real challenge is in implementation. The government schoolteacher must take the classes according to the schedule and some systems has to be in place to monitor that. The system has to ensure that the people actually do and deliver that they are supposed to. Incentives need to be worked out in a way such that the economically backward family does not feel that it is more lucrative to make the child work than to send him to school. The principle of carrot and stick has to be applied here. There is a cynical attitude prevalent in many parts of India that education is not rewarding in terms of money and hence not worth giving so much importance. The presence of a large number of unemployed graduates aggravates the situation. This is where the education system comes in. It is not only about growth and lack of jobs in our economy, but the phenomenon of producing unemployable graduates and even post-graduates. It is much better to produce much less graduates and instead channelise these youth to vocational courses of their choice. So, setting up of a string of vocational colleges across the country will be a better measure than to produce theoretically educated individuals who may not be suitable for the kind of jobs that the Indian industry needs. So, education and skilling should go hand in hand in a country where most workers are engaged in the unorganized sector. On top of that we have the huge problem of migrant labour who belongs nowhere and apparently nobody cares. These challenges may be discussed separately later on. For the time being, an overhaul of the Indian education system is definitely called for – just tweaking it and making cursory changes will not be sufficient. Ultimately, we need to follow the Aristotelian model of learning which is to produce the perfect unity of physical, intellectual, and moral education. Aristotle’s model aims to achieve and maintain the balance between body, mind, and soul which is a synthesis of theoretical, practical, and technical tasks. According to Aristotle, in order to maintain the perfect balance in education one should study dancing, physical exercise, rhetoric, natural sciences, and philosophy as well. He also stressed on the fact that learning has to take place not only through reason or understanding the causes, but also through habit. That means, for example, rhetoric must be learned a great deal through practice. Just reading or listening to lectures on rhetoric is just not enough. Plato was clear that learners who failed to pass the examinations should take up a profession like businessman or clergyman etc. Aristotle did not believe in this social stratification. He believed that the state should support individuals to study for as long as he wanted to as producing exceptional scholars is beneficial to the society. However, the condition is that this ‘outstanding’ individual should always act in favour of the community and state. Unlike Pluto, Aristotle’s underlying aim was to produce a harmonious society through education. So, he did not believe that it is the challenge or rivalry (jealousy in ancient Greece) that is pushing us forward. Aristotle believed in a harmonious society and so his purpose was the formation of a well-balanced group of people through diverse and colourful educational disciplines. Many experts believe and the author agrees that “this perfect unity of the three educational fields has a potential to produce versatile individuals, cultivate the sense of community and cooperation, and has the potential to create the harmonious society without any limitations imposed or social stratifications during the educational process”.  

In the modern era, western education system evolved from the Prussian education system. So, discussing aspects of that system may not be out of place. Today, it is generally acknowledged that USA has one of the best education systems in the entire world. There are of course many very reputed educational institutes around the world especially in Europe. However, USA is far ahead in the number of universities in the top 100 or even top 500 in the world. Their universities consistently dominate the top 10 in the world with universities like Harvard, Stanford, MIT and many others. This education system was borrowed from the Prussian education system with rich and pioneering industrialists like Carnegie rooting for the cause and actively supporting the spread of that education system in USA.

