Chapter 1 - The Function of Education -------------------------------------
I WONDER IF we have ever asked ourselves what education means. Why do we go to school, why do we learn various subjects, why do we pass examinations and compete with each other for better grades? What does this so-called education mean, and what is it all about? This is really a very important question, not only for the students, but also for the parents, for the teachers, and for everyone who loves this earth. Why do we go through the struggle to be educated? Is it merely in order to pass some examinations and get a job? Or is it the function of education to prepare us while we are young to understand the whole process of life? Having a job and earning one's livelihood is necessary but is that all? Are we being educated only for that? Surely, life is not merely a job, an occupation; life is something extraordinarily wide and profound, it is a great mystery, a vast realm in which we function as human beings. If we merely prepare ourselves to earn a livelihood, we shall miss the whole point of life; and to understand life is much more important than merely to prepare for examinations and become very proficient in mathematics, physics, or what you will.
So, whether we are teachers or students, is it not important to ask ourselves why we are educating or being educated? And what does life mean? Is not life an extraordinary thing? The birds, the flowers, the flourishing trees, the heavens, the stars, the rivers and the fish therein - all this is life. Life is the poor and the rich; life is the constant battle between groups, races and nations; life is meditation; life is what we call religion, and it is also the subtle, hidden things of the mind - the envies, the ambitions, the passions, the fears, fulfilments and anxieties. All this and much more is life. But we generally prepare ourselves to understand only one small corner of it. We pass certain examinations, find a job, get married, have children, and then become more and more like machines. We remain fearful, anxious, frightened of life. So, is it the function of education to help us understand the whole process of life, or is it merely to prepare us for a vocation, for the best job we can get?
What is going to happen to all of us when we grow to be men and women? Have you ever asked yourselves what you are going to do when you grow up? In all likelihood you will get married, and before you know where you are you will be mothers and fathers; and you will then be tied to a job, or to the kitchen, in which you will gradually wither away. Is that all that your life is going to be? Have you ever asked yourselves this question? Should you not ask it? If your family is wealthy you may have a fairly good position already assured, your father may give you a comfortable job, or you may get richly married; but there also you will decay, deteriorate. Do you see?
Surely, education has no meaning unless it helps you to understand the vast expanse of life with all its subtleties, with its extraordinary beauty, its sorrows and joys. You may earn degrees, you may have a series of letters after your name and land a very good job; but then what? What is the point of it all if in the process your mind becomes dull, weary, stupid? So, while you are young, must you not seek to find out what life is all about? And is it not the true function of education to cultivate in you the intelligence which will try to find the answer to all these problems? Do you know what intelligence is? It is the capacity, surely, to think freely without fear, without a formula, so that you begin to discover for yourself what is real, what is true; but if you are frightened you will never be intelligent. Any form of ambition, spiritual or mundane, breeds anxiety, fear; therefore ambition does not help to bring about a mind that is clear, simple, direct, and hence intelligent.
You know, it is really very important while you are young to live in an environment in which there is no fear. Most of us, as we grow older, become frightened; we are afraid of living, afraid of losing a job, afraid of tradition, afraid of what the neighbours, or what the wife or husband would say, afraid of death. Most of us have fear in one form or another; and where there is fear there is no intelligence. And is it not possible for all of us, while we are young, to be in an environment where there is no fear but rather an atmosphere of freedom freedom, not just to do what we like, but to understand the whole process of living? Life is really very beautiful, it is not this ugly thing that we have made of it; and you can appreciate its richness, its depth, its extraordinary loveliness only when you revolt against everything - against organized religion, against tradition, against the present rotten society - so that you as a human being find out for yourself what is true. Not to imitate but to discover - that is education, is it not? It is very easy to conform to what your society or your parents and teachers tell you. That is a safe and easy way of existing; but that is not living, because in it there is fear, decay, death. To live is to find out for yourself what is true, and you can do this only when there is freedom, when there is continuous revolution inwardly, within yourself.
But you are not encouraged to do this; no one tells you to question, to find out for yourself what God is, because if you were to rebel you would become a danger to all that is false. Your parents and society want you to live safely, and you also want to live safely. Living safely generally means living in imitation and therefore in fear. Surely, the function of education is to help each one of us to live freely and without fear, is it not? And to create an atmosphere in which there is no fear requires a great deal of thinking on your part as well as on the part of the teacher, the educator.
