Mandating student presence, erasing learning

The Hindu

Core Theme and Context

The article critiques the decision of a major public university to mandate minimum classroom attendance for students, arguing that the policy reflects a deeper institutional mistrust of learners and a managerial approach to education. It situates the issue within a broader debate on the purpose of higher education—whether universities exist to enforce compliance or to cultivate intellectual autonomy, curiosity, and critical thinking.

The piece is less about attendance per se and more about pedagogy, institutional culture, and the erosion of academic freedom.

Key Arguments Presented

1. Attendance as a Proxy for Control, Not Learning

The central argument is that compulsory attendance treats presence as a substitute for engagement. The author contends that learning is a cognitive and intellectual process, not a physical one, and that forced attendance often produces passive compliance rather than genuine participation.

Attendance mandates are portrayed as a bureaucratic shortcut for addressing deeper pedagogical weaknesses.

2. Managerialism in Higher Education

The article frames the attendance policy as part of a larger trend of managerial governance in universities—where administrators rely on measurable inputs (attendance, surveillance, compliance) rather than qualitative outcomes (intellectual growth, debate, originality).

This shift is presented as inimical to the university’s historical role as a space of free inquiry.

3. Student Autonomy and Intellectual Maturity

A recurring theme is that higher education presupposes adult learners capable of making informed choices. Mandating attendance is seen as infantilising students, undermining their responsibility for self-directed learning.

The author contrasts universities with schools, arguing that the logic of compulsion is pedagogically inappropriate at the tertiary level.

4. Quality of Teaching as the Real Issue

Implicitly, the article argues that good teaching attracts attendance naturally. If students avoid lectures, the problem lies not in student discipline but in:

• Outdated pedagogy
• Rigid curricula
• Lack of intellectual stimulation

Attendance mandates are thus described as symptoms of institutional insecurity rather than solutions.

5. Threat to Academic Culture

The policy is seen as eroding a culture of debate, dissent, and experimentation. By prioritising uniformity and obedience, universities risk becoming credentialing factories rather than centres of knowledge creation.

Author’s Stance

The author adopts a normative and strongly liberal academic stance:

• Firmly opposed to compulsory attendance
• Deeply committed to the idea of universities as autonomous intellectual spaces
• Critical of administrative overreach and surveillance

The tone is reflective but unmistakably critical, grounded in personal teaching experience and broader philosophical arguments about education.

Implicit Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Elite University Benchmarking

The article implicitly benchmarks Indian universities against elite global institutions, which may:

• Underestimate structural differences in student preparedness
• Ignore massification challenges in public higher education

2. Faculty-Centric Perspective

The argument privileges the teacher–student intellectual relationship, with limited engagement with:

• Administrative constraints
• Accountability mechanisms in publicly funded institutions

3. Idealised Student Agency

The article assumes a high degree of student motivation and self-discipline, which may not hold uniformly across socio-economic and academic backgrounds.

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Forcefully defends academic freedom and intellectual autonomy
• Correctly identifies pedagogical quality as central to engagement
• Raises concerns about surveillance and bureaucratisation
• Aligns higher education with democratic and liberal values

Cons

• Underplays issues of uneven access and preparedness among students
• Offers limited practical alternatives to ensure minimum engagement
• Does not fully address accountability in publicly funded universities
• Risks appearing dismissive of institutional governance challenges

Policy Implications

1. Rethinking Higher Education Governance

The article suggests the need to:

• Shift from compliance-based metrics to learning outcomes
• Trust faculty and students as co-creators of knowledge
• Reduce administrative micromanagement

2. Pedagogical Reform Over Disciplinary Measures

Rather than mandating attendance, institutions should invest in:

• Innovative teaching methods
• Flexible curricula
• Seminar-based and discussion-driven learning

3. Balancing Autonomy and Accountability

Policy must reconcile student freedom with public accountability, especially in state-funded universities, without reducing education to box-ticking exercises.

Real-World Impact

• Mandatory attendance may increase physical presence but reduce intellectual engagement
• Over-regulation risks alienating both students and faculty
• Poorly designed policies can weaken trust within academic institutions
• Long-term erosion of critical thinking may affect democratic citizenship and innovation

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – Governance and Social Justice

• Education policy
• Institutional autonomy
• Role of the state in higher education

GS Paper IV – Ethics and Human Values

• Autonomy vs coercion
• Trust, responsibility, and moral agency
• Ethics of surveillance and control

GS Paper I – Society

• Changing nature of education
• Youth, aspirations, and institutional culture

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article presents a compelling critique of compulsory attendance as a misdiagnosis of deeper educational problems. It rightly argues that learning cannot be enforced through physical presence and that universities must prioritise intellectual engagement over administrative convenience.

However, the challenge ahead lies in crafting policies that:

• Respect student autonomy
• Ensure inclusivity and minimum engagement
• Maintain accountability in public institutions

The future of higher education will depend on whether universities choose to cultivate trust and curiosity or retreat into surveillance and compliance. This distinction, as the article suggests, will shape not just campuses, but the intellectual character of society itself.