The newly emerging private universities which claim to provide ‘quality’ education also tap on to the population of the academic elite. As for the students, the tiny affluent section goes abroad or is absorbed by the domestic private education while the other with little or no resources have no option but become the applicants to the handful seats in the public universities. However, procedures of these universities, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, are carefully guarded through the subtle ways of the academic elite. The elite prefers taking in the so-called ‘talented’ from the pool of ‘mediocre’ individuals. The ‘talented’ set comprises those individuals who are perceived to possess the potential to be able to carry out their learning under the elite with a certain degree of ‘sophistication’ and ‘complexity’. They present reality in a subtle and a twisted way, as such is the nature of knowledge valued in academia today.

While the process of building these exclusive communities is gradual, the foundations of it have taken a deep root in the higher education institutions in the country. A degree of cultural capital also plays a crucial role in enforcing this exclusivity, since students with parents or relatives in academia are better off in terms of being versed in laws of the land and guides to navigate the partially known field. Thus, the aura around entry into such institutions then is also systemic and not just a result of individual idiosyncrasies. Not all students with ideas are treated as assets; not unless they somehow make efforts to demolish the wall of fire guarding the holy gates of academia.

During my time at the level of higher education, I got to experience this power of exclusivity at two interviews determining my entry into the advanced studies in the discipline of sociology: one for an MPhil and another for a PhD degree. Both the interrogations were a test of knowledge of the discipline which I had been studying for the past 5 years. An interesting fact about such interviews is that they like to test an individual then and there, once and for all. If your knowledge fails you then, there is no looking back. It is not one’s commitment to research which is considered imperative above anything else, but one’s ability to always be on the defensive, ready with answers to questions which one can only know when given a chance to delve into the research.

With a hopeful heart, I knocked the doors of academia twice, without success. While the door did open for a sneak peek but I was greeted by structures of power which asked me to be present at a later day as my ideas were too naive and unsophisticated. In retrospect, sitting on the chair of the interviewee felt like being in the final step of the battle between the haves and the have nots (with me being on the have nots side, of course) with the haves winning. It reminded me of a theory on power play by a famous philosopher, Steven Lukes, through which he regards that when X exercises power over Y, X acts in a way that is contrary to the interests of Y. Taking his theory a step further, X ensures to stretch every strand of its power to bring down Y. This launches a vicious cycle in which Y vows to inflict on Z, a similar kind of admonishment it was subjected to in the past. The wheel of times keeps running and subjecting the incoming A, B and C’s to this rule of power. How could my ideas or my resolve become an exception to this law of the land?

By aspiring for a Masters or a PhD one has signed up to the inevitability of being in a world full of perfectionists, prepared to pass every fire test that comes in the way and eventually burn out or emerge bitter in the end. However, no one cares or even asks about what happens to one’s sense of self after sitting through such trials. There is no room for mistakes at the highest levels of learning. The haves, sitting on their comfortable chairs hardly see the presence of compassion in their teaching or the importance of positive reinforcements in the creative endeavours which they supervise.

Self-esteem, that gets gradually formed through a belief in oneself, is one of the basic human needs that is essential to a healthy growth of any human being. Academia does not acknowledge the questions of self-esteem. It is crushed for an amateur researcher at the holy gates of academia, leaving her disillusioned. While young researchers today, dream of going to a graduate school to become more confident about their ideas, the process of securing a seat for oneself in a ‘good’ academic programme erodes the very self-esteem and disintegrates the motivation which drives them in the first place.

For an ordinary individual, with a serious inclination towards research and without cultural and economic capital, it is a continuous battle to secure a ‘quality’ education. This individual cannot afford to be someone who dreams or is filled with wonderment, but someone who has to be precise, structured and objective. To add to the misery, the holy gates are patrolled by competitive exams like SAT, GRE, GMAT, TOFEL etc. which require that individuals abilities be filtered through a machine. The adaptation of such examination formats to the Indian system of educational competition diminishes the importance and beauty of ‘subjectivity’ which is essential to learning.

Clearly, higher education today is not in the state that cherishes ambiguities. In a highly competitive environment like this, when academic elitism grows, deterioration of learning is the setback. Diversity in ideas is discouraged and the whims of a few educators run the system of educational production in the country. It is firmly believed that only those who have engaged in scholarship or are in higher levels of research have anything worthwhile to say and the bohemians who are allowed to enter, after a long tiresome journey are made sure to be socialised into these ways of living and being.

More Conversations