Balancing Academic Control and Student Autonomy in Education

Growing up in India, I had a complex relationship with education. Given the country's population of 1.4 billion and hundreds of millions of school-aged students, securing a quality education felt like winning the lottery, and I took it seriously. I loved learning but didn't particularly enjoy sitting in a classroom. One of my greatest fears was being called on in class—I worried I'd say something wrong and face ridicule. Although school provided great friendships and fun experiences, it couldn't shield me from the anxiety of being singled out or the pressure of failing a test. Despite not always finding joy in the classroom, my curiosity and determination propelled me to study engineering at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, followed by graduate education at MIT. However, it is equally easy to lose curiosity and fall off the system altogether.

Surveys conducted by Gallup reveal that around 60% of high school students report feeling engaged in school. However, engagement often diminishes during the transition to college, with many studies indicating that fewer than 50% of students remain engaged in higher education. It's easy to blame students, thinking they struggle to learn, which can be true, but it’s essential to unpack the underlying reasons.

The reality is that there's tremendous pressure on students to succeed; the competition is fierce, and the standards for getting into good colleges, and universities, or securing well-paying jobs have only escalated. Those of us fortunate enough to receive a top-notch education often feel pressured to speak highly of our experiences; failing to do so might seem disingenuous.

Observing the educational landscape and reviewing relevant research, it becomes apparent that the system isn’t effectively serving a vast majority of students. Those of us who have been deemed successful—at least based on our educational backgrounds—must critically evaluate which aspects of higher education worked for us. While classrooms, teaching, and testing for memorization have some merits, making these the central focus has many negative repercussions. I often hear the argument that control ensures quality by teaching students the correct methodologies. While there is some truth there, merely knowing the right answer is insufficient. It's equally important to understand the wrong answers, as learning is inherently an iterative process. The best software engineers don’t just produce code; they grasp the problem and craft code to devise elegant solutions.

Why is it crucial to question these established practices? If we don’t, higher education may face unjust criticism from the public for issues that could be remedied. This presents a significant opportunity: to critically analyze what works and what needs improvement, all with a concentrated focus on students and effective learning methods.

I believe we are witnessing a shift from control to agency in education. Effective educational experiences occur in the "Goldilocks zone," where educators enforce a balance of control to set goals, objectives, standards, and pathways for student achievement. However, when control becomes excessive and undermines autonomy, it strips away the essential aspect of free-range learning—one that involves applying concepts in practice, engaging in critical thinking, and debating diverse viewpoints. Such constraints can also erode the motivation necessary for students to remain engaged. If you’re interested in exploring the relationship between autonomy and motivation, you might find Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci particularly enlightening.

This shift from control isn’t merely about what institutions desire; it’s about what students demand as they prepare for a modern economy that prioritizes critical thinking, self-learning, communication, and a wide array of durable skills. These skills have become exponentially more important with the rapid advancements in AI in recent years.

Institutions that prioritize student agency by creating spaces for engagement, sharing perspectives, synthesizing learning, and applying knowledge will thrive. One institution I recently collaborated with found that the strongest predictor of students recommending their programs was their sense of belonging with other students, instructors, and administrators. A fundamental aspect of belonging is autonomy, which fosters authentic interactions, encourages challenging discussions, and cultivates mutual trust.

Education cannot merely function as a machine for transferring knowledge and skills—AI bots and robots will soon fill that role. Instead, it should transform learners into better versions of themselves. Transformation cannot be forced or controlled; it must stem from the students themselves. What’s essential is maintaining the balance and creating the right environment for transformation to flourish.