Developing 'necessary' skills

The debate over vocational vs university education highlights elitism, access issues, and job market realities.

Listen to article

The debate about how higher education should be viewed for large sectors of society is not new. There are longstanding discussions about who should go to a university, versus attending a vocational centre or a technical training institute. Underlying these debates is the age-old question - is higher education a right or a privilege, and who should pay for university education? This question has surfaced once again in some sectors with the rise of AI and the job opportunities it may provide. While the debate is important in all societies, the question is particularly relevant for countries like ours where finding meaningful employment is challenging for graduates, economic outlook remains uncertain at best, and inflation continues to impact households across the country.

Without denying the importance of the debate, and recognising that the higher education sector is nowhere on the priority list of the government (and has not been one for successive governments of the recent past, regardless of the party in power), there are two fundamental issues that we ought to think about.

First, the issue of vocational training cannot simply be following the most recent global trend. AI may be the flavour of the day, but we are making assumptions about job creation here based on projections and untested models, and we may be disconnected with actual needs on the ground. Realities about our infrastructure (or lack thereof), unreliability of internet, limited access to computers, etc need to be considered seriously. Vocational training centres cannot operate in a vacuum or in the absence of an enabling environment.

The second - and perhaps more important - issue is about elitism. This elitism here is two-fold. One, there is something demeaning in our own imagination about vocational centres and technical training places. In our mind this is a place where people who cannot make it go and learn a craft. Two, we should ask who gets to decide whether someone should go to a four-year university or a vocational institute? It is not to say that there is anything wrong with going to a technical training institute for those who choose to go there, but we cannot deny that there is an underlying elitist assumption among many of those who argue for vocational training for the masses. The assumption is that it is the poor and underprivileged who should go to these places because they are either not good enough to do well in universities, or that the best thing for them is to learn a skill or a craft and quickly start to earn for their families. The thinking goes further: university is expensive, and since we have no way to support the poor's right to education, it is best for them if they find a quick path to employment. Rarely would we hear that the privileged and the powerful should send their sons and daughters to a quick one-year course at a vocational centre. We should ask ourselves who is the best judge to tell someone that they should have a ceiling to their dreams because pragmatic thinking demands that a significant portion of the poor kids should not dream of entering a university.

Some of the most serious problems of our time require deep thinking, new ideas and novel approaches. We need philosophers and historians, mathematicians and physicists, engineers, doctors, teachers and writers. These thinkers and professionals cannot simply be from those who were born with the right credentials of power and privilege. Of course, we also need those who have specialised technical skills, and a healthy and functional society needs everyone. We also need to think about paths that provide pathways for continuing education for those who may not have had the opportunity before. But we should be really troubled when it is the "senior analysts" who tell what the "average person" should study. These practices help no one, and only reinforce the social status quo at the root of an unjust society.