Do you know what this means - what an extraordinary thing it would be to create an atmosphere in which there is no fear? And we must create it, because we see that the world is caught up in endless wars; it is guided by politicians who are always seeking power; it is a world of lawyers, policemen and soldiers, of ambitious men and women all wanting position and all fighting each other to get it. Then there are the so-called saints, the religious gurus with their followers; they also want power, position, here or in the next life. It is a mad world, completely confused, in which the communist is fighting the capitalist, the socialist is resisting both, and everybody is against somebody, struggling to arrive at a safe place, a position of power or comfort. The world is torn by conflicting beliefs, by caste and class distinctions, by separative nationalities, by every form of stupidity and cruelty - and this is the world you are being educated to fit into. You are encouraged to fit into the framework of this disastrous society; your parents want you to do that, and you also want to fit in.
Now, is it the function of education merely to help you to conform to the pattern of this rotten social order, or is it to give you freedom - complete freedom to grow and create a different society, a new world? We want to have this freedom, not in the future, but now, otherwise we may all be destroyed. We must create immediately an atmosphere of freedom so that you can live and find out for yourselves what is true, so that you become intelligent, so that you are able to face the world and understand it, not just conform to it, so that inwardly, deeply, psychologically you are in constant revolt; because it is only those who are in constant revolt that discover what is true, not the man who conforms, who follows some tradition. It is only when you are constantly inquiring, constantly observing, constantly learning, that you find truth, God, or love; and you cannot inquire, observe, learn, you cannot be deeply aware, if you are afraid. So the function of education, surely, is to eradicate, inwardly as well as outwardly, this fear that destroys human thought, human relationship and love.
Krishnamurti: Listen to the question first, because it is very important to understand the question and not just wait for an answer. The question is: if all individuals were in revolt, would not the world be in chaos? But is the present society in such perfect order that chaos would result if everyone revolted against it? Is there not chaos now? is everything beautiful, uncorrupted? Is everyone living happily, fully, richly? Is man not against man? Is there not ambition, ruthless competition? So the world is already in chaos, that is the first thing to realize. Don't take it for granted that this is an orderly society; don't mesmerize yourself with words. Whether here in Europe, in America or Russia, the world is in a process of decay. If you see the decay, you have a challenge: you are challenged to find a way of solving this urgent problem. And how you respond to the challenge is important, is it not? If you respond as a Hindu or a Buddhist, a Christian or a communist, then your response is very limited - which is no response at all. You can respond fully, adequately only if there is no fear in you, only if you don't think as a Hindu, a communist or a capitalist, but as a total human being who is trying to solve this problem; and you cannot solve it unless you yourself are in revolt against the whole thing, against the ambitious acquisitiveness on which society is based. When you yourself are not ambitious, not acquisitive, not clinging to your own security - only then can you respond to the challenge and create a new world.
Questioner: To revolt, to learn, to love - are these three separate processes, or are they simultaneous?
Krishnamurti: Of course they are not three separate processes; it is a unitary process. You see, it is very important to find out what the question means. This question is based on theory, not on experience; it is merely verbal, intellectual, therefore it has no validity. A man who is fearless, who is really in revolt, struggling to find out what it means to learn, to love - such a man does not ask if it is one process or three. We are so clever with words, and we think that by offering explanations we have solved the problem. Do you know what it means to learn? When you are really learning you are learning throughout your life and there is no one special teacher to learn from. Then everything teaches you - a dead leaf, a bird in flight, a smell, a tear, the rich and the poor, those who are crying, the smile of a woman, the haughtiness of a man. You learn from everything, therefore there is no guide, no philosopher, no guru. Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning.
Questioner: It is true that society is based on acquisitiveness and ambition; but if we had no ambition would we not decay?
Krishnamurti: This is really a very important question, and it needs great attention. Do you know what attention is? Let us find out. In a class room, when you stare out of the window or pull somebody's hair, the teacher tells you to pay attention. Which means what? That you are not interested in what you are studying and so the teacher compels you to pay attention - which is not attention at all. Attention comes when you are deeply interested in something, for then you love to find out all about it; then your whole mind, your whole being is there. Similarly, the moment you see that this question - if we had no ambition, would we not decay? - is really very important, you are interested and want to find out the truth of the matter. Now, is not the ambitious man destroying himself? That is the first thing to find out, not to ask whether ambition is right or wrong. Look around you, observe all the people who are ambitious. What happens when you are ambitious? You are thinking about yourself, are you not? You are cruel, you push other people aside because you are trying to fulfil your ambition, trying to become a big man, thereby creating in society the conflict between those who are succeeding and those who are falling behind. There is a constant battle between you and the others who are also after what you want; and is this conflict productive of creative living? Do you understand, or is this too difficult? Are you ambitious when you love to do something for its own sake? When you are doing something with your whole being, not because you want to get somewhere, or have more profit, or greater results, but simply because you love to do it - in that there is no ambition, is there? In that there is no competition; you are not struggling with anyone for first place. And should not education help you to find out what you really love to do so that from the beginning to the end of your life you are working at something which you feel is worth while and which for you has deep significance? Otherwise, for the rest of your days, you will be miserable. Not knowing what you really want to do, your mind falls into a routine in which there is only boredom, decay and death. That is why it is very important to find out while you are young what it is you really love to do; and this is the only way to create a new society.
Questioner: In India, as in most other countries, education is being controlled by the government. Under such circumstances is it possible to carry out an experiment of the kind you describe?
Krishnamurti: If there were no government help, would it be possible for a school of this kind to survive? That is what this gentleman is asking. He sees everything throughout the world becoming more and more controlled by governments, by politicians, by people in authority who want to shape our minds and hearts, who want us to think in a certain way. Whether in Russia or in any other country, the tendency is towards government control of education; and this gentleman asks whether it is possible for a school of the kind I am talking about to come into being without government aid. Now, what do you say? You know, if you think something is important, really worth while, you give your heart to it irrespective of governments and the edicts of society - and then it will succeed. But most of us do not give our hearts to anything, and that it why we put this sort of question. If you and I feel vitally that a new world can be brought into being, when each one of us is in complete revolt inwardly, psychologically, spiritually - then we shall give our hearts, our minds, our bodies towards creating a school where there is no such thing as fear with all its implications. Sir, anything truly revolutionary is created by a few who see what is true and are willing to live according to that truth; but to discover what is true demands freedom from tradition, which means freedom from all fears.
Plenty of talented people who have been fortunate enough to have parents that didn't trample their dreams (and potential) have gone one to become successful in their own right without the aid of a degree.
There are some half-truths though:
> For some reasons, Indians just can’t deal with the fact that someone without pedigree can get somewhere in life.
- Airtel, India's largest telecom company, was started by Sunil Mittal, armed with just a Bachelor of Arts degree from a second-rung university.
- Reliance Industries, India's largest private conglomerate, was started by Dhirubhai Ambani, had no college degree.
- The Zee TV group, one of India's largest media and entertainment conglomerates, was started by Subhash Chandra, who dropped out of school after class 12.
- There are many more multi-billion dollar enterprises like Adani and Sobha, that were founded by entrepreneurs without college degrees.
- Quickheal, India's largest anti-virus company, was founded by Kailash Katkar, never studied after school.
- Maxx Mobile, one of the leading low-cost phone makers in India was founded by Ajay Agarwal, a class 9 dropout.
I could go on.
By insisting that Indians "just can't deal with entrepreneurs without pedigree", the author is at best being disingenuous, or at worst slaying a straw man only to elevate his own achievements.
Finally, the stereotyping in the linkbait title, "The Indian and his insatiable..." doesn't help. As others have already pointed out, people (not just Indians, but around the world) make career/education choices in response to the financial/cultural environment around them.
To the average middle-class parents who grew up dealing with scarcity, low incomes, corruption and limited opportunities, the "multi-national job" represents stability, meritocracy, global opportunities and a respectable income.
There really is no reason to belittle them for their choices.
Folk statistics doesn't work the way you describe it. I know it's frustrating to watch, but it simply is that way.
And had this article been nuanced about that (as many earlier articles and posts on this topic have been in the past), it would have been okay.
Instead it reduces it to some kind of peculiar Indian trait ("The Indian and his insatiable...") while painting the second most populous country in the world with the widest of brushes ("Indians just can’t deal with the fact that someone without pedigree can get somewhere in life").
My statistics weren't meant to prove the opposite, that India is somehow very startup/failure friendly (it isn't, not by a long shot), but to only disprove the author's sweeping claim that the lack of a pedigree is some unsurmountable obstacle to succeed in India.
Sure the average VC or bank manager or prospective in-law might value an education over none (assuming ceteris paribus), but let's not use that to completely devalue the importance of a formal college education totally.
Is all.
This is a specific example of a problem that every culture faces, which is cultural memes that have taken on the form of divine wisdom. Not everyone will be Mittal or Gates, in fact that population is a statistically non-existent one; that doesn't mean that dropping out of college to run a startup is the worst idea for any given person. Any culture shutting off that opportunity regardless of the specific case will cost itself in lost opportunities.
And as an aside on the specific content, I am not Indian, but reading this I couldn't help but remember my Indian friends' impressions of their aunts and uncles admonishing them for doing something insane like getting an advanced economic degree when they could have been a doctor or engineer.
If the author truly wanted to "discourage the mentality" (your words), then he ought to at least have understood the mentality to begin with. Or provided some solid reasons as to why Indian parents ought not to insist on a college education, instead of just his ("upper middle class") isolated example.
Definition of success is extremely difficult to be given here.
I will give you a small example. Literacy is a big problem in India. Unfortunately since you can't read or write, your access to information is limited. This puts things like news papers and magazines outside your reach. Access to any kind of information will be weak(Access to information is the most thing for a person in the modern world)- You won't be able to make well informed decisions about anything, your knowledge of current affairs will be weak. Ultimately such a mass of people won't be able to make it big.
This is why basic education should be compulsory. Also these days knowledge of the English language is extremely important to do any work with people of other nations. English is not our native language or mother tongue. So we learn it only in schools.
You should, and in the way cite some statistics or else you would be falling for this common logical fallacy:
Secondly for any poor person in India, without any funding or support. No infrastructure, no exposure and having to fight a historic burden of poverty in the family. Not getting a college education means, the guy will eventually end up working at a tailor's shop or a garage or driver. Working whole life only to hope his son breaks of the cycle of poverty in the next generation.
Contrary to whatever you might think, you can't hard-work your way out of all problems all the time, I know that from personal experience. For a rich person a big financial failure means, a good decent chance to start up again. For a lower middle class person such a failure means, the end of life. Full Stop! Because the debts will drown you till you reach your grave.
The fact is for any lower middle/class and poor person. Getting a decent education is the easiest way to get a job, and then use that money to bootstrap their projects or start up.
You might not learn anything in a college, or a degree might not prep you up for prime time rock star development shops. But it will get you a job, buy you some financial freedom. And then you will have good enough time to iteratively learn and bootstrap your own business.
And beyond all, not everyone's family can write them a check to start something their teens or at any age. Most people live so hand to mouth, without a monthly salary they are pretty much bust!
Before criticizing some one please take into note the fact, they don't enjoy the same privileges and benefits as your do.
I've been an entrepreneur (fairly successful) since I was 13. Yet my folks said I should get a college degree. I did get an engineering degree while 'entrepreneuring' at the same time. Does my degree help me in any direct way ? Nope. But there are several indirect benefits that a degree can get you first amongst which are that in general people think you are capable and well educated. I don't personally subscribe to this thought process but hey, we have to live in this world with everyone else, right ? My degree has opened doors for me and made some people take me more seriously. It has had zero practical contribution towards my endeavors but sometimes opening a door is all it takes. Not only people but even governments sometimes want certain degrees for certain categories of work permits (even if it's totally irrelevant to your work but a degree helps you). Then of course you have the benefits of an alumni network, etc etc. but those are really what you make of them because you can network otherwise as well. But a degree is a formal qualification - treated as such by society and the government. Does it mean you know more ? Probably not. Do people in general think you do ? Probably yes.
I'd still say that in the world today, a college degree matters a lot depending on who you are talking to. It won't matter if you're talking to me but there are a lot of people out there who care about whether you have one or not.
I am not Indian, nor have I spent time in India, so I hope I am right in thinking that this speaks to present growing pains in Indian tech culture. I say growing pains because I think, and hope, that this valuation of pedigree over merit is coming to an end, as it is already at an end in parts of the U.S.
There are, if I may say so, a lot of bad Indian programmers. They’re bad not because they’re Indian, of course, but because they don’t really want to be programmers. It’s a career option. Engineering and business are things you study in school because they’re where money and prestige are. But studying in school and learning are entirely different things.