The foundations of the generic education system were laid down by the most loved and respected king of Germany (Prussia), Frederick the Great, in 1763. This decree was written by Hecker who had already in 1748 organized the first teacher’s seminary where the teachers were taught to cultivate mulberries for homespun silk. Prussia became the first country in the world to introduce tax-funded and generally compulsory primary education. Boys and girls had to study from the age of 5 to 13/14. The free schooling was municipality funded. Great Britain and France introduced compulsory education only in the 1880s. The entire Prussian education system was much discussed in many parts of the world and was further strengthened after the Napoleonic wars which Prussia lost in the beginning of the next century. This reforms in Prussia encouraged many other countries to carry out similar changes in their own system. These reforms are still considered as very important nation-building projects and are discussed for their consequences. The main architect of these reforms were the Humboldt brothers and so it is till now known as the Humboldtian educational ideal. The system brought in by Frederick the Great had free primary education for eight years. It was not only about basic technical education like reading and writing, but also included courses like music and religious teaching. In addition, they tried to impose a strict ethos of duty, sobriety, and discipline. Mathematics and calculus were not compulsory initially but could be included upon extra payment by the parents. There were other stages of education with the highest level known as ‘gymnasium’. This secondary school was more of a preparation for the university. The Prussian system very quickly succeeded in achieving compulsory attendance, specific training for teachers, national testing for all students (both male and female), a prescribed national curriculum for each grade, and mandatory kindergarten. Training of teachers was taken very seriously and was organized through seminaries. Prussia introduced state certification requirements for teachers, and this improved the quality of teaching considerably. All students desirous of entering the learned professions had to pass the final examination called Abitur. This is in place in Germany even today. By the 1830s, the Prussian education system has achieved the following: free primary schooling, at least for poor citizens; professional teachers trained in specialized colleges; a basic salary for teachers and recognition of teaching as a profession; an extended school year to better involve children of farmers; funding to build schools; supervision at national and classroom level to ensure quality instruction; curriculum inculcating a strong national identity, involvement of science and technology; secular instruction (but with religion as a topic included in the curriculum); In the 19th century, Germany was the world leader in prestigious education and Prussia was at the forefront of that movement. Public education was widely available and the gymnasium system for elite students was highly professionalized. The modern university system emerged from the 19th century German university system. The pioneering university in Germany at that time was Friedrich Wilhelm University – now named as Humboldt University of Berlin. This university pioneered the model of the research university with well-defined career tracks for professors. This system was very much admired and respected in other German states and they started adopting this system. Many other countries like USA, Japan etc. also started adopting this system. The Humboldtian education ideal strived for academic freedom and the education of both cosmopolitan-minded and loyal citizens from the earliest levels. The Prussian system was successful as traditionally Germans had a lot of respect and admiration for education which they called “Bildung”. This was because German citizens felt the drive to cultivate oneself from within. It was not that the introduction of the reforms was very easy. The reforms were mainly driven by the middle and upper-middle class of Prussia at that time. It faced a lot of resistance from the top as well as the bottom echelons of society. The upper class or the nobility feared that the spread of education among the peasants and workers may fuel unrest among them. At the same time, the poor people wanted their children to join the workforce as early as possible – as a financial help to run the household. So, the situations in different countries at different points in time are quite similar and so one can learn a lot from the experience of other countries. What helped the cause of the middle class was the loss of Prussia in the Napoleonic war in 1806. As a result of this loss, reformers and nationalists urged major reforms in the education system. Humboldt, the education minister at that time, took full advantage of the situation at that point in time. He ‘’promoted his idea of a generic education based on a neo humanist ideal of broad general knowledge, in full academic freedom without any determination or restriction by status, profession or wealth’’. Now we need to understand what academic freedom meant in Germany or Prussia at that time. Wikipedia has defined academic freedom in the following way: Academic freedom is a moral and legal concept expressing the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without fear of repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Humboldt’s efforts were the first white paper in education anywhere in the world and remains the underlying principle of the entire western education system to this day.  

Much before the concept of mass education system began to be taken for granted, state-oriented mass educational systems became an indispensable component of modern nation-states which were closely linked to nation building. This system came into effect not only in USA or Europe but in all other continents as well. However, in many countries, especially in the USA, people are still skeptical about the role of the government in education as it may, they think, allow the state to indoctrinate the students or at the very least will teach the students unwanted deference to the state or the authorities. This debate and skepticism will continue – but for a country like India, which is still quite low in the learning curve, education system must be state sponsored. In later day Germany also the education system remained a subject under the states and the federal government had little say in this matter. So, American universities with tremendous funding progressed much more than the German universities. Now the federal German government has started a scheme for creating excellence in universities and research centres – and the entire funding comes from the federal government. This model works really well provided the government does adequate funding.

Having gone through the evolution of education as it stands today, let us also have a look at the philosophy of education. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that the subject of education is very wide in its range as it encompasses a lot of other subject areas related to it. This subject of education is about conceptual clarity, and rigor of the arguments put forward whether in support or against. It has to be fair-minded also such that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account. At the end, the valuation of the educational aims and interventions must be informed and well-reasoned. It may be recalled here that Socrates and philosophers later on has always thought that education ideal is essentially that of reasoned enquiry. So, the students must learn to seek reason and then evaluate them in a cogent manner. They should be guided by their own evaluations in the matters of belief, action, and judgement. For some time, analytic philosophy of education or APE became very popular in the west and they were more concerned about education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination. Some other philosophers were also more interested in moral education, autonomy of education, limits of state-control in education, and religious teaching/instruction. So, the question of when does teaching become indoctrination and not instruction is still a matter of ongoing debate. Another very vexing issue in education is curriculum. Simple questions like why Biology should be taught in school, and if it has to be taught – at which grade is it to be introduced and what should be the content of the biology courses across the different levels - assume great significance, and the answers to these questions are not easy. There are many other related areas about curriculum and course content where arriving at sure-shot answers are very difficult. These questions are applicable to all levels of education including post-graduate as well as professional courses. According to APE, a person who has been educated (and not instructed or indoctrinated) has: (1) changed for the better; (2) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills and the development of understanding; and (3) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. While this was going on, many critics and observers pointed out that different people and different groups within the society has different ideas and concepts of education. The advantage as well as the challenge in education is that education can happen anywhere and is not restricted to institutions and universities alone. It happens at home, at the workplace, in clubs and religious places, and of course through solitary and individual efforts.          

If the question is what should be the aims and/or functions of education, the answers are numerous. The views on aims of education has ranged from production of knowledge and knowledgeable students to fostering of rationality and/ autonomy, to making the students civilized. It will be pertinent here to observe that unlike many other fields, the difference between theory and practice is minimal in most areas or fields of study in academics/education. This is partly because it is possible to crosscheck any new theory or interpretations through experiments within the education system. Still, some of the fundamental questions in education remains unsolved. For example, let us consider the case of autonomy. Now Aristotle was of the view that the good life should be pursued – which is also known as human flourishing. Now, the fundamental question is what the good life is. It is very difficult to define and the definitions themselves are dependent on many factors which include time. Then the next fundamental question is who will define the good life. Will the society, the state, or the institution or the faculty define the objectives and composition of the good life and what does human flourishing means in different periods of time. The other alternative is to leave the decision to the student themselves and then, there are as many definitions of the good life as there are students and learners. Then if it is decided that autonomy is a part of the good life or the human flourishing, the educational institutions should aim and strive to produce autonomous individuals. Kant had a different view. He believed producing autonomous individuals is an excellent idea, but it should not be used for the objective of human flourishing. Rather autonomous individuals as the objective itself emanates from the obligation of treating students with respect as individuals. Many others believe that autonomy should be fostered in the sense that the students can decide based on their fundamental interests. One is sure that there will be people who do not believe that autonomy should be the fundamental objective of an education system. Even if we assume for the time being that autonomy is indeed a fair objective, questions arise as to how you actually make individuals autonomous in terms of education at least. This will bring us to the concept of curriculum design which is of course, at any given point in time, very difficult to conceptualize. Related to curriculum design is the question of objectives and contents of the curriculum. History has proved that this is a very contentious element of the entire process. Many powerful groups will try to disseminate information or teach students and learners according to some fixed ideas that they have. This may be socio-political in nature, or it may serve as an instrument of control, or it may be aimed at social engineering. Sometimes the prevailing majority culture or the culture of the most powerful cultural groups in society may try to impose their viewpoints and opinions and perceptions or belief systems through the instructions which then cease to be true education. Scheffler argued that we must “surrender the idea of shaping or moulding the mind of the pupil. The function of education…is rather to liberate the mind, strengthen its critical powers, [and] inform it with knowledge and the capacity for independent inquiry”. That then gives some pointers to how an education system should function. The next question that pertains to and probably bothers everybody is whether the same curriculum should be used for everybody. The philosophy of the twentieth century is: “the best education for the best is the best education for all”, and this is still the same almost everywhere in the world. There are many management graduates who has succeeded very well in their professions. Still, sometimes, they ruminate that they have probably chosen a wrong profession – may be, they think, they should have had a tech career. Many engineer MBAs think at the end of their career that they would have enjoyed their jobs much more if they had pursued a career in engineering or in basic research. This is not an individual problem and a problem of wrong choice in career where the person himself is solely responsible. The problem is much deeper, and it starts right at the primary level where the children are forced to go through things which they do not like at the expense of things they are really interested in. It is normally an outcome of the modern position “one curriculum track for all”. This phenomenon is more in collective societies where parents impose their choices and wishes on the children and in general, large majority of people do not have an idea about what the professions or the future occupations and jobs in the field has to offer to the child when he grows up. This is also not an elitist problem or phenomenon as in the developing world, it is very difficult to change occupations or fields of work later in life. Critical thinking becomes possible, meaningful, and a habit only when the child is exposed to different possibilities, opportunities, and choices early on in life. Of course, the role of the parents and the teachers are also very important in this entire process. Curriculum, in the primary and secondary education level, also then plays an important role in shaping the child’s future and to a great extent, his development as a good contributing citizen once he grows up.

