IIT - A Sociological Analysis

In the following thousand words, let me make an attempt at defining what IIT exactly is – in a critical sociological analysis of the ecosystem that an IIT campus is. For the sake of completeness, I intend to elucidate some of the problems that IIT and related systems face in the light of this analysis.

At the outset, let us not squander time by challenging the potency of the JEE and ride safe on the assumption that the IITs attract some of the brightest minds of the country. What we often choose to neglect is where these bright minds come from. Some may argue that all children are not really born alike. At least the statement must not be assumed false. Let us also not debate these assumptions and avoid claims or comments on the similarity of the sociological break-up of IIT students to Indian society at large. I could certainly prove empirically, if not otherwise, that the majority of IIT students are from the middle to upper-middle class of Indian society. Perhaps the coaching class fee barrier keeps the lower strata out, and probably the charm and viability of higher education abroad applies for the other conspicuously absent section. These arguments on cash flow, however, are hardly convincing.

Moving on from a previous statement, the Indian middle class is generally apathetic, self-driven and self-centred. This is almost truly reflective of the average IIT student’s mentality. It’s a blatant and unrepentant indulgence, sometimes refuge, in a “do-your-thing” attitude. Social issues, for example, are illogically, yet conveniently labelled ‘can-not’. In fact, a definite divisive line could be drawn here between the Indian middle class and their Western counterparts. This resides in the definition of what is ‘public’ and what is ‘private’. Indians inherently believe that as long as their own house is clean, whatever litter they throw outside is legitimate – or worse, they just couldn’t care less. On a particular instance, I saw someone wearing a doomed look after a “drop of ketch-up on my shirt accident”. The same person threw the paper plate he used to clean his act up in a post-box a while later. Don’t feel sorry for him. It’s in his culture. As a contrast, other parts of the world were brought up with the definition of private being anything that could even be partly under your control.

On similar lines, IITians, although individually brilliant, are perpetually engaged in a rat race which gives them no constructive result but makes them pay for a blinkered vision of things around them. Even though IIT may have tonnes to offer in terms of knowledge, learning for students is restricted to a direction that achieves tangible benefits. Arguably, there is a certain comfort level associated within the boundaries and rationales created. As an apt analogy, there is a gated, secluded atmosphere on campus. But in my opinion, that shouldn’t give us an opportunity to ignore harsh reality. Even if life is comfortable, there is no reason to hide from responsibilities towards the greater good – that especially rests on the shoulders of IIT students. Whether they knowingly signed up for the social responsibility is also a debate. However, there is an inherent contradiction here. Given the responsibility of belonging to a developing nation and a recently empowered class that can make a difference, there is still rampant apathy. True, widely accepted success metrics include money, power and challenges. IIT students are no exception. The rat race, though, is not an optimal solution for achieving the same.

IITs also pride themselves in the meritocracy that they have established. Today, however, one’s class, exposure, upbringing and economic status have a staggering reflection on merit. This was the basic argument for reservation when it was established. To prove these hindrances have been removed and reservation should now be abolished is anything but an easy task. Although the entrance mechanism makes meritocracy an innate aspect to IIT, it really isn’t. On the other hand, I would define meritocracy as the egalitarian principles adopted in evaluation during the degree course. There is simply no room for lagging behind. This could be extended as far as saying that there is no room for different, say, creative individuals. Further, there is an ambiguity as to how success is defined, following also from an earlier discussion. The alumni in Silicon Valley are generally called ‘successful’. Are they? Their contributions back to the country, to the taxpayers who paid for their world-class education, leave a lot to be desired. On the other hand, is Dunu Roy, who has spent the better part of his life after IIT uplifting tribes in M.P. successful? Maybe not, he was supposed to be an engineer. The two seem to be contrasting in nature – clear opinions could be formed by different people. I could, on the contrary, side with both given that I can’t equate the two principles.

Minor observations could be the angst characteristic of the age-group in question. Social responsibility, again, is usually restricted to the self in such cases. A leading statement would be to call it immaturity and irresponsibility. Deviance, although not rampant, exists – the post-box incident for example. On the other hand, civil disobedience is also deviance. Another minor observation is a general sense of complacency amongst IIT students. This substantiates the secluded atmosphere on campus – oblivious to the ‘lesser’ mortals and their unimportant deeds and issues. I could bet that a majority of IIT students wouldn’t know about the recent developments in their own fields, let alone the nuclear deal or the assembly elections. What’s worse is that I fear most just wouldn’t care.

Finally, IITs gear to be world class. In that search, the authorities don't want to deal with "messy" issues. Folklore consists only of the success stories – again substantiating the ambiguity of the success metric. Anything bordering on politics is never discussed – has also been accepted by the Public Relations Office. In a compromise on the attempt at staying a full-bodied meritocracy, non-academic staff (not contributing to the success metric) is poorly treated - some are on a temporary basis for the last 20 years. Professors and students are pampered, though. These characteristics reek of elitism – which isn’t always as great as it sounds for obvious reasons.

To be fair, though, the structures that exist breed success, as is known to the common man. Professors acknowledge that students have a higher understanding of subjects, which may not necessarily be in their own pet area. Probably, there is a general correlation between intelligence and intellect. Given the intelligence, the intellect is probably there somewhere. Maybe I just haven’t found a considerable measure of it yet. In the attempt at forcefully teaching every student at other colleges, IIT students have a general sense of freedom. The authorities trust them to make the right choices. The entire process defines this very structure. To that effect, the other places operate on egalitarian principles as opposed to the elitism here, which isn’t – really – always as bad as may sound.