There was a time when the teacher was the most respected person ,after one’s family members. Now times have changed significantly..Teachers complain that students, even those at primary levels are least interested in classroom lectures and mandatory attendance has now become the only (de)motivator for attending lectures. In this post I will try to analyse the reasons behind this changed scenario and perception of students towards lectures. I will be using some concepts of finance, for which I duly apologize for my non-finance mates.
A student can be thought of having “bought an option” —-paying for the lecture is like paying option premium…The management can be viewed as the option writer..Now, the student, after having bought an option has the right but not the obligation to exercise it …Boring lectures not adding any value to the student can be viewed as an option “out-of-the-money” The student has anyway paid for the lecture..he has the right not to exercise the right of attending it.. Can the option writer force the option buyer to exercise the out-of-the-money call option i.e attend a non-value adding lecture?. On the other hand ,a lecture adding value to the student is like an option ending in the money and the student will happily exercise the the option and “profit” from the transaction…..There are some professors, whose lectures are attended by students for knowledge and value addition and not due to any external (de)motivating factors..The scenario today is however equivalent to buying a forward contract..you have to exercise it irrespective of whether you are making money out of it or not..
The thing to note is that education in academic institutions is a service for which the student is heavily charged. If inspite of paying for the services, a student doesnot wish to avail of it, the question to be asked is that whether it is always completely the fault of the student or there is something that the concerned teacher needs to change?