Dear Editor,
We are surprised at Mr Sherwood Lowe’s comments advocating a different system for lecturers and researchers at the University of Guyana.
Others have long realized that UG has become mainly a teaching institution with very little or no research. Many who have written extensively on this subject are in agreement that no serious research is done at UG. Mr Sherwood Lowe is already living with the reality that UG has long become a teaching institution, all he has to do is talk to his colleagues and look around. In addition, he has ignored the views of ably qualified Guyanese and non-Guyanese nationals. Unfortunately, these observations and views have eluded Mr Lowe. A brief review of UG shows that even the bare minimum research facilities and funds are not provided. Physics, Chemistry and Engineering (under Mr Sankies) were bare bones. Mr Lowe therefore has nothing no complain about, and does not seem to realize that the situation he is advocating is already in place.
This postulation of focusing on teaching did arise several times (2001-03) at UG and there were different reasons for this by the then deputy Vice-Chancellor on the Academic Board.
If Mr Lowe as he claims truly wants “problem-solvers, creative and critical thinkers, and agents of positive change” then the only method is to present students with everyday problems to go from theory (which is mainly teaching) to practice (which is only research). Ably qualified university personnel have consistently advocated that university research will produce problem-solvers, creative, critical thinkers and independent minds that can foster development.
Mr Lowe must know by now that a teaching institution is a high school, where theory is learned and practical applications are very rarely pursued; whereas, an institution of higher learning is where practice is highlighted to give credence to theory and groom students to solve current problems with their analytical skills of theory and experience from practice. The question must be posed to Mr Lowe, do we want to make UG into a glorified high school?
I might add a university with research capability is the difference between a university capable of involving the next generation of Guyanese in national development, rather than the current status which has only fostered an under-development process and migration (human resources) to foreign shores which provide economic hope.
Mr Lowe’s reasoning to relegate UG to a teaching institution is in line with the views of the current PPP government. This same government has consistently and dictatorially imposed people in the administration at UG. Currently, we have an imposed Pro-Chancellor attached to the Office of the President whose main purpose appears to be to advocate and impose the views that would cause the government the least problems. In the process this approach is hindering personal and national development. Mr Lowe’s views are in line with those of the current PPP government.
Mr Lowe should know by now the PPP vision is to confiscate the hope and national development interest and aspirations of the next generation. It is geared to fully impose the type of control at the only university in the country as seen in countries such as Cuba and Egypt. Dictatorial governments know that critical thinkers usually come from university students and personnel.
We are all well aware of the constraints and the working of a university. The government should not be sacrificing the hopes of the next generation because of some obstructed view presented by the dictatorial mindset of some in the current PPP.
Teaching, researching and development are inter-related. Mr Lowe and others of his view should come to the conclusion that this is the reason why Guyana has not progressed. We must ask why our bright young people leave and never return. They leave because we have no research, no development and therefore no progress. How long will we dither why our children and country suffer?
Yours faithfully,
Anand Daljeet
Mr Anand Daljeet’s letter started badly and finished very badly when he claimed saying that post-grads emigrate because of research institutions abroad.
Mr Daljeet seems blisfully unaware that UG is training graduates so they can emigrate to EARN MORE MONEY ABROAD. Economics Mr Daljeet. ECONOMICS!
No! Mr Lowe’s leter is far more well balanced and is better than anything we have seen in this forum during the last few days.
UG should be proud to have Mr Lowe on campus.
Well to say it is economics alone that drives 85% of the institutions graduates abroad is a bit of a stretch don’t you think Satish?
I am sure some of these folks are emigrating for research opportunities as well as to join their extended families who have also fled under the PPP and PHENC’s dictatorships.
Re: “Mr Daljeet seems blisfully unaware that UG is training graduates so they can emigrate to EARN MORE MONEY ABROAD. Economics Mr Daljeet. ECONOMICS!…”
It is quite simple – Use Them (us) and Pay Them (us) Well; or, Lose Them (us)!
Hint, Hint, Hint….. Try replacing them (us) wid dem “Bajans….”
Sometimes I wonder why I made it a habit to read this newspapers’ website most mornings, especially over the last 4-5 months. But then again, there are many interesting things written here and real and sincere passion demonstrated by most bloggers to find workable and simple solutions to Guyana’s problems. However, every now and then the odd circumstance comes along that alarm me. Case in point is this letter by Mr. Dalijeet.
Mr. Lowe’s letter was about UG and what he thinks the institution should be. Mr. Khemraj’s letter followed a similar script. Now Mr. Dalijeet letter is about Mr. Lowe and what he (Lowe) observed or should have observed. Why can’t we keep this discussion on the issue rather than make it about the author? If the culture in Guyana is to deviate from the issue and focus on the person making the argument then the country will never get anywhere and the problems will remain. The best example of this is this one page rant here by Mr. Dalijeet. In it he has offered no proposals on how to make UG the institution he wants it to be but instead criticizes Lowe and the PPP. So we are back to square one and marking time.We have not learned how Mr. Dalijeet, serving as the university’s president, would do things differently
Lots of people have axes to grind Cummins. I admire Mr. Lowe for his honesty and forthrightness on this issue. I agree with his basis premise on the future focus of the University of Guyana. However, research at the university may be continued if the university can find additional sources of funding, partnerships, and research internships. The university should have the independence and freedom to chart its future within the confines of the national interest. Just think of the amount of research that can be done at the university if each of those who graduated from this institution contributes $200 US annually to the University of Guyana Alumni Research Fund.
I must have read a different letter, bearing in mind that I am a bit late on this topic. But it seems to me that Mr. Dalijeet was merely in disagreement with Mr. Lowe and those who share his views regarding the direction of UG, hence contributing to the debate about UG, and not in anyway commenting on Mr. Lowe (personally). I read his letter twice and don’t know who Mr. Lowe is or anything he’s ever done.
Mr. Anand Daljeet wrote: “If Mr Lowe as he claims truly wants “problem-solvers, creative and critical thinkers, and agents of positive change” then the only method is to present students with everyday problems to go from theory (which is mainly teaching) to practice (which is only research). Ably qualified university personnel have consistently advocated that university research will produce problem-solvers, creative, critical thinkers and independent minds that can foster development.”
As far as I am concerned that’s the core issue. Fortunately, the new Vice Chancellor seems to understand that research is critical for any Low Carbon Development Strategy to succeed. There ought to be a symbiotic relationship between teaching and research. But at the end of the day, my understanding of economic theory and empirical evidence lead me to conclude that research is critical for development. Teaching alone cannot do, especially when you are regurgitating the methods, theories and findings of advanced countries and are trying to fit it to the local circumstances. As Alice Amsden has argued over the years – imitate and innovate or stay backward. I agree with her! A teaching university alone cannot facilitate the latter process. The new Vice Chancellor seems to understand this also.
Yes, there are serious constraints and perhaps the culture to research is not there (but I doubt the culture argument), but this has to be corrected.
Tkhemraj ! Is the discussion about research by students at UG or, moreso, research by institutes associated with UG or by UG per se?
Research into what? For whom? Why? How?
Obviously you have graduated from UG, otherwise you would not have held such myopic views.
No PPP_PNC.I graduated from Florida Atlantic University.It is therefore you who have a myopic view.
Well congratulations! I apologise for assuming you went to UG when you actually attended a world class, research oriented university. I am so sorry. You certainly had me fooled.
ppp_pnc,
Please absolve Casear on the grounds of invincible ignorance. Some people talk because they have a mouth. I do not know what is Caesar’s justification.