Quality of Human Resources to Upgrade For Higher Education
Dept of English
E.G.DtMOBILE NO: 8331095730
Mail id;[email protected]
A national commitment to investment in the ‘employability’ of present and future workers is understood by the modernizers to present a new social contract between the individual and the state, given that such investment is viewed as a condition for economic efficiency and social justice. However, their interpretation of how equity and efficiency are to be achieved in the global economy is politically impoverished. In part this because the question of equity has been subsumed within a debate about how to upgrade the overall quality of education and training systems based on an assumption that domestic inequalities of opportunity are largely irrelevant, if a nation can win a competitive advantage in the global knowledge wars, permitting all to compete for high –skilled, high-waged jobs.
The modernizers recognize that the wealth of nations depends upon upgrading the quality of human resources. They recognize that ways must be found to develop the full potential of a much larger proportion of the population than prevailed in the Fordist era. They point to the need to widen access to tertiary education and to create the institutional framework necessary to offer lifelong learning to all .They also recognize a need to improve overall educational standards.
Therefore, the old national competition for a livelihood, based on the principles of meritocratic competition, is far or less importance than that of how to upgrade the quality of the education system as a whole. Again we find the idea of a high-skill, high-wage, and magnet economy used to extract the political string from questions of social and educational inequalities.
The reality is that questions of social justice cannot be resolved through the operation of the global labour market. Indeed, if the creation of a post –Fordist economy depends on a general upgrading of the skills of the labour force, tackling the problem of domestic inequalities in income and opportunities has become more rather than less important with economic globalization. There are at least to related reasons for this. Firstly, the use of education and training institutions to rise technical standards for all does not resolve the question of ‘positional’ advantage. In other words, access to `elite schools, colleges, and universities, along with the credentials they bestow, remain a key factor in determining labour-market power. In addition, if our analysis of income inequalities is correct, labour-market power has, if anything becomes more important as a result of corporate restructuring and the decline of graduate careers. Therefore, the question of social justice will continue to depend on how individual nation states frame the competition for a livelihood.
Avoiding the positional problem by appeals to the need to raise educational standards for all in the global market not only fails to address this question, but also offers little insight into how the foundations for social solidarity-upon which the institutional expression of meritocratic competition rests-are to be rebuilt. Indeed, there focus on increasing the `employability` of workers reinforces a sense of the insecure nature of work at the end of the twentieth country. In encourages people to constantly watch they backs and to put their child first in the educational and labour –market jungle. Without an adequate foundation for material and social security, the emphasis on enhanced employability with a culture of competitive individualism becomes translated into the Hobbesian condition of ‘all against all’.
When education becomes a positional good and where the stake holders are forever increasing in terms of income, life-chances, and social status, power full individuals and groups will seek to maximize their resources to ensure that they have a stake in the game by whatever means. Therefore, how the state intervenes to regulate this competition of those trapped in lower socio-economic groups must be addressed, not only as a matter of economic efficiency but also for reasons of social justice in a post Fordist economy.
The relationship between equity and efficiency at the end of twentieth century does not only rest on the reassertion of meritocratic competition in education, but on recognition that the wealth of the nation’s human resources is inversely related to social inequalities, especially in income and Opportunities.
The impact of widening social inequalities is not restricted to children from ghetto or poor backgrounds, but also infects the social learning of the wealthier sections of the population. In a characteristically perceptive discussion, john Dewey noted that every expansive period of social history is marked by social trends which serve to “eliminate distance between peoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another”. At times where the opposite happens, the range of contacts, ideas, interests, and role-models is narrowed. The culture of privileged tends to become ‘sterile, to be turned back to feed on itself; their art becomes a showy display and artificial; their wealth luxurious; their knowledge over-specialized; their manners fastidious rather than humane’ (Dewey 1966:98).
Hence, the modernizer’s assumption that inequalities will narrow once there is proper investment in education and training fails to recognizing the role of the nation state must increasingly become one of balancing the internal competition for a livelihood with a strategy geared towards upgrading the quality of education. All through a reduction in relative equalities, moreover, a commitment to equality of opportunity is not only vital to the life-blood of a high skill economic strategy, but it provides a clear message to all sections of society that they are of equal worth and deserve genuine opportunities to fulfill their human potentials.
- Brown and Lauder “They are all our children ‘’, Prakash Book Depot Bareilly, Cambridge University press, Cambridge,1964 .
- Dewey ‘The idea of Feudal shackle’, Maxford Books, Delhi 2010.
- Bravreman ‘The floor of protective rights for workers’ 1995, New Delhi Antonio Gramesi used the term Fordism to describe a new system of mass production introduced by the American car manufacturer Henry Ford.