4 ms·

Since we(comments and PG) are all peddling anecdotes.. IME, the dynamics in Indian schools, are polar opposite to the ones described here. "Nerds" tend to do w

Since we(comments and PG) are all peddling anecdotes.. IME, the dynamics in Indian schools, are polar opposite to the ones described here. "Nerds" tend to do well in both academics and extracurriculars. And in the majority case can also be referred to simultaneously as "Jocks". The separation between "nerds" and "jocks" into two ends of a (lunch table) spectrum is the biggest culture shock to me. The words that separate "nerds" and "jocks" don't exist in my native language's vocabulary even. For the longest time, I believed that intelligence is a broadly applicable trait, that translates well to rapid spatial reasoning(sports), abstract reasoning(academics) and emotional awareness(social). I haven't seen even a single exception to the rule while going through the Indian school system. While there is some truth to it. IMHO, it has to do with cultural ideals that "adults" adhere to. Academic achievement isn't celebrated culturally in US (relatively speaking). I say that while also simultaneously acknowledging that the current Indian definition of academic achievement is disastrously narrow and breeds a culture of arrogance and intellectual insecurity.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
As a Pakistani, school was not as described in the essay, but there were definitely elements of it. Some people were definitely bad at academics (by choice sometimes), but good at various extracurriculars. There were definitely "jocks" who excelled at sports or music or debates, and were in danger of being kicked out because of grades. Some of the "jocks" had bad social skills, a lot of the "nerds" had excellent social skills. But people were absolutely not excluded from friendships because of what activities they participated in. I saw all sorts of friendships, because people just liked people. There was bullying, but it happened for other reasons.
muzani 6y ago
This might be the case in many Asian countries too. Me and my classmates grew up watching American (and Japanese) high school movies, but the stereotypes never stuck. Bullying exists, but the bullies were often the ones who did well in class. Bullies are those who pick on easy prey weaker than them, and those who got isolated into the "dumb classes" were easily bullied. Move up in university and boarding school, and bullying became a lot more extreme, heavily controlled by the ones with good grades. The kids with bad grades tended to have less willpower, come from poorer families, smoked and had less stamina, dressed poorly and couldn't afford tuition. They had a lot of discrimination stacked against them, and were easily oppressed by the "nerds". I would categorize myself as a nerd in that I didn't bother with how I looked or dressed, or that I had bad handwriting. But that attitude lent me a more regal reputation in school; similar to punk or "bad boy" instead.
higerordermap 6y ago
Indian definition of academic achievement is very rote learning focused. The academically very successful person is not likely to be very intelligent, they might just happen to be hard working because indian education system is mostly rote learning based. In the above-average-but-not-best part of academic achievements spectrum is where most of the actually intelligent people are found. They are not as studious as their hardworking "topper" counterparts, but in general, actually understand the subjects and can think creatively. In my experience here, I have seen lot of "academically succesful" people and lot of intelligent people, there are very few people who are in both of these sets.
- llamaz 6y ago
  I agree, but I'd argue that most education is similar, unless you live in Finland or went to special technical school for e.g. math or physics. In university I had a few lecturers that tried to be different. They tested knowledge rather than hard work, and how many times you've drilled past exam papers. Generally these courses made the students feel out of control of their fate, stressed/anxious, and they hated the course. If I'm being honest I was one of those students. Ultimately, the kind of "smart" you're talking about is not useful or valued. There are a small percentage of students, who are not only smart, but also good at "gaming" the system. A small percentage of this subset might end up in research and development, and the students who would be good at R&D don't get the chance to prove themselves. For most students, being good at "gaming" the system, following instructions, and learning by rote is good enough. To be a doctor or a lawyer, you need to know by rote the basic fundamental knowledge. Thereafter it's constant practice and experience in actually practising medicine/law, and the associated accumulation of knowledge of all the "little tricks" and intricacies, that makes you a good professional.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

As a Pakistani, school was not as described in the essay, but there were definitely elements of it. Some people were definitely bad at academics (by choice sometimes), but good at various extracurriculars. There were definitely "jocks" who excelled at sports or music or debates, and were in danger of being kicked out because of grades. Some of the "jocks" had bad social skills, a lot of the "nerds" had excellent social skills. But people were absolutely not excluded from friendships because of what activities they participated in. I saw all sorts of friendships, because people just liked people. There was bullying, but it happened for other reasons.

muzani 6y ago

This might be the case in many Asian countries too. Me and my classmates grew up watching American (and Japanese) high school movies, but the stereotypes never stuck. Bullying exists, but the bullies were often the ones who did well in class. Bullies are those who pick on easy prey weaker than them, and those who got isolated into the "dumb classes" were easily bullied. Move up in university and boarding school, and bullying became a lot more extreme, heavily controlled by the ones with good grades. The kids with bad grades tended to have less willpower, come from poorer families, smoked and had less stamina, dressed poorly and couldn't afford tuition. They had a lot of discrimination stacked against them, and were easily oppressed by the "nerds". I would categorize myself as a nerd in that I didn't bother with how I looked or dressed, or that I had bad handwriting. But that attitude lent me a more regal reputation in school; similar to punk or "bad boy" instead.

higerordermap 6y ago

Indian definition of academic achievement is very rote learning focused. The academically very successful person is not likely to be very intelligent, they might just happen to be hard working because indian education system is mostly rote learning based. In the above-average-but-not-best part of academic achievements spectrum is where most of the actually intelligent people are found. They are not as studious as their hardworking "topper" counterparts, but in general, actually understand the subjects and can think creatively. In my experience here, I have seen lot of "academically succesful" people and lot of intelligent people, there are very few people who are in both of these sets.

llamaz 6y ago
I agree, but I'd argue that most education is similar, unless you live in Finland or went to special technical school for e.g. math or physics. In university I had a few lecturers that tried to be different. They tested knowledge rather than hard work, and how many times you've drilled past exam papers. Generally these courses made the students feel out of control of their fate, stressed/anxious, and they hated the course. If I'm being honest I was one of those students. Ultimately, the kind of "smart" you're talking about is not useful or valued. There are a small percentage of students, who are not only smart, but also good at "gaming" the system. A small percentage of this subset might end up in research and development, and the students who would be good at R&D don't get the chance to prove themselves. For most students, being good at "gaming" the system, following instructions, and learning by rote is good enough. To be a doctor or a lawyer, you need to know by rote the basic fundamental knowledge. Thereafter it's constant practice and experience in actually practising medicine/law, and the associated accumulation of knowledge of all the "little tricks" and intricacies, that makes you a good professional.