The primary objective of education is making individuals cultured while culture refers to a composite of values that include a commitment to human welfare, a normative sense of the good, and spirit of collective. Welfare must be ensured for all; however, priority should be given to those whose labour sustains economic and social reproduction. Ensuring the wellbeing of the working population is therefore a fundamental responsibility of the state. The spirit of collective life teaches us how to live together -how to live for others.
If we want to genuinely materialise the aim of education, learning must extend beyond the confines of the classroom. Students must engage directly with lived social realities by situating themselves alongside ordinary people and within everyday life contexts.
The development story of Ghana cannot be reduced to quantitative indicators or formal economic progress alone. Rather, it represents a deeper philosophical and ideological shift in a foundational domain such as education-one that explicitly seeks to connect academic learning with social realities and lived experience.
Ghana's University for Development Studies (UDS) exemplifies this life-oriented educational philosophy. The institution was deliberately established outside capital cities and elite urban centres, instead located in villages and small towns within the country's most economically disadvantaged regions. As an integral component of their formal curriculum, students are required to reside for several weeks with farmers, daily wage laborers, small-scale entrepreneurs, and workers in the informal sector.
They learn about development not merely from slides or case studies, but from the rhythms of rural life itself-through water scarcity, fragile livelihoods, unpaid care work, and quiet endurance. The philosophy is clear and unambiguous: education must emerge from social reality. Ghana recognised that if future policymakers and professionals remain disconnected from the lived experiences of ordinary people, they may become technically competent yet socially blind.
The contrast with elite universities is instructive. Campuses of elite institutions often function like walled islands-physically secure, socially distant, and intellectually confident, yet experientially impoverished. Students may graduate fluent in global jargon, but remain unfamiliar with the lives of those whose futures will be shaped by their decisions. "Going to life," therefore, is not a metaphor; it is an ideological choice. Ghana has institutionalised this choice.
"Learning with society, not above society" is the guiding motto of the University for Development Studies (UDS), established in 1992, and it encapsulates a distinctive educational philosophy. What makes UDS truly exceptional is its Third Trimester Field Practical Programme (TTFPP). Under this mandatory program: (i) Students leave the classroom and live for several weeks in rural villages; (ii) They engage closely with farmers, daily wage labourers, small traders, artisans, and workers in the informal sector; (iii) They observe, document, and participate in everyday economic and social life-including agricultural practices, water use, health behaviours, gender relations, and local governance; (iv) Academic learning is directly linked to poverty, inequality, the constraints of development, and survival strategies.
This philosophy, while simple in appearance, is deeply radical in substance, in that development cannot be understood solely through textbooks; it must be learned through lived experience. Students are evaluated not only on the basis of theoretical knowledge, but also on: (i)The depth of their engagement with communities; (ii) Their capacity to listen rather than merely to instruct; (iii) Their ability to understand structural poverty without imposing moral judgments.
Why does the Ghanaian model matter? UDS was founded on the conviction that a university should serve the whole society rather than merely credential elites. A significant number of Ghana's policymakers, development practitioners, and public officials are graduates of UDS, and many of them possess direct experience of rural deprivation-not as an object of academic research, but as temporary cohabitants of village life.
Over the long term, this model has generated three notable outcomes: (1) a reduction in urban-centric elite mentalities among graduates; (2) a deeper sense of empathy toward informal workers and farmers; and (3) policy thinking grounded in lived realities rather than abstract theory.
Following a model similar to that of Ghana, a small number of universities in Bangladesh have undertaken initiatives that require students to spend several days of their university life in close proximity to the working people who form the backbone of the rural economy. Among these institutions, Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB) stands out as a leading example. In its effort to create an academic environment attuned to the contemporary world, IUB has established partnerships with several leading global universities and institutions-including Harvard-for collaboration in research, faculty and student exchange, and curriculum development.
Founded in 1993, IUB introduced the Life in Field Experience (LFE) program for its students as early as 1996. Between 1998 and 2000, the Minnesota-based Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA) sent 20-25 students annually to Bangladesh. Hosted by IUB, these students, under IUB's supervision and at venues selected by the university, spent approximately 20-25 days directly observing the lives of the people of Bangladesh and participating in various cultural activities.
IUB arranges student accommodation across 15 venues located in rural and peri-urban areas. Depending on the number of students, between five and ten monitors are assigned for supervision, along with four to six faculty members who reside with the students. Student teams are dispatched to nearby villages or neighbourhoods to collect primary data from local residents. Data are also gathered from village marketplaces (hats), where students primarily examine price differentials relative to Dhaka and identify the presence of counterfeit goods.
As a faculty member of IUB, I participated earlier last month in one such Life in Field Experience (LFE) program at the FIVDB Training Center in Khadimnagar, Sylhet. There were three other faculty members: Kazi Sanjida Lisa(Coordinator), Sumaiya Sultana Ritu, and Arrafi Rahman. The program was supported by four monitors-Sanjida, Farah, Asif, and Joy. A team of 91 students conducted fieldwork across several villages and neighbourhoods, including Mokamerghul and Pir's Chok in Khadimnagar, and also carried out surveys at Chiknagul Hat.
In addition to collecting quantitative data on a range of socioeconomic, human, and cultural indicators that reflect living standards, students also developed qualitative case studies based on lived experiences. As an economist, I am familiar with the indicators and datasets published by the Government of Bangladesh and various development agencies. What struck me most was the substantial divergence between those official statistics and the data collected by students on the ground.
A few snapshots from the field help clarify this reality. Many women reported that they are not permitted to leave their homes alone. Some stated that they are not allowed to use mobile phones. Data collected from nearly all neighbourhoods indicate that most girls are married before the age of 18. The prevailing male attitude toward women's education is that schooling beyond primary level or secondary school is unnecessary. Consequently, the widely circulated narrative of women's empowerment in Bangladesh is not supported by the evidence collected by students. The actual conditions regarding waste disposal, access to safe drinking water, and the use of sanitary latrines are also far worse than commonly portrayed. Recreational facilities in these villages are virtually nonexistent.
A case study presented by Fatima Sadia Khan, Alif Walid Molla, and their group left everyone deeply shocked. Khorshed Alam's father had migrated from Comilla to Pir's Chok in Sylhet 40 years ago with nothing more than a small bag and a heart full of dreams. Today, Khorshed Alam works as a gatekeeper at the local library. Each day, he opens the library doors with a gentle smile, serving the cause of knowledge; yet behind the smile there is a profound and silent suffering. Even today, villagers introduce him as an outsider during neighbourhood meetings, weddings, and social gatherings. He still lives beside the road. No one is willing to sell land to him. No matter how honest or dignified his life may be, he is never granted full social recognition. Confronted with such stories of alienation and social exclusion in Bangladeshi society, we were left speechless.
Dr N N Tarun Chakravorty, professor of economics, IUB and Editor-At-Large, South Asia Journal. nntarun@gmail.com