University, per Adam Smith

Let us ask Adam Smith.

Yes, the same Adam Smith who is, with misunderstanding galore, the Grand Poobah of those who swear by neo-liberalism, did say, apparently with the authority of knowing Latin.

“...university ... indeed is the proper Latin name for any incorporation whatever.”

“...any incorporation whatever.” Ouch, no mention of education? No.

Am I quoting out of context, de rigueur when someone dead long ago is quoted? No. What I am going to say further, quoting Smith, would be ideologically hurtful to all those free-marketers.

“...policy of Europe, by not leaving things at perfect liberty, occasions other inequalities of much greater importance ...obstructing the free circulation of labour and stock, both from employment to employment and from place to place.”

“Incorporation” is what a business entity does to control that business – not a single shop or manufacturer, but what we now call an industry group, say the automobile sector (Smith mentions this in later pages). It is this mechanism of “incorporation” that creates “corporations”, enables the latter to enjoy “...the exclusive privileges of corporations” with regard to movement of labour and stock (capital?). The more one is economics-oriented, she would call this a way to erect a high-entry barrier. (No one told Trump about this kind of “WALL”, I suppose!)

All professional bodies, including those that tag an engineer a “Professional Engineer” with limited reach (in the US, being a PE in one state does not automatically entitle one to practice in another state). If one does want to avail an opportunity in another state, sorry, you have to become a “PE” in that state! This is, pure and simple, a manifestation of “Incorporation”. There may have been some easing of such licenses (‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’) between two or a group of states or perhaps among all the states, excluding certain territories, I am sure - Puerto Rico, anyone?

Remember, this is exactly what The “Washington Accord” did on a global scale – erecting high barriers for graduates from non-“Washington Accord” countries; India is now a member of this group after a long stint of observership (apprenticeship?), but Chile is still an onlooker.

The membership expansion of this group, hear this seriously, does not mean that engineering education in the late-entry countries have improved. No. It is just that the original set of countries, with their economies having shifted to the services sector (howsoever defined), are bereft of engineering talent. They had to enlarge the catchment area – bring in Srilanka, India and Pakistan too; let Bangladesh wait a while.

I have digressed. Apologies.

What does incorporation of a trade do? Let Smith answer this one: “...restrain(ing) the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise be disposed to enter into them.” Now, let us start talking in terms of “ease of doing business”, the pet complaint of the “reform” minded. Now, the free-marketers are smiling - Smith sits at their table.

But, does he, really?

“To have served an apprenticeship in town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom [freedom to practice a trade in the town]”

I want build up a scenario to see how this could have worked in the past. One town requires, say, seven years of apprenticeship whereas another town, not too far away, requires one of only 5 years. Who, the one apprenticed for seven years or the one apprenticed for only five years, will be a better tradesman/craftsman?

One cannot answer this question honestly. Yet, one thing is certain. The one who has undergone only five years of apprenticeship would earn a salary for two years more than the other.

I did my engineering graduation after toiling for 5 years, in which were included the joke of two summer “practical training”. I learned from my niece that it was still a joke (circa 2006), for a full semester! Now, it is four years (eight semesters) and out of which one whole semester goes for “internship”, the current word for apprenticeship / practical training...

So, not quite academically trained for seven semesters and shoehorned into a lab or manufacture, the engineering graduate is certified “fit for the job”, under the seal of a university (some of them with the curious “Deemed” appendage). No mention of education here, whatever maybe your take on the meaning of that word.

Now, to some of the facts – many graduates trained in a field of engineering are offered jobs, and, for reasons of paucity of offers from companies in their domain, for “coding”. Yes, that is the truth, exaggerated to the extent of, say, 20% to be generous. The “culprit companies” – they know who they are, and there is no need here to expose them – are happy with this. They had out-sourced training of new recruits to these universities, and the latter, the edupreneurs are no less happy about it.

Now, Adam Smith to start, and Adam Smith to finish:

“The university of smiths, the university of tailors etc., are expressions which we commonly meet with in the old charters of ancient towns.”

Last thought – we should now have “Gurukul of coders”, “Gurukul of masons”, “Gurukul of carpenters”, “Gurukul of income tax dodgers”, Gurukul of financial skullduggers” ... and do away with universities of all and every kind. Education must be fully vocationalized. Too reactionary? Suits the times.

Raghuram Ekambaram