Welcome to Making sense, a new offshoot from Duologue. This is where we try to delve deep on a topic and make sense of it with our guest.
If this has been forwarded to you. You could subscribe to our newsletter by clicking on subscribe button.
This is third interview1 of Making Sense and this time we have Sathish Raghuraman all the way from Hong Kong. He works for an MNC bank and enjoys listening to podcasts on tech, policy and India. He is also a newsletter writer for his company and man of many eclectic skills.
I know Sathish from over a year now. We worked together as co-organisers for Coronathon back when we were all gripping to terms with pandemic in March 2020. We have spoken to each other since then and I took up the chance to interview Sathish as I got to know more and more about him.
The topic for today’s post is “education”. The topic was a result of an hour long free wielding conversation trying to find a topic.
You will find some interesting nuggets of wisdom from a person who studied across 4 schooling curriculums.
Publisher’s note:
Questions are in bold .
This conversation happened over a course of few months where we went back and forth in our messaging platform.
Vivek(V) : When I reached out to you and asked about a topic you would like to shed some light on. You and me differed on what you would be best suited with your expertise. You were of the view of education and I was of the view of career building. To kick things off, why don’t you tell us “why you chose education as a topic?”
Sathish(S): I wanted to discuss education for several reasons. I have spent a really long time in schools and universities (19 years), 3 years longer than most people's experiences. I have studied in 4 different countries (India, Singapore, HK and China) and I am fortunate to say that I picked up the best qualities/opportunities offered by these systems.
I have been a private tutor in HK for 8 years now - and that's given me a ringside view into schools, parents and students. It has allowed me to understand what's great/detrimental to support kids' education outcomes.
I love teaching. I have been a debate coach, I have been a Teaching Assistant for an undergrad CS course. As a tutor, I have tutored over 10 students now. I think students are fascinating people. They have their own styles of learning - some are hardworking, some need a nudge, some need stories, some need logic, some just need me to listen. Unlike how I was taught in India, I disagree that there are "good students" and "bad students". I believe all students are passionate and like learning new stuff. However, I think a teacher's role is super critical, especially in understanding their students and catering their style to resonate with what works best for the students.
I admire so many teachers/Professors of mine - because they stepped away from their traditional roles, abandoned books and made education come alive. They were able to mould us, instill in us values of exploration, hard work, critical thinking and I think that's formed the foundation of my career successes. Many of them were almost performing artists! :)
Lastly, one of my dream multi-career roles would be - to be an Adjunct Professor teaching undergraduate students in a university part time. I think it's a joy to help people learn. I think education is a great sector to discover oneself - How do I work with someone who is non-aligned? How do I communicate with someone who has zero idea about what I m talking about? How do I motivate students? How do I support them? How do I respond to challenges? It is super rewarding to see my kids (not literally!) go from "I don't like Math" to "Aha! I get this - I am so smart". At some point in life, I want to be this super-cool fun Professor who is witty, makes learning fun, co-learns from students, allows students to challenge him and lets students build a natural rapport for subjects/whatever else they want to do.
(V): This answer clarifies why you would be an apt person to help us understand this space.
Moving on to our next question, having read across 3 varying cultures. How would you define the focus of education in each of these regions ? What were the big differences between each of them? Which among them would you recommend to younger folks?
S: This is a hard question as it tries to draw conclusions from different phases of education.
Focus of education
I think, all these societies have constraints on the amount of resources that they can devote to education (best schools, best universities, research funding), which means that the top 20% enjoy a deserving, yet disproportionate access to funding and thereby opportunities. This increases the competition from a very young age and kids are taught to compete and not fall behind. As a result, they are all places where parents sacrifice and invest in kids so they can get an edge. There is an increasing "competitive leisure" culture at play.
All these places have a big fascination with STEM subjects except Hong Kong which focuses more on Business, Law.
Big differences:
I don't think there are big differences. Some that strike me are:
Quality of education is better in Singapore as compared to China/India because it is a city-state and quality controls are enforceable
There is greater internationalization of education in Singapore > China > India.
There is greater competition at a lower age in China > India > Singapore.
Singapore does the best job in leveling the field between Professor/teacher and student. Hong Kong does a good job at this too. Mainland China and India are places where the word of the teacher cannot be questioned.
There is a greater mix of politics and education in China > India > Singapore.
In terms of teacher/Professor remuneration, Singapore would lead the way.
Singapore does a far better job at getting young kids to bond despite religious/racial boundaries.
What would I recommend
I would recommend a Singaporean model of education. My reasons being - it is a more palatable level of competition, they do a generally admirable job in building the right set of social values particularly around diversity. Always great to pay your teachers well, give respectable exit options through vocational training, etc. I think the Western influence on teaching styles is something laudable - where students debate, do group projects, do presentations/public speaking, have a good mix of sports, feel socially comfortable to challenge educational authority - I think that's great.
(V): You made an interesting point about Vocational Training. Could you expand a little on that? What do you mean by giving them an exit?
(S): Vocational training gives more emphasis on skills-led education which can directly be absorbed by the industry (Eg: Electricians, nurses, lab technicians, etc). I think, back in the 1990s, the SG government made a conscious decision to revive vocational education and massively invested in the branding, faculty, infrastructure and curriculum.
SG students sit for their GCE (General Cert of Education) exams at the age of 16-17 where the top 40% bracket go into Junior Colleges and Universities. The remaining 60% aren't left behind for want of scores, but can actually go to Polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education, where they pursue Diplomas or Certificate courses. Youth specialize in industry-relevant skills (Machine Technology, Automotive Engineering, Culinary Arts). When they graduate out of these institutes, they are well versed in a skill set that is valued by the industry, have been coached by faculty well-versed in current trends, and have industry exposure. This equips them to better find a job or go to a PolyTechnic or University and complete a formal program.
This creation of opportunities for the less academically excellent, nurturing of this path into something that's considered viable and equally respectable and organizing the economy such that their skills are utilized and they become active contributors to the economy is something that's great about Singapore vocational education system.
I asked about vocational over traditional forms of education because even to this day and age, education from a renowned college holds value in the eye of beholder. How do people opting for a vocation course accrue the same or similar status as the ones from the traditional field?
(S): There are some ways to think about this.
Respect and pride for one's work- I firmly believe all types of work are equally important and valuable. This is something the pandemic has illustrated really well. The success of our lives depends on a lot of other folks (not necessarily the traditionally glorified ones -engineers/lawyers/CAs) and their ability to do their job.
For example, without lab technicians, care workers, ambulance drivers, contact tracing workers - as a society, we would be far worse.
So, anyone who has graduated from a vocation course, should adopt a certain level of confidence that there are niche role they are best equipped to fill.
It's also important to see self-worth in terms of value created for others. By applying their education, these guys are making a living in a morally, legally, productive manner.
So keep your heads held high :)
Status as a function of the present and future than the past
There is plenty of scope for creativity and innovation across all fields.
And there are vast unmet needs in most sectors.
So, even though people may think vocational background start from 10 steps behind, there's immense potential out there for people to prove themselves and develop into something bigger than their degree (via startups, etc).
So, someone who wishes to upstatus, can benefit from thinking - how can I leverage what I know to solve a problem, build an organization, make a higher living?
Note that - in India - status is a function of wealth too. Everyone wants to be friend of the small-town vocational college person who is successful.Deeper expertise about your work and curiosity for the world -
People's respect and value for you automatically will go up when you develop lots of expertise in your field and you become the go-to guy for anything.
Forms of education are evolving -
The fact that someone missed on a fancy education lottery today shouldn't mean that this is a closed door in the future. Many countries offer an opportunity for Diploma graduates to go onto universities and get formal degrees. With the whole edtech revolution, I would expect this to become more accessible (subject to Internet access and time - which is a privilege I admit).
To give an analogy, imagine we are all boats at Uttarakhand and we want to reach the Bay of Bengal. Some of us may choose to sail over the Ganges (mainstream education), others might take the Yamuna (vocational education). Once we all reach the ocean, there really isn't much value in debating which journey we took.
Hopefully, the journey transformed us, made us better human beings and valuable, independent contributors to society.
If that's achieved, every college is a temple, every person trying to study is a Scholar.
That give us all some food for thought. Self respect is an inherent metric that we fail to acknowledge when it comes to education. Vocational training if it can shed its stigma can be an opportunity for many younger folks to progress without undergoing the normative route.
You mentioned about Ed-tech and I have a question with regards to the current crop of companies.
Most of the famous Ed-techs are delivery systems for outcome oriented tests. They have democratised it. But, they haven’t yet changed the message only the medium. How do you think they will evolve as things move towards more digital learning?
(S): Three drivers can potentially get us to "message change" sooner or later.
These are - Saturation of the edtech democratization phase, emergence of a creator economy, demand from companies/universities/high schools, etc.
Saturation of democratization phase - At some point, the BYJU's and Unacademy's of the world will reach out to Tier 2/Tier 3, either directly or through acquisitions. At which point, people are going to think of what next can we do to attract users? So, at the point, maybe, they will focus beyond geographic expansion, and start thinking about creative skills/life skills classes - art, debate, critical thinking, navigating an Internet world, negotiation - all of which are useful life-long, rather than cater to any specific examinations.
Emergence of a creator economy -One thing I love Substack, podcasts/Zoom classes is it creates new teachers, folks who are expert in different subjects and are embracing new, accessible technologies to reach out and build an audience. This is interesting because it expands the remit of traditional education and audience of education. For example: My Dad (who is 59) is part of this 4-year Zoom-based Vedanta course with a bunch of 20-something classmates.
So, given these platforms exist, it is not too long before someone (as a company/as an individual) starts offering classes to geographically spread out students on interesting topics that spark curiosity, rather than build exam takers.Demand from companies/education institutes- As competition increases in the real world, companies/schools start changing their selection criteria to focus more on employable hard skills and soft skills. As the world gets more complex, we are going to need students/professionals who can navigate ambiguity, work across cultures, demonstrate leadership, empathy and accountability. For example: US colleges requiring extracurriculars like debate, Model United Nations has sparked an industry of debate coaches/classes in China (a Communist/Confucian country with a limited history of dissent).
Once Indian companies (more likely!) and colleges start seeing themselves as less of a collection of "top exam takers" but more of "human capital that can create higher-order value", downstream agents (like parents/students) will start demanding better goals of education from traditional and ed-tech providers.
(V): That’s a good framework to asses the evolution of these companies as they progress. Especially the focus towards upstream and downstream trends that are likely to change as these companies succeed.
Moving on to next question, You are a tutor to young kids who look to replicate few of successes you had. What as a teacher / tutor/ educator that you think is still missing form the Ed-tech ecosystem? Is it more tools, innovative formats or innovative remuneration models?
(S): I am not an expert on this, but let me take an educated guess with this.
Independent reviewers and curation to tackle "paralysis of the many"- One of the best perks with traditional schooling is that choices were made for you. While this had its demerits, it simplified decision-making on what to study and how to study. The explosion of choices in a edtech, virtual world means it takes so much longer to decide "who's going to my teacher?" and "can I lock in my trust of their pedagogy?". So, in an online world, with 1000s of courses, teachers towards an ambiguous target (like UPSC, etc), students might have a difficult time making choices. So, if some trusted, expert netizens did some consolidation on "Towards X goal, you need to do Courses A, B, C" similar to how we have in the offline world, the world would be easier for students to navigate.
Commitment - There's a lot of great resources, but the commitment to look up and complete these resources is something questionable. While things like paid certifications, peer groups for accountability may work to an extent, there's still a need for effective nudges folks to complete things they sign up for. Maybe, real-world rewards (like job offers like Pesto) are things that will help people adopt ed-tech more.
On tools - This originates from my experiences as a private tutor ;) One thing I would love to have is a Duolingo-of-sorts for topics I teach - middle school Math/Science. I think Duolingo is great, because it combines gamification, learning, motivation in a nice way. So, if there was an open-source tool that continuously test/revise with students in a fun way, that would be great to reinforce learning and enable teachers to manage time better.
Complementing traditional education systems - (not sure if this is being done) Ed-tech doesn't have to play the either/or game with offline schooling. Offline schooling is still valuable for vast sections of India, which aren't tech savvy or just don't have access to technology. If ed-tech can provide ways for teachers to upgrade themselves or offer certifications which people can complete to start teaching other folks, that could be a way to enhance the whole education system.
This was a information dense and framework heavy interview on a topic that is hot in terms of innovation. The adoption of Ed-Tech companies provides us an opportunity to implement systems at massive scale and heading to the lessons that Sathish shared with us wouldn’t be a bad place to start. I thank Sathish once again for finding the time and making an effort to articulate the answers to our questions.
You can reach out to Sathish on twitter to take up any queries, feedback and suggestions on this topic.
: We have two previous interviews of Making sense series. Karan Patil and Aditi Sinha were our previous guests.