rantlust

Posted by dharpe guje on September 04th 2006 in Rants
::  [Print This Post]

Anyone from India, as well as other developing countries, probably has family and friends who exerted tremendous pressure on them to get ahead in life, specifically to be a doctor or an engineer. This trend in the Indian middle class is dominant and probably has something to do with the state of the Indian economy and its new found status as a global IT powerhouse. But we are here to discuss a slightly different theme.

Growing up, competing for everything was the norm, egged on for everything, comparison with everyone, sometimes boldly and openly facilitated by parents, sometimes by peers. Teachers blatantly discussing who is good and openly ridiculing the so called mediocre, many a times making an example of them, usually crushing their spirit for ever in the process. My sense is that this behavior is probably not limited to the Indian middle class but probably a trade mark of every poor country that is not torn by war or other more basic priorities.

Some how, it struck me that the educational process and tendencies in the West seem to be much more based on what individuals want as opposed to what their parents want in relative terms. The reason might be simple and intuitive, competition to get ahead is a survival instinct, and the more scarce the resources the higher the intensity of the competition. This intensity does not generally result in greatness, but certainly produces acceptable levels of results. Case in point, a nation of a billion people doesn’t produce a crop of super athletes or scientists–granted corruption, nepotism and lack of infrastructure play their part in the selection process. But we do see poor countries producing disproportionate results with similar or worse constraints.
As one traverses the educational landscape in the US, it appears that basic education at an undergraduate level while important does not force students into a tight set of constraints particularly limiting their ability to diversify in the future. In other words, the high degree of flexibility facilitates experimenting with the curriculum. Some would argue that taking swimming as a course may be a way to take it easy, except for some who actually take swimming as a course end up getting a “D”. Rigor in many cases is not compromised, but there are also examples of abuse in the system as I am sure all of can attest–that is not by design. My sense is that the flexibility allowing for experimentation, produces an atmosphere of informal evaluation of one’s education, this applies at every level including graduate education and the workplace. It seems like individuals get deeply weaved into a particular discipline, much later in their careers.
Question: Does a balanced nation begin with an educational system that affords flexibility to its young talent? the flexibility to choose and experiment?

The point of all this ofcourse is to envision a scenario in the Indian context of a more balanced society, where the best and the brightest minds are part of all functional groups and not limited to a hierarchy based on a pre-conceived notion of what parents think their kids should do or societal norms of defining what success ultimately looks like i.e. a doctor is better than being an artist. The concern is one where talent does not adequately percolate far down the functional ladder. What would happen if we had a more open system that encouraged educational experimentation?
I think wonderful things could happen to the Indian society potentially. Highly talented and extremely bright minds would likely be in many more functional areas than what might be the case now. A society of bright engineers and doctors (many of whom ultimately leave the country) but with sub par talent elsewhere doesn’t have to be a reality. Most importantly, respect for all types of work would begin to establish itself as core assumption. All great nations are great because of this one fundamental truth…just examine history.