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls was published in 1971. One of the main issues in the book is “fair equality of opportunity”. That meant that children of privileged background should in no way be at a competitive advantage over students who are not from those privileged background or are poor in many senses of the term. One criticism of this idea is that it does not prevent the society from showering talented students with resources which is otherwise not available to the untalented students. However, the point is that untalented students from privileged backgrounds should not be given any better opportunity than the untalented students from poor backgrounds. In this context, one should remember that in a democratic society, equal liberty is much more important than equal opportunity. The most important fact about education that many societies are on the verge of forgetting is that education is both, a positional as well as a non-positional good. It is ludicrous to say that the sole purpose of education is to get jobs for the students. That is only a small part of the outcomes of education. The impact of education on the individual as well as the society comes in varied ways – some, measurable while most of the others are not measurable in quantitative terms. Things like artistic appreciation, self-knowledge, civic value etc. are definite outcomes of education. Collectively, the total effect of an educated society can be clearly seen when we compare developed nations with the developing ones. Even in a single country, different cultures and different societies have different levels of education (as different from literacy). The results of that are very visible across several dimensions of human development index, especially the efficacy of the overall cultural dimensions and the democratic rights of the citizens. Management education has been reduced to a positional good where only job skills matter. Unfortunately, other professional systems are also trying to follow them. In western developed countries, especially in the USA, the management education systems are trying hard to get out of this conundrum, while in India we are going more and more into that. The only solution is more state funding for the top institutes and universities in the short run. In the long run the curriculum has to, right from the primary level, be much more holistic in approach. Indian American Professors in USA often say they the difference between Indian and American students is that American students are much more holistic in their approach. This means a student good at academics does not restrict himself to studies only. They are good at sports, or cultural activities and everything else where he becomes a kind of an all-rounder. This helps the students to become a much more valuable citizen with a world view which is modern and progressive. These kinds of citizens are invaluable for a country like India – but no other country will make them for us. The philosophy of life needs to be much more broad based for our students where it is not only about making money or the so-called “giving back to society”, but an active participation in nation-building. Of course, nation building has several dimensions, and the student must first understand a few nuances of this concept before he makes major decisions in his life. These aspects may be dealt with later on as it may divert us from our current discussion. So, if we go back to the concept of fair equality of opportunity, there are alternative theories coming up and are being practiced. For example, the resources may be targeted more towards the deprived sections of the society – which is in use in India. However, while the theory may sound good, there are many issues related to the implementation of such ideals. It is a well-known fact that the objectives of the policy makers get distorted at the ground level implementation stage. Moreover, there is always the views of the taxpayers that need to be considered. The end result is that the resources need to be distributed in a way that the backward sections of the society also come up to a minimum threshold level in terms of opportunities – and resources has to be found to augment top level education to the world standards.                        