> The only way your son is ever going to succeed being an entrepreneur is by getting himself an MBA.
I want to believe that this, though it be the present, is not the future of Indian tech entrepreneurship.
I observed long ago that (in my Silicon Valley experience) white American programmers were always good programmers, because white Americans only become programmers if they really want to be programmers. The same cannot always be said of other nationalities and ethnic groups.
At least, that's been true until now. The glamorization of programming and the advent of 10-week programming cram courses may change things.
If by "programming", you mean putting together a website and the like, then yes, there is a huge swath of people who are semi-qualified to do anything else, but get drafted to do more anyway. If by "programming", you mean problem solving and innovation where writing code is actually one of the last things to be done, then most people will consider that to be a smaller subset.
When I was in college, construction was a secure path to middle class, and engineering was something reserved for folks who wanted to make 300k, but work 80 hours a week, a decidedly not-middle-class work ethic.
Today, in the U.S. engineering presents a secure alternative to liberal arts degrees and living with one's parents, just it has historically presented an alternative to manual labor in South Asia.
And I'm kind of sick of the US-centric view that all college degrees cost $100,000+ -- many high quality degrees in other western countries cost as little as 10-20% of this figure (and often are paid for in a deferred payment scheme). As with so many things (like healthcare) it's just another area the US seems to have gone insane with.
It doesn't seem out of line to me. The average high school graduate in Canada will earn about $30,000 per year during the typical age one goes to university. Assuming a degree takes four years, that is a cost of $120,000 right there, ignoring any other fees that may be associated with enrolment.
I hope students (especially) take this post in the right gesture. Dropping out is not the best solution always. Doesn't work for everyone. Its not cool to dropout because Zuck, Gates and Jobs did. You "have to have" a strong reason why university isnt the best option for you.
+1 otherwise for the post. Good to know you had the support you needed. Doesn't happen with everyone. All the best ;)
It is really a great place where you can meet new talented people, learn how to work in a team. Its a place where you can have fights, fall and learn again.
It is the place where you learn to present your Idea by presenting it among your friends first. They can help if you lack something. This kind of things are usually not very easy in the outside world. Because the outside world is busy competing with you.
You meet so many types of people that you learn to categories the people. What kind of people are A Grade and what kind are B grade. This helps you to when you will start hiring.
You say going to college is not worth it. Well another big problem with our thinking is that we think that college is just to learn the "courses". Well its not. Its a lot more than that. I am also a student in one of the most reputable colleges in India, but the way I think, learning is just a state of mind, place doesn't matter. I myself use to think that i have wasted my 4 years learning computer science, that I could have learnt all this in just a year and a half, but today as I am trying to build my startup, I understand that this all connect dots. Even I am not interested in grades at all, but i never stop working on my startup.
So, As I see it, college is like a big sand ground, where you can fall, again and again, and learn to fight. And all this without hurting yourself.
You want to become a doctor? Too bad you don't have an MBBS. We don't care whether you decided to become one only during college, and are willing to spend a few extra years catching up.
Except for diplomas (by which I mean qualifications like CA, which you theoretically could get without attending classes at a college) doesn't place a prerequisite on having a degree. Every master's program I have come across requires a bachelor's degree. Some are more flexible, admitting degrees outside the relevant fields. But most are not.
The reason is pretty simple : In a country like India where anything good suffers a big shortage, people generally prefer to stick to rules, creating many false negatives. This is because no one wants to take up liability in case a false negative crops up. "I followed all the regulations and suggestions," they say.
So anything that involves an expected, and common path ends up needing college degrees as prerequisites. For the Middle Class which cannot afford to wait out a few years, they have no choice but to toe the line. Only if you have any capital (and in India, connections) to begin with, can you expect to change the system. (The author here is a businessman in the crudest sense : not a very conventional career path in a lot of families).
My parents generation mostly got their jobs before the liberalisation of the economy in 1991. In those days, a lot of people dreamed of government jobs : stable, decent paying, and allows you to slack off. In spite of globalisation, we cannot expect their mindset to change a lot after they've fought so badly for jobs, right? This old mindset comes into play when they suggest us to go to college : they've seen decades of public sector employment, this new path (entrepreneurship) seems new, and they honestly believe they are trying to help you. There is no ill-will here.
