It is not a matter of science versus arts but a failing system

By Rose Wanjiku

Higher Education Minister William Ruto touched a raw nerve when he suggested that priority for funding at public universities should be given to science based courses.

The science and art courses ‘war’ is one many university students and graduates understand. It is not uncommon to hear art students complaining about being marginalised. One unpleasant joke that has persisted is the reference to BA degrees as Bachelors of Being Around.

That aside, reducing the debate on quality of education and investment priorities to a matter of science and art is to miss an opportunity for asking hard questions about our system.

The 8-4-4 system has been wrongly demonised for turning students to examination robots. It is the people we have entrusted the job on –– not the system –– who have failed. The country has been held hostage by politics that have stalled progress of the education system.

As a student who went through the system, 8-4-4 is not the problem.

The problem is the failure to keep abreast with change and amend the syllabi accordingly. With the system still stuck in a rut, it makes nonsense to have big visions for the future. Even Vision 2030 still looks at education –– trained human resource –– in a narrow spectrum, not as one of the most important drivers of development.

Therefore, the debate on what courses are more important than others is irrelevant. As a country, we seem keen to want to meet the goal to provide education for all, but have no other objectives for investing in learners.

For example, why did the Government come up with Free Primary Education? Is it to ensure when literacy levels research is done, the country can be said to be doing well?

A year or two back, there was a public debate after it emerged that some companies were refusing to employ graduates from local universities especially the public ones because they were ‘half backed’.

The employers claimed though most of the graduates had First Class degrees, they could not deliver. That issue led to debates on whether our education takes cognisance of the country’s needs.

Undeniably, science has driven many countries’ economies and we are keen to borrow the recipes for success. It would be all right for example to have a full fledged department on space science at a public university, but it would be unwise to do it at the expense of say agriculture. As a country, have we considered what we need in terms of human resource?

I have heard politicians talking for example about developing nuclear power as alternative sources of energy, but do we have the capacity? Do we really need nuclear energy sooner than we do other clean sources like wind and solar?

What is the rationale of talking about nuclear energy when we do not even have the human resource?

For a country investing so much in education and not getting equal returns for divergent reasons, science or art is missing the point.

The needs of the country are what should drive any investments in education, not feelings of prestige or pride.

The writer is a Sub Editor at The Standard