In the race to become ‘global-ready,’ are we losing the ability to think critically? This blog explores how blind imitation of global education models is reshaping universities—and not always for the better. When metrics replace meaning and STEM overshadows the Humanities, what kind of knowledge are we really producing? A critical reflection on global education trends.
Global or Colonial? The Dangers of Blindly Following “Global” Education Models
One of the most convenient justifications offered for transforming higher education today is deceptively simple:
“These are global practices.”
The phrase carries an aura of inevitability. It suggests progress, modernity, and competitiveness. It promises to produce “global-ready graduates.”
But it also does something more subtle — and far more dangerous.
It ends the conversation before it even begins.
Because once something is labeled “global,” it is rarely questioned.
The Problem with Blind Faith in the “Global”
What if the real issue is not globalization itself,
but our uncritical faith in it?
Across educational institutions, policies are increasingly justified not because they are contextually meaningful, but because they are:
globally accepted
globally visible
globally marketable
This is not engagement.
This is imitation.
And often, it resembles what can only be called a new form of academic coloniality — where dominant knowledge systems are reproduced without asking whether they align with local histories, intellectual traditions, or social needs.
So the question is not:
Should we follow global models?
But rather:
Why do we follow them so unquestioningly?
When “Global” Becomes a Substitute for Thought
One of the clearest manifestations of this blind following is the current restructuring of higher education around:
STEM dominance
skilling and employability
measurable outputs
rankings, metrics, and impact factors
These are presented as “global standards.”
But what is rarely discussed is this:
Global for whom?
Designed by whom?
Serving whose interests?
In this rush to align with global patterns, something essential is being pushed aside:
the Humanities.
A Silent Crisis Across Global Universities
Ironically, the very institutions we seek to imitate are themselves grappling with this crisis.
At Stanford University, humanities research projects — especially those dealing with climate change and social inequality — have been abruptly defunded. Grants were reportedly “administratively withdrawn… with no explanation,” even when they addressed urgent global concerns.
This raises a troubling question:
If critical knowledge itself becomes inconvenient, what kind of “global excellence” are we aspiring to?
Judith Butler offers a sharp diagnosis of this trend:
“Fiscal crises regularly lead administrators to decide among programs… This idea of the ‘drain’… derives from a cost-benefit analysis that determines value according to economistic metrics.”
She further reminds us that:
“The metrics used… are rarely, if ever, informed by values produced by the humanities themselves.”
In other words, the Humanities are not failing.
They are being misjudged by inappropriate criteria.
At Harvard University, declining enrolments in humanities programmes have triggered anxiety about the future of education itself. As one voice puts it:
“The humanities teach us how we should act ethically as human beings… revealing truths… relevant to every generation.”
At University of Oxford and University of Cambridge, skepticism toward the Humanities has long been tied to their perceived lack of economic value. During the Thatcher era, arts disciplines were dismissed as:
“courses of dubious economic value and subversive intent,”
while student movements were trivialized as “kindergarten Marxism.”
Even at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a global leader in science and technology, there is now an acknowledgment that something is deeply wrong. As one initiative reflects:
“We wake up everyday to signs of human-made climate change… wars, mass violence, rampant inequality…”
And therefore:
“We reclaim the centrality of the Humanities in today’s STEM-and-Business-driven world.”
These are the very institutions we consider “global benchmarks.”
And yet, they are themselves questioning the path we are so eager to follow.
The Tyranny of Metrics
Blind imitation of global practices has also normalized a new logic:
If it cannot be measured, it does not matter.
This has led to an over-reliance on:
journal rankings
citation indices
impact factors
While these tools may have relevance in certain scientific contexts, their uncritical application to the Humanities creates a serious distortion.
Scientific knowledge often:
stabilizes
replicates
verifies
But Humanities knowledge:
interprets
questions
unsettles
It asks:
What does this mean?
Who benefits from this narrative?
How does power operate here?
These are not questions that produce numerical answers.
And yet, we insist on measuring them as if they should.
The Myth of Immediate Impact
Another consequence of this global imitation is the obsession with “impact.”
But the Humanities do not operate on immediate timelines.
Many of the most influential thinkers—
Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Antonio Gramsci—
were not celebrated in their own time.
Even modern thinkers like Edward Said and Judith Butler initially faced resistance.
If their work had been judged by:
short-term citations
measurable outputs
would it have survived?
Blindly adopting global metrics risks eliminating precisely those ideas that challenge dominant systems.
Why Difficulty Matters
One of the most common criticisms of the Humanities is that they are “difficult.”
But perhaps the real problem is this:
We have become uncomfortable with difficulty.
In a system driven by speed, efficiency, and clarity, the Humanities demand something else:
patience
reflection
critical engagement
They do not simplify the world.
They complicate it in necessary ways.
Warnings We Are Ignoring
Several global thinkers have already warned us about this trajectory.
Martha Nussbaum cautions that education focused solely on economic growth risks producing citizens who lack critical capacities essential for democracy.
Noam Chomsky emphasizes that without critical thinking, democratic systems become fragile.
Henry Giroux warns that universities are increasingly producing:
“compliant workers, depoliticized consumers, and passive citizens.”
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak reminds us of the importance of learning from marginalized perspectives.
These are not abstract concerns.
They are warnings about the future of society itself.
The Illusion of the “Global Ideal”
There is a deeper illusion we must confront:
That global models are inherently superior.
If that were true, the world would look very different.
We would see:
stable democracies
reduced inequalities
fewer conflicts
Instead, we see:
rising authoritarianism
increasing polarization
persistent wars
This suggests a simple but uncomfortable truth:
Global success in metrics does not guarantee social justice.
What Is at Stake
The blind following of global patterns is not just an academic problem.
It is a crisis of imagination.
Because in this process, we risk losing:
the ability to question
the courage to dissent
the space to think differently
We may produce:
globally competitive graduates
But at what cost?
If education becomes only about:
efficiency
productivity
employability
we may end up with a society that is:
technically advanced
but intellectually impoverished
A Final Reflection
The question is not whether we should engage with the global.
We must.
But engagement is not imitation.
It is critique, adaptation, and re-imagination.
So the real question is:
Are we learning from the world?
Or are we simply copying it?
Because if we continue to follow without questioning,
we may not be becoming global.
We may simply be becoming dependent.
References
Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by C. Nelson and L. Grossberg. London: Macmillan, 1988.
Harvard Can’t Afford to Neglect the Humanities | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson. www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/10/6/goldberger-harvard-humanities-trump-funding.
Henry A Giroux. The New Henry Giroux Reader: The Role of the Public Intellectual in a Time of Tyranny. 2019.
“Humanities Professors Fight Research Funding Cuts.” The Stanford Daily, 27 Sept. 2025, stanforddaily.com/2025/09/22/humanities-professors-fight-research-funding-cuts.
Judith Butler. The Public Futures of the Humanities | Stanford Humanities Center. 22 Aug. 2022, shc.stanford.edu/arcade/interventions/public-futures-humanities.
Margaret Thatcher. The Path to Power. 1996. HarperCollins Publishers, 2011.
Martha C. Nussbaum. Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton UP, 2024.
MIT Comparative Global Humanities. comparativeglobalhumanities.mit.edu.
Noam Chomsky. “The Responsibility of Intellectual” (1967). , in N. Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins: Historical and Political Essays, New York 1969.
No comments:
Post a Comment