In the recent years (more-so in the last one yr),there was this one question which continuously plagued my mind. Consistency in action in a particular field is absolutely essential for succeeding ,so what happens when you've had this shattering realisation that consistency is not one of the traits you've happened to cultivate or not simply been fortunate enough to be born with?
What if you're the type who gives peak performances once in a while n remain in 'hibernate' mode otherwise? Of course, I'm implying that those peak performances are not rare, just that they are not on a day-to-day basis..Should you consistently attempt to be consistent? So on, and so forth. A fortnight ago or so, I came across a blog-post, where the blogger blogs bout this ‘stud-fighter’ theory..
This is his theory, which finally answered a lot of questions..
The original post is worth a read, though I'm gonna paraphrase it here.
He talks about why batsmen need to show fighter qualities like consistency (no use performing in an over and screwing the rest- all overs have to be played well), whereas, a bowler needs to be a stud-associated with bouts of spectacular performance, and in this case, supreme consistency is not essential. Taking 3-4 wickets in one single over (great performance in that over) itself contributes to the match significantly.
This can be extended to education to a certain extent. If the teachers are the fighter type, they think all students have to put in a certain amount of threshold work, stick to their books, and only then can they get a hold on the subject. Naturally, students who are the stud type don't will have a mindset-fit difference with the teacher. Same is the case with stud teachers.
I was wondering if grouping the studs and fighters separately-the faculty and students-will accomplish better results for the instis.. I don't think it will serve any purpose. A combination of studs and fighters is fine. Things are good the way they are. Variety is, after all, the spice of life.