Indian parents talk often about making their children future ready, yet the meaning of that phrase has shifted faster than most households realise. Stable careers and predictable pathways are no longer the norm for young people entering higher education. Universities report a widening gap between what parents believe will secure success and what students actually need to navigate a world shaped by volatility, interdisciplinary work, and rapid technological change. To understand how parental expectations influence identity, choices, and real adaptability, we spoke with P G Babu, Vice-Chancellor of Vidyashilp University, who has observed these patterns across decades of teaching and academic leadership.
1. What do Indian parents generally mean by “future-ready,” and how does that differ from what young people actually need?
In my experience, Indian parents often use “future-ready” as shorthand for stable and socially recognisable outcomes — a respected degree that leads to predictable employment, and insulation from uncertainty. This comes from an earlier era where upward mobility depended heavily on security.
But young people today face a world where stability is the exception, not the rule. Their real requirement is adaptive