Insti­tu­tions of higher educa­tion need to take great care when it comes to encour­aging students to perform. The attitude of the insti­tu­tion plays pivotal role in what becomes of the students’ career and life.

In a reputed insti­tu­tion, for instance, all the students who are admitted (with merit as the sole criteria) possess a certain level of intel­li­gence and exper­tise. They certainly have the poten­tial to shine, and they definitely will, if they put their minds to it. The insti­tu­tions should there­fore take up the respon­si­bility of encour­aging all students to explore their avenues and perform to the best of their abili­ties. This obviously need not be restricted to academic endeav­ours — success comes in different flavours.

The point is that when the admin­is­tra­tion singles out those who perform well, it is actually implying that the rest of the students are not as good — which is plain wrong. This is not to say that good perfor­mance should not be encour­aged — it should — but a greater amount of effort must be put into identi­fying those who don’t perform as well.
The standard method­olo­gies of putting the student on proba­tion and sending letters of dissat­is­fac­tion to the parents are terribly disheart­ening to a student and will never serve any useful purpose. An insti­tu­tion is not under any real oblig­a­tion to look after the students’ welfare, but it has a moral respon­si­bility to do so, and in the long run, this is also benefi­cial to the insti­tu­tion itself.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at 00:17 and is filed under Daily Rant. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.