There are certain challenges in the epistemology of aims and functions of education which we need to understand. The first thing is to appreciate the differences in different epistemologies regarding the aim of education. One view is that the aim of education is truth - or knowledge, in the weak sense of the true belief. The other view is that the aim of education is critical thinking or rationality and rational thinking – or knowledge, in the strong sense of the term including justification. Still others think that intellectual virtue is the main aim of education. So, the debate goes on. The next issue facing the philosophy of education is that of trust. This means the question as to why students should believe or trust what the teachers say. Now, children believe what the teachers say at face value. That is because the children have not yet developed the capacity for critical scrutiny of what the teacher is telling them. However, grownups have the cognitive sophistication to assess the views of the teacher for plausibility, compare them with other opinions, assess the teachers’ proffered reasons, subject them to independent evaluation, etc. Many grown-ups also believe what the teachers or any other trusted resource tells them without going through any cognitive evaluation. So, the primary aim of education seems to be to develop critical thinking abilities among students. Connected with this is the phenomenon of indoctrination. The question is how indoctrination is different from teaching. The students cannot differentiate or critically evaluate the contents of an indoctrination and accepts it as a true belief. Since the contents of indoctrination cannot be supported with evidence, the students have to accept and believe as it is being transmitted. So, the difference between teaching and indoctrination is in the aims or intentions of the transmitter, the methods employed, and the contents delivered. We have to again come back to the question about children who has not yet developed the capacity for critical evaluation and also, to some extent, the ability of cognitive reasoning. So, everybody agrees that indoctrination is not good for society at all, but it cannot be eliminated completely as the definition of indoctrination is very wide. However, the phenomenon of indoctrination with the specific purpose of moulding the thinking of the recipients for a narrow purpose and which is not neutral by its very definition is to be avoided and is not at all teaching. Sometimes, what is done within teaching is also contradictory. The two/three important objectives of teaching are fostering belief as well as fostering open-mindedness and an appreciation of our fallibility. Now the question is if a learner or a student accepts and believes something, how is he at the same time going to be open minded about it. There is no point in the student trying to be open minded about the ‘sun rises in the east’. So, these are only some of the issues in education that are part of an ongoing debate and needs to be resolved epistemologically.

Research and theory pertaining to education and other similar areas have always been criticized at the two extreme ends: “too ivory-tower and theory-oriented” and “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”. According to John Dewey, the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving – and so many experts are coming around to the viewpoint that the theory versus practice dichotomy is not correct. In management, especially business management, theory mostly comes out of practice. The academics study varied organizations and their consumers, and, in the process, theories are formed. There are many intermediate steps, but the overall equation may be simplistically interpreted this way. However, in case of subjects related to basic or hard sciences, theory forms much before the practice or the application starts only after that. This holds good from the days of discovery of steam engines and electric bulbs to rocket science and nuclear science as well. So, the epistemology of all areas of education, especially higher education, is not the same and needs to be addressed differently.  

In the research front there are two groups which are continuing for quite some time now. This is about research methods. One of them is the quantitative/statistical approach and the other is the qualitative/ethnographic approach. This was commonly known as “the paradigm wars”. The quantitative research was more associated with ‘experiments’ and qualitative research with ‘cases’. The quantitative group believed that theirs was the best method which could explain the causal factors properly. They also thought that qualitative research lacked rigor. The qualitative researchers thought that the rival group was too “positivistic”. That meant that the rival group did not have a proper understanding of causation in human affairs. For example, the quantitative approach ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms and so on. So, ultimately, the ‘’mixed methods research” is getting popular. However, the state is more comfortable with quantitative methods as it thinks it can understand causal factors through this method which will help them in formulating more effective policies. So, in the western countries particularly in USA, Federal funding goes more to research which does Randomized Controlled Experiments or Field Trials (RFTs). This has emerged as the “gold standard” in recent years. One is not sure if it is equally applicable to social sciences as well. There is a lot of criticism of this as well and the debate is still on and looks like, it will be continuing for some more time to come.  

So, education has a very deep and long history and the evolution of education across the world has occurred in fits and starts. Some periods were remarkable in the quality and quantity of development while it has gone through some dark ages as well. However, there is no doubt that we have come a long way and the modern education systems has delivered what it was supposed to. The development of education in some areas like physics, engineering, and medicine has been fantastic. Post-modern education is looking forward to some very interesting developments in many areas and innovations in these areas will completely change human civilization – the way we live and work. Research is going to be at the forefront of inventions in many areas and that is what is going to drive the human race. However, one cannot be so upbeat about all areas of education. Management education, unfortunately, has not kept pace with developments in many other areas. One can argue that progress in social sciences is not easily visible or measurable like it is in the hard sciences, but the fact is that management education is heavily dependent on practice and the collaborations between industry and academia is well below the required levels. Just repeating and modifying research on extant knowledge, which perhaps very few read – is not going to shed any new light on theory and practice and is just perhaps meaningless. So, management education, especially research, has to look at new ways of cultivating research and try and find out new ways of guiding practice. It is only when the academia in business management takes the intellectual leadership of guiding business on the ground, will true collaboration work and the area will overall benefit. This is the time to think of changing the systems and their expected outcomes such that the students are also able to think critically, develop innovative products and processes, and then work along with academia to guide practice in a way that they satisfy the requirements and expectations of society at large.