A wrong lesson from the past

What is it that I really learned from my undergraduate education? Hmmm, that's a tough one. I actually do not remember in concrete terms what is it I really learned, owing to the fact it was many years ago and also because unlike many of my peers I have sort of continued in the same general area of academia. This makes it impossible for me to sort my knowledge on the basis of its origins. All of my memory in this respect is basically one vague muddled mass where the task of telling whether somethings I know now were actually learned during my undergrad is a hopeless one. But I do remember one thing that I learned during my undergrad which I should not have but which is very easy to learn growing in the educational system that I grew in.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the IIT (Indian Institute of Technology this time) system, here's a synopsis in a nutshell. Hundreds of thousands of aspirants compete to get into one of these tech. institutes every year out of which a few thousand are selected. The exams for these selections used to be exceedingly hard, so hard, in fact, that I am reasonably sure that I would do really badly if I were to attempt them now. The rigor of these exams seems to have gotten diluted now and the acceptance rate risen up a little (from 1% when I attempted to around 2% now). There is something to be said about being able to 'crack' that exam but I ceased to be proud of it a very long time ago. And I feel nothing but pity for those who may still be hanging on to that sentiment. Part of the reason why I don't feel much about that anymore is the regret I have for learning something which is absolutely wrong in the real world. The idea that it is sufficient to be smart, and that the world owes anything to people with intelligence. Of course such ideas are never explicitly discussed but there is a massive undercurrent which promotes such thinking at the IITs. There are absolutely brilliant students at these institutes. Students who have to study merely for a few hours before the exams to completely crack it open. It is natural then that the ideals of such people and of such an intelligence are continuously reinforced at a subconscious level. Too bad then that the real world doesn't really care too much about it and the thing that really seems to matter finally is how hard one can work at something. I am not saying that intelligence doesn't figure into the equation but that it is not enough, which is precisely what was reinforced in my undergraduate education. And this conclusion is just for material successes. I feel that ultimately the only important thing is if one can be happy about the various situations one is in. The satisfaction from one's work, the social situation one is in, the intellectual stimulation from the environment, perhaps the existence of more intangible emotions like altruism and empathy which make you feel connected to a wider reality, all of these must add up to one's final degree of happiness and I have a sneaking suspicion that people who are made to believe in the virtues of raw intelligence and not hard-work are dealt a rather poor hand when such sum total is considered.

I used to feel a particular emotion and I have seen it far too often in others. The sinking feeling that the world isn't the way that one was led to believe by one's family, relatives, friends, peers, teachers, and professors. That it has little value for the fact that you cracked a tough exam many many years ago. I sometimes wonder about those 'adults' who should have known better and I wonder about the sort of priorities they must have. They are not the only ones who got it wrong. They must be the precipitates of a culture where such proclivities are more than just skin deep.