I do agree one can still earn a good living without college in India too. But I feel what I said has a considerable effect in societal status of middle class people (most of whom are not extraordinary), and this in turn makes people want the college degree.
Then I jumped into entrepreneurship - And they insisted that I should get a job to get a hands-on experience. I gave up after 8 months - to their preferences - but this is when I started seeing success, but couldn't prove it to them. They didn't see it as "lasting"
Today, even at this moment, I can feel "the burden of giving up" because most people around me "insisted" on doing something I dint want to do. Ultimately, I am to blame.
10 years later - I am pretty successful in my career, with a job. My job is not "secure" as they mentioned. Its not satisfying and frequently frustrating. I know no "other job" can fix that ... I want to take the jump into entrepreneurship again - and I am doing whatever I can. And many times I wish I could undo that mistake I made 10 years back. It is seriously less riskier and easier to start young rather than doing it after you are a husband/father/etc.
As far as Education is concerned - That is important. But Degree! - I know most universities in India will give you degrees that don't speak for your talent/skill. It just shows that you passed your exams - and if you have extra money - some universities will give you a degree without you reading a single line.
It is mostly due to the parents having low self-esteem. It comes down to the following two facts:
(1) While there are plenty of exceptionally capable young individuals like OP who have been proving everyone wrong, it usually takes a lot of parental skill and know-how to produce a wunderkind with social skills necessary to navigate the adult world in a foreign country.
(2) Parents who are recent immigrants (especially from poorer nations or from nations with significant cultural differences from the host nation) do not see themselves as capable of providing that know-how. Note that I did not say they can't provide it -- just that they do not see themselves as capable to (it turns out that more often than not they underestimate themselves).
Therefore, if you are a parent in a similar situation, it (often wrongly) appears to you that the only way your children stand a fighting chance is if you they spend as much time in school as possible. Then, of course, is the social pressure from family friends.
I don't find this particularly shocking. Without knowing the particulars of this kid, it sounds like pretty sane advice to a 16 year old - finish your education. School, strangely enough, gives people a lot of free time too, probably more than a full-time job does. It's possible to get an education, and dabble in entrepreneurship, and find friends who gel with you enough to make you might want to take on as partners. Someone with the aptitude for entrepreneurship will likely find a way to do all that while getting an education, but it's not irresponsible for a parent or guardian to encourage kids to focus on their education -- Just because some kids turn out to be successful dropout-entrepreneurs doesn't mean that dropping out at the first opportunity is a well-defined path to success.
He is saying that Indians seem to think that you need a degree to be successful, and discount the entrepreneur category by itself. He clearly thinks this is untrue and a counterproductive attitude, but there it is.
He is probably bringing it up because it is hard enough to be an entrepreneur without people constantly telling you that you will fail for one arbitrary reason or another.
By the way, this holds pretty much true in the United States -- most middle- and upper-class people think you need a degree to succeed.
But the entrepreneur category is probably given more respect. E.g. my friend's daughter is postponing college to work on her startup - she mostly getting very positive reinforcement all around.
When you're researching a large nation with more than a billion people, you'll find a lot of people who have degrees and a lot of people who do not and a lot of people who like chewing gum and (again) a lot of people who do not.
The only thing the results should tell you is that there are a lot of people there. They say nothing about the average individual.
I assume you are in the US. If you met an Indian person and evaluated his relationships and belief systems based on your American standards, you'd get a very misleading picture. You need to understand cultural context.
For some reasons, Indians just can’t deal with the fact that someone without pedigree can get somewhere in life. It’s unbelievable that you can be a good programmer, successful businessman or great marketer without an {insert random college degree here}.
In a huge 3rd world country, a degree is obviously useful. It's a gov-issued certification, a way to transfer trust from the person having the degree to the government. You don't need to trust the guy because the government says he can code. If you don't see why that's useful probably you never had 10000 applications sent to you.
The problem with degree inflation is the same as any other kind of inflation, it lowers (devaluates?) the value of the degree.
A good point, the argument for a college degree becomes quite a lot more compelling then as starting a company is almost right out...
This does not take away anything from the author, his entrepreneurship and his overall success, mind you. However, the points made by ~kamaal and everyone else in this thread are extremely valid. They represent the part of India that is not so 'shining'.
I myself fall in the same category as the author. I chose to drop out of my Masters in Physics (with an elective in Astrophysics) and went to work as a Radio Show host for a commercial radio station. It was made possible only because of an invisible fallback option that my parents provided. Without it, I would probably be working away at a 9 to 5 job writing uninspired code for some company rather than sitting at home trying my hand at programming with Python.
Wait.
Oh, shit.
Source: Anecdotes and reading lots of news articles.
The traditional education system WAS the easiest way to get a job. Nowadays, it is the easiest way NOT to get a job.
Step 1: Download the 10 books x 4 (years) = 40 books of the average university degree. Step 2: Unless it's mathematics, it is just literature. Read it. Step 3: Sit the 10 x 4 exams at an online college.
In most developed countries, you have just managed NOT to spend 100 000 USD and NOT to waste 4 years of your life. All of this sounds useless, and it probably is equally useless, but at least it is not as time-consuming nor as expensive as the traditional alternative.
Let me ask every one a simple question. If you believe you didn't learn much at college. Now that you are out of college why haven't you turned into a knowledge bank? If you ponder at that question long enough you will eventually realize there is nothing really wrong with college anyway.
Coming to your original point, unfortunately degrees matter in our society. Like you I believe that we must do away with that system and look at learning and the ability to perform instead.
Here in India, you can't even get a job interview if you don't have a degree. So we are stuck in this degree system, and probably will be decades to come.
In most developed countries, college is much cheaper than that (to the student). I paid $1400/year to attend a respected university.
Debts? Does India not have limited-liability corporations? In rational countries, when your business idea fails, you just throw away the company and start another.
But businesses are still stuck in the concept of loans. Its like you take a loan to buy your home(Or if I'm right its called mortgage in the US). Businesses pretty much run on loans. So things get super risky, when you factor in failure. Because lenders are expecting principle amount + interests in returns, and you have to often give some thing as a guarantee(for eg: a house, or a plot) which remains with the lender till you return the amount.
I think the trends are changing now. I heard a senior VC talk at a start up conference here in Bangalore. One of the main reasons why entrepreneurship never took off in India was because people had to deal with what-after-failure scenarios, and then it ends there. If the venture is too risky there is hardly any point trying.
Large, densely populated areas tend to be more culturally homogenous than smaller, more spread-out ones. So the idea isn't totally outlandish.
I didn't get that from reading the OP's article at all. I heard him saying that the lack of a pedigree is perceived by people in India as an insurmountable obstacle. You may disagree with that. Personally, I have no idea. But there's a difference between what you're accusing him of saying and what he actually said.
Additionally, the discussion on the authors post was primarily about those who have developed some capability to "do" either outside the conventional school system or at a particularly early point. This clearly limits the applicability of the discussion to those who have in some fashion achieved access to information and processed it well. This likely rules out illiterate people, non-English speakers (specifically in Tech) and many others from the discussion. I am not saying that their exclusion from information is a good thing, clearly it is not. However, taking the median Indian and saying that the best move in their situation should be encouraged universally is clearly wrong, as is doing so in any culture/country, and I interpreted the article to only be complaining about the dogmatic attachment to that "best path" even in the face of demonstrated success.
The situation is no way close to that in the US. In fact even to get anything close to an angel investment you need at least an IIT or an IIM degree. Ask this to anyone trying to bootstrap. Alumni connections are very important, if not that you at least need to be some how networked to a VC. I've had personal experiences with all these.
The best bet for any Indian entrepreneur is either raising money from family(If they are rich enough to fund you) or really bootstrap it as a side project and grow it out.
Either way being an entrepreneur is not for the faint hearted in India. If you are bootstrapping in your side, you will likely work 19 hrs a day and face failure after failure with nearly everyone around finding reasons to make you and your decisions look stupid. At the same time you see guys not even 1/100th the worth climbing the corporate ladder and taking obscene salaries back home just because they happen to be good politicians.
It just all boils down to one word, Persistence. Keep trying. Its not about winning or losing, you just have to show up every day and put up a fight. Eventually you will make it.
Great point. This is actually not constrained to India but propagate through most of Asia, including the generally rich Singapore. Seems like a favorite "past-time" to watch people fail. It's a society that lives by the saying "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".
Which is why Silicon Valley is such an attractive place to pursue a startup. The support system is there and there are little social stigma attached to failure.
Failing after putting in all the long hours and weekends is not something that is easy to stomach alone. Failing and having everyone around you rub it in is brutal.