By Thinkman · April 9, 2010
I was reading an article in The Hindu about 2009 Chemistry Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and his journey towards his scientific discovery. Behind this Nobel Laureate were a few teachers — teachers who were themselves students in their own right.
He narrates in the article:
"A faculty member in the physics department, S.K. Shah, told me about a brand new curriculum they were introducing for their undergraduate course. It began with the Berkeley Physics Course, and was supplemented by the Feynman Lectures on Physics before moving on to more specialised areas. My teachers in physics, especially S.K. Shah and H.S. Desai, were very excited to be teaching the new curriculum for the first time, and their enthusiasm was infectious."
Around the same time I read another article about new measures in US education — paying teachers for their achievements. A teacher in that piece made the statement that life-altering events affecting students have an impact on classroom performance through no fault of the teacher, and that teachers should not be held accountable for such outcomes.
I felt that even though a teacher cannot be blamed for poor results caused by factors outside the classroom — teachers are, in fact, the only ones in a position to distract students from those very events. To motivate them. To bring them back on track. To make them perform despite what is happening in their lives. To do that well, a teacher would need to be either psychic or a trained psychologist — which is not realistic. But they can be good mentors — people who talk to students, listen to them, and gently steer them back towards learning.
During my post-graduation in computer applications, I had teachers across many disciplines. Many classes were poorly attended — but one teacher consistently drew students in, and his results were always better than any other lecturer's.
The difference was simple: he was updating his skills with the latest developments in industry, while others were falling behind. The curriculum did not require cutting-edge knowledge — but his awareness of it generated excitement and eagerness in the students. He would quote from a book he had read a few days earlier about heat sink technology in the middle of a lecture on microprocessor design. That kind of spontaneous connection between the present and the relevant is what made him memorable.
A second example came from the workplace. I had the opportunity of working with a Team Lead who was a great learner — someone whose thoughts always revolved around why, who, how, what — and who approached every problem with the energy and curiosity of someone entirely new to it. He mentored his team through knowledge-sharing sessions that were always well attended. People came because they knew they would leave knowing something they did not know before.
My experience leads me to one conclusion: teachers should be lifetime students. Their enthusiasm and dynamism is what generates interest in the people they are teaching — whether in a classroom or a boardroom. They should also extend their skills into behavioural understanding — not to become psychologists, but to become better influencers of the people in their care.
If we had more such teachers, we would not be debating whether to pay them for their achievements. They would already be the best-paid professionals in any field — because they are, materially and fundamentally, the ones who create the future.
