Do good for “living,” or do good for the “afterlife”?

What Prof. Jiang Xueqin conveyed in this lecture opened up and somehow connected the dots as to why the “quality” gap in higher education has persisted from the Industrial Revolution 1.0 through Society 5.0.

Logically, with so many “tools” available today, the quality of learning, research, and community service should be different from what people achieved in the past, shouldn’t it?

Case in point

• Past tense:
  Entering a university involved no selection. Anyone who wished to delve into the natural sciences, religious knowledge, the study of life, etc., could join a majelis ilmu (study circle). The form of “selection” was the strength of one’s intention to learn, sincerity, resilience, and perseverance.
• Present tense:
  Even getting into kindergarten requires an exam. Or, if you want to study, you must have a high “score.” For what? To make sure the “input” is good so that, with a bit of polishing, students become high achievers and bring prestige to the institution. For what? For the sake of the so-called “campus revenue.” CMIIW.(It doesn’t hurt to watch the A/B Campus clip in this context.)

Exploring the founding histories of Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools as presented by Prof. Jiang Xueqin in a 10 minute clip from his lecture, alhamdulillah (praise be to God), reminded me to remind students to "...be true to yourself and focus on real learning."

IMHO, real learning means learning to improve oneself. Learning without pressure. Learning out of need, not to avoid social "stigma." Learning to create change. (Let’s discuss this later.)

One thing is certain (IMHO): what differentiates one person from another is a matter of orientation. Do good for “making a living” in a world full of drama, or do good for the “afterlife.”

Happy weekend.