Technology, education and inequality
Part four: Is university a luxury club?
In the previous part of this article we asked what providers can do to ensure access to learning is as is provided as much as possible, in response to rising global inequality. But do we need to think further outside the box — is university itself a place of privilege, meaning that any arguments about inequality are already loaded from the view of the ivory tower?
In today’s knowledge economy with data, knowledge and insights available at the click of a button, the traditional university — brick walls, strict entry criteria, a homogenous culture and self-perpetuating ecosystem — would never have been invented. This is not to say that traditional universities are no longer fit for purpose. But it does say that there is plenty of room for other, non-traditional learning providers to come to the fore, offer something different and enable those students who for financial, geographical, cultural or other reasons are unable to join the traditional university model.
Earlier articles have discussed how technology has enabled the rise of blended learning, bootcamps and nanodegrees. Learning and transformation is the important thing, not being part of an elitist club. ELU wants to contribute to the levelling of the playing field for people who have the abilities, talent and potential for university but are excluded (or feel they are excluded) by traditional suppliers.
Consider the German model of ‘dual’ Vocational Education and Training. In essence, this system offers apprenticeships in the workplace combined with a ‘vocational school’, offering classroom-based education. ‘Perhaps the most striking feature of this system, for those unfamiliar with it, is the engagement of businesses (and employers in general) in the conception and implementation of dual apprenticeships,’ says the Bertelsmann Stiftung report Cooperation in action: the dual vocational training system in Germany. In practice, this means that ‘co-operation between employers, vocational schools, chambers, governmental bodies and labour unions is at the heart.’ The dual system ‘seeks to provide the labour market with the skilled workforce it requires and to equip young apprentices with market-relevant skills for their future professional lives. Given that it is employers who are the ultimate users of skills, it is eminently sensible to involve them in both the conception and the implementation of dual training programmes.’
Recently in the news is Andela, a company that assesses tens of thousands of tech applicants from across Africa and then selects the top 1% of talent. As well as match-making high-achieving individuals with companies, the model is creating social prosperity too — enabling talent that might otherwise not have access to good jobs, to reach large corporates and build a successful career. The company’s innovative model has now been recognised by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who along with Priscilla Chan has shown confidence in Andela’s potential by investing $24 million in it.
There are several ways to define the non-traditional university, for students who want to achieve their potential but feel they won’t be accepted on the classical model.
· Rethink the role of academics — the learning experience is shaped to the ultimate workplace, not the campus.
· Equality becomes part of the university brand. Many classical models present themselves to the world as exclusive and best-in-class. Whilst the quality of the teaching should be peerless, the university itself should not be advertised as elitist.
· Help less privileged students — financially, socially and culturally.
· Be a connection hotspot. University is about learning, incubating talent, and facilitating growth. It is not a static, self-perpetuating ecosystem where responsibilities stop the moment the student graduates.
· Focus on the freelancer economy. Jobs are no longer for life. Help students thrive in the new flexible contract world.
· A lifelong learning approach. Continuous professional development is the key to success in this new world. Help students adopt this mentality, rather than sustaining the sense that learning stops when you graduate.
· Empower students to become entrepreneurs — build that philosophy as part of their armoury.
Technology is not going to solve inequality, because that can only be done by political will; regulation and taxation with voter support. In MIT Technology Review, David Rotman writes, ‘Since the 1950s, economics has been dominated by the idea — notably formulated by Simon Kuznets, a Harvard economist and Nobel laureate — that inequality diminishes as countries become more technologically developed and more people are able to take advantage of the resulting opportunities. Many of us suppose that our talents, skills, training, and acumen will allow us to prosper; it is what economists like to call “human capital.” ’ Quoted in the article, Thomas Piketty states dolefully that the hope that technology will lead to ‘the triumph of human capital over financial capital and real estate, capable managers over fat cat stockholders, and skill over nepotism’ is ‘largely illusory.’
No one would deny that there’s considerable work to be done. But let’s move away from blaming technology for inequality and see where the real perpetuating and widening of inequality lies — with political decision-making that protects the interests of a very small elite. Recent scandals such as the Panama Papers show how such elites are able to drain economic sources whilst avoiding contributing to the host countries where they pay staff as little as they can get away with. If that can be stopped, inequality will reduce as a consequence. Technology, meanwhile, rather than being scapegoated, should be embraced.
This article was first published at http://elu2016.wordpress.com/
Sources for all four parts of this article:
Kaushik Basu comments: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/is-technology-making-inequality-worse/
Colin Gordon comments: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-computer-did-it-technology-and-inequality
Daron Acemoglu on inequality: https://minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/interview-with-daron-acemoglu
Stats on tech and inequality:
MIT Technology review quotes (Brynjolfsson, Steve Jurvetson and Thomas Piketty): https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/
Further Brynjolfsson quotes: http://www.businessinsider.com/erik-brynjolfsson-2014-1?IR=T
Further Brynjolfsson: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
Legatum Prosperity Index: http://www.li.com/programmes/prosperity-index
Fundación Innovación Bankinter model: https://www.fundacionbankinter.org/ftf_j2016
Dual vocational system in Germany: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/cooperation-in-action-the-dual-vocational-training-system-in-germany/
World Bank and IMF growth figures and Ivan Rossignol material: