What is the classroom for?

Over the last decade, at least in the US, trust in higher education has dropped significantly. A decade ago, surveys showed that 57% Americans had a 'great deal of' or 'quite a lot of' trust in higher education. Now the same number has come down to about 36 per cent. It is likely that the number is going to decline further. Manifestations of this issue are seen not just in the political spheres of the right where institutions of higher education are viewed as places of indoctrination of left wing ideas, but also on the left where questions about the value of an exorbitant price tag of higher education, and issues around accessibility, are being asked regularly. The lack of trust plays out in public conversation and in the polling booth.

A year ago, Yale University created a committee of ten faculty members from a variety of academic disciplines to analyse the drivers of the decline in trust, and identify remedial measures. The final report was made public last week. The report identifies a series of measures that the university ought to take. It is available on the website of Yale University. While there is much to reflect on trust in higher education these days, particularly in the US (where the cost of a university degree has reached astronomical levels), there are broader questions that go beyond institutions in America, including issues around freedom of speech, dialogue in and outside the classroom, censorship and communication. But there is one topic in particular that kept coming up in the report that I found particularly interesting and one that is just as relevant to institutions in the US, as it is to those in Pakistan. That is around the role of technology, and what it means for the classroom, to be a central pillar of higher education.

Whether it is the issue of student distraction, loss of emphasis on original work and creativity, a rise in incidences of cheating, our unwillingness to hear opinions that challenge ours, immersing ourselves in bubbles of people who say things we want to hear, or losing essential skills of critical thinking, writing or learning from making mistakes – we must ask what is acceptable in the classroom and what is not?

In Pakistan, as in many other countries, people often talk about 21st century education, but do they somehow forget the education part of that promise, focusing only on the 21st century gadgets and not on education? What defines a better classroom – a place where there are wall to wall 'smart boards' or a place filled with original and smart conversations? Is classroom a mere platform where information flows from one side of the room to another, or is it a place to focus, learn, challenge and grow? The responsibility to think deeply about this lies not on students, who we think are addicted to technology, but on instructors and university administrators who are probably more addicted to technology and unwilling to recognise their responsibility. For the instructors and the administrators, there is a need to think deeply about what is the purpose of education, and whether a university is merely a place to get credentials for the job market.

The Yale report touches upon several of these issues and asks the university leadership to recognise that these new challenges require deep thinking and deliberate action. At one place, it says that "in our era of quick fixes and ever-faster information flows, colleges and universities may be the last places where it is possible to slow down, step back, and think systematically. We believe that these qualities are likely to become more important, not less, in the years ahead." The need to have people who can think systematically, reflect carefully and hear others is not limited to a particular society. Pick up the newspaper – any newspaper – and read the news. It becomes clear that the need is universal. If a classroom at a university cannot cultivate these set of values, what will?