By Takura Zhangazha*
When we
went to university in the late 1990s, it was a clear societal status symbol. In at least
two respects. Firstly, what you were studying
and its implications for your professional/material future. Secondly, the
unique recognition it accorded you, not only because it gave you some sort of ‘payout/student
grant income’. But also accorded you a specific
societal status of being a chosen one because of your hard-won/studious or
natural intelligence.
It was also
a bottle-neck education system that was based on high school academic merit.
Via an internationalized examination system as run by the colonial Cambridge education
system. Whereas in the 1980s it was
easier to get into the only university, the University of Zimbabwe, with
minimal Advanced Level (A level) qualifications and in order to do a particular
degree of your choice, in the 1990s it had become much harder to qualify.
Our tertiary
education qualification system had become highly competitive particularly for university
degrees. And it had become increasingly hierarchical. The more points at A Level one had, the more
likely they would acquire a more ‘lucrative’ degree programme at the University
of Zimbabwe. And these were considered
to be in Medicine, Engineering, Law, Accounting and Business Studies. In some instances,
Economics or Psychology degrees would feature due to anticipation of the
expansion the private sector in the age of the Economic Structural Adjustment
Programme (ESAP) as a narrative that was more popular at the time.
The frowned
upon degree programmes, even after qualifying were those that were in the
fields of Political Science/Public Administration, the Arts, Sociology, Anthropology
and Religious studies/Theology. These
degree programmes were considered the ‘no material future’ sort of academic
pursuits. They were neither fashionable in
relation to the pro-private capital narratives of the time neither were they
considered to be nationally important. A
point that I will return to later as being an ongoing national mistake.
The preferred
degrees were ones that fitted the economic system in relation to not only
prestige but also material income. It
was always assumed within the post-settler economy that if one became or
example a medical doctor, engineer, lawyer they were destined to be part of a particular
elite section of society. By way of class and lifestyle.
What was
not noticed by the state/government at that time (1990s) was that such a class system
was failing due to increased rural-urban migration based on desires for recognition
of urbanized material progress via education.
And this
did not end at university level. The
multiple polytechnic and teacher training colleges remained harbingers of this
same stated link between academic progress and recognition of material success. From journalism, marketing, teacher training,
journeyman, fitter/turner through to nursing, motor mechanics or agricultural diplomas.
The particular
catch became the fact that in our national tertiary education policies, assumptions
of superiority of the university degree did not understand numerical realities
for the future.. The assumed top notch
degree programmes were always going to be overwhelmed by those that were considered
inferior. Be they degrees or national diplomas.
And this is
where the key issue re-emerges. Our bottle
neck education system of the 1990s through to the early 2000s until after Mugabe
expanded our childrens’ access to university education created a compounded national
consciousness that appears to have run away from us.
As at the height
of ESAP, we scrambled for degrees that suited the economic times. And even post graduate ones for that
matter. Except that the economic times
were not defined by us. But the global
political economy. The more degree and
other programmes that we had access to, the more we have frowned upon the
social science ones in the vain hope of creating a Silicon genius.
What we
have however recognized is effort and continually so. The one that started with a diploma, now has
a PhD or a Master’s degree as it is linked to polarized political recognition. We
even had a former first lady that made it appear as though political power and
education reflected that trajectory of individual success. Materially and politically.
What is
however important in the contemporary is the fact that tertiary or as we refer
to it, higher education, remains important for every young Zimbabwean. No matter the course, diploma or the degree. Though
it now comes at greater cost to parents or guardians.
Whereas
before we would assume specific degrees were a one way course to material
success, we now need to recognize the fact that every degree or diploma
establishes a base for a specific individual or in rare cases, collective
consciousness. And that in a majority of
cases it is the diploma that matters more than the degree. An issue that we failed in our state post-colonial
elitism to understand in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Even if cdes that initially
acquired the diploma now have the degree(s).
All of this
however raises an even more important question in the contemporary. Should we repeat the mistakes of a past where
we assumed it was the natural sciences that mattered more in a globalized political
economy? Should we once again relegate
the social and artistic sciences in order to fit in? From my personal perspective, the answer is a
basic ‘no’. Our social sciences remain
integral to our being. Be they in
history, culture, journalism, marketing, teaching. political science, sociology,
anthropology or religion. And across varying levels of qualification. Be they certificates, diplomas, degrees, Masters
degrees or PhDs’. That is where we are
most human and even equitably competitive and counter-hegemonic (Netflix and
chill anyone?)
Now let me
return to our national higher/tertiary education mistake. We assume that our social sciences are of
limited consequence in the global political economy scheme of things. Yet those we envy insist on operas, music shows,
museums (where some of our ancestors continue to be exhibited) and narratives
that reinforce their dominant hegemonic narrative. The only thing to be said in conclusion is
that where we ignore our own local social sciences and arts, we become a very
shallow people.
*Takura
Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment