'Man is a social animal' (Aristotle)

Right from his earliest evolutionary stages, man has been a species that breeds in groups. Even in primitive periods with no concrete language for communication, humans still managed to live in groups. Whether this was by choice or compulsion is beyond the necessity of this article. What is important, however, is the reiteration of the indivisible nature of man and his surroundings.

Human beings are bound by their environments in multiple ways: peers, societal norms, shared culture, and widespread beliefs, to name a few. This relationship with the environment incorporates academic and work life as well, thus influencing individual life in a multitude of ways. Though a few of these effects may contribute to the overall improvement of one’s quality of life, others pose serious threats to individual growth and ambition. Herd behaviour is a major disadvantageous phenomenon that arises out of the close relationship between man and his environment. While this behaviour conditions masses, other (side) effects of the influence of surroundings particularly hinder individual development.

An example of this can be found in our everyday lives. Goal-oriented individuals thrive better amidst like-minded ones while experiencing a sense of alienation among those with a comparatively carefree outlook on life. Although it is sometimes fair to say that the advancement of individuals lies in their own hands, the factor of environmental influence cannot be discarded. Here, I limit my expression of this fact to that of Indian college students.

Background to the issue

Many colleges in India have a peculiar process of admitting students: reliance on mark sheets. Entrance tests are generally conducted only for a few fields, which are also brimming with injustices. This is coupled with scant awareness among students regarding the selection of subjects for higher study. As a result, a classroom with individuals of mixed interests is formed. This in turn gives rise to one group whose interests are far from the chosen field’s range. Students in this group find themselves in the course with no apparent vision or path. Another group is that of students who are passionate about their chosen field. For convenience, I will refer to the former as Group A and the latter as Group B.

Birth of the issue

These contrasting groups in the same classroom generate a new yet obvious problem: conflicting interests. Group A commonly consists of individuals with poor proficiency or acute disinterest in the chosen field of study, if not both. Group B, on the other hand, includes those already possessing a flair for the subject and/or those keen on learning. This dichotomy divides the classroom environment, ultimately proving to be detrimental to both groups.

Students from the former group, experiencing a sense of alienation, disrupt the classroom environment to find something to be occupied with or for plain delight. This is common because the subject does not draw their attention, and something must fill that void. Students from the latter group also experience a sense of alienation as their peer group (Group A) is academically unsupportive. Both groups fail to find common ground, and this reflects on the learning conditions as well.

Growth of the issue

Due to the presence of these greatly differing groups in the same locale, both groups gradually grow weary of each other. Students in Group B (often a handful) recognize the absence of a like-minded academic environment. Their thirst for challenge, discussion, and growth in their field of study is cut short owing to dispersed interests. Over a period, these students see themselves in an isolated light and undergo a kind of identity crisis when they compare themselves to students in better academic surroundings. This group then begins to see Group A as the root cause of their educational discontent. In addition to this, Group B’s coexistence with Group A sometimes accounts for the former’s degradation of skills, the reasons being increasing dissatisfaction and a lack of competition. Group A, however, chooses an unworried viewpoint and deems college life to be limited to their enjoyment which excludes academics. If not for this, students in this group may be crippled by the anxiety of being in the wrong place.

Each group naturally remains apathetic towards the other, and this nature contributes to the bland or uninspiring classroom environment for the faculty as well. In addition to this, institutional practices often seem to be set in stone and are the least student-friendly. This, accompanied by the existing unrewarding environment, forms a lethal combination that escalates students’ disillusionment and helplessness.

While it is easy to say that the best growth arises from diverse situations, the situation becomes more complex when the discussion is about academic growth. As mentioned earlier, this argument can again be countered with the retort that an individual is solely responsible for their growth. Having said this, however, it is impossible to overlook the effect one’s surroundings have, especially in the case of studies.

What, then, is the solution to this cyclical problem? Does it lie in better admission methods to ensure the grouping of students with similar academic needs, or does it lie in improved college practices that treat the two groups differently, catering to their different needs? And can these practical solutions be implemented in a country like ours? You decide. 

.    .    .