The Sunday Mail
Open Economy
The curse of paper graduates who do not contribute much to development
A few weeks ago I Iearnt of the phrase “incompetent intellectualism”. It describes how our students can go through an entire educational system, collect certificates and degrees, but all their acquired knowledge is resulting in little practical contribution to solving our nation’s problems. With all of their literacy, our academic products have little effect on matters of development. As the phrase suggests, their lack of input is credited to incompetence.
But then I think that to say our scholars are incompetent would be dismissive of much deeper factors, it is simply unfair.
To understand the lack of effect by scholars on development we must ask ourselves fundamental questions that demand self-reflection on our part as a country.
First, do we have systems in place that provide a transition, or bridge, between educational systems and real world practice?
With our economic struggle, jobs have been hard to come by for the experienced professional, imagine how it is for the recent graduate.
It would be ideal if there were still opportunities for internships.
It is only through practical engagement that academic theory can be meshed into the reality of society.
For instance, while a student from engineering school can be conceptually sound, input into development is less likely without exposure to our country’s specific engineering and construction industry.
To assess problems and be thoughtful of solutions, one has to be given insight into the field.
One of the few sectors that still does provide a bridge between academia and practical experience is the medical field.
The University of Zimbabwe’s College of Health Sciences, for example, keeps a close proximity between students and practical engagement with hospitals like Parirenyatwa.
Scholars from such a system are better prepared to know what is lacking in terms of our medical development and their knowledge is likely to be keyed in on our specific needs.
As for students who acquire tertiary education from abroad, they do not have professional assimilation with the local industry, how are they to know how to strike an adapted impact? Hence we tend to be stuck on westernisation as a model for modernisation.
It is because a lack of exposure to our unique needs leaves the only picture of development as that modelled after their environment of intellectual grooming.
Second, do we provide an environment that is attractive enough for recent scholars and experts to be involved in contributing to our national development?
Many astute citizens who could contribute considerably to our development are lured away by other more rewarding economies.
Brain drain does not say our intellectuals are incompetent; it says that they are not here. Last month Registrar-General Mr Tobaiwa Mudede opened a debate about population growth being key to development.
While increased birth rates is an option, we cannot overlook that more than 7 million Zimbabweans are contributing to the development of other countries as migrants. In many foreign financial hubs, there is a large presence of Zimbabweans. Likewise in science and technology fields.
Within our borders it seems common that intellectuals value jobs with foreign agencies more than they do with local enterprises.
Young men and women would rather work for UNICEF, which basically relies on our continued slow development as its model of existence, than to work with a local enterprise.
Even in the private sector, the few international subsidiaries that are here are still more lucrative than local enterprises.
While a nationalistic concern towards contribution to development is an ideal value, it would be self-deceiving to overlook its battle to overcome more pressing individualistic needs that we seem to be unable to offer our intellectual base.
Third, do we actually seek out to engage academic intellect as a means of development?
An example of a key issue of development is energy and power generation.
Have we consciously been inquisitive as to research into alternative, conservative, and renewable energy sources?
Any scientific scholar of the last generation has come across energy and power research. Are we consciously referring to what they know and extracting from the diligence of their research into this matter?
This applies to all industries. Are we open-minded to innovative perspectives and ideas?
Are we accommodating to new approaches of problem solving that may present themselves as technology or reforms?
If we do not, then the fault is not on our educational systems but rather it falls on us for neglecting intellectual contribution altogether.
I have barely just touched on the surface of a matter that is grossly simplified.
The intellectual paradox of knowledge and development cannot be explained by labelling incompetence on our intellects.
We have to make a more comprehensive inquiry to understand this matter.
Otherwise for us to simply narrow down the problem to incompetence would be an ironic incidence of incompetence on our own part.
