Treating PCMB as supreme can have far-reaching negative effects

Eminently considered the most advantageous option, the science stream, particularly the physic-chemistry-mathematics-biology (PCMB) combination, offers an unbeatable advantage when taking up science courses at college.

Unfortunately, the widespread belief that PCMB is the magic holding the potency to enhance students’ scholastic trajectory steals the thunder from the other subjects. It creates an undesirable atmosphere of imbalance in educational institutions.

In a world where varied educational and employment opportunities are emerging in fields like finance, media, design, fashion, psychology, politics, and management, associating the ultimate success with PCMB indicates a fixed mindset that needs thorough overhauling. The need to do so becomes more vital when we see how subject supremacy damages the academic fabric of a school.

Importance of other subjects: When academia puts PCMB students in the limelight, it devalues other subjects or interdisciplinary learning that enriches the educational spectrum. Judging the importance of any subject based on its difficulty level diminishes the value it holds in the discipline where it needs to be applied. Comparing the skills needed for mass media studies with those requisite for Mathematics is not only odd but also leads to unreasoned and unfair judgments.

Feelings of inadequacy: If a learner is made to believe that the scope of his/her subject is limited, then naturally, it will give rise to a feeling of inadequacy and low self-esteem. Any reminder that puts subjects other than PCMB in a bad light can negatively impact the mental well-being of the learner. Learners preparing for CLAT (Common Law Admission Test), IPMAT (Integrated Programme in Management Aptitude Test), and the entrance test for NIFT (National Institute of Fashion Technology) know the amount of hard work required to clear these exams.

The idea of diversity: When Howard Gardener proposed his much-needed theory that intelligence can be of many kinds, like interpersonal, musical, linguistic and more, he redirected, rather challenged, educationists who believed every student should be cut from the same cloth. Now braced with this encouragement, students must take pride in showcasing their talent and intelligence rather than feeling guilty about it. This is where the principle of valuing the uniqueness of every student needs to be accepted wholeheartedly.

The chasm between students: If juxtaposed against each other based on their subject selection, where there is a constant weighing up, it will lead to a situation where boundaries would be marked grudgingly. It can result in students preferring seclusion to avoid interactions with those belittling their streams and can harm the academic atmosphere in institutions.

Discrediting natural inclinations: Figuring out one’s aptitude for any course at a young age is very important. If students, through SWOT analysis, identify their area of interest in fields, it must not elicit any response that plays down their career choice. They manage to dodge indecisiveness and parental pressure and keep stress away by studying what they feel excited about. Here, appreciation for zeroing in on natural learning is important. It saves learners from despair and stress.

National Education Policy-2020 states: “...no hard separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extra-curricular activities, between vocational and academic streams, etc. to eliminate harmful hierarchies among, and silos between different areas of learning…”

Perhaps, as a move to pull the plug on the subject of chauvinism, students will now have the freedom and flexibility to break the time-honoured mould of traditional combinations and pursue subjects that can be a mixed bag of science, commerce, and humanities.

(The author is a teacher of English and Mass Media Studies in a Bengaluru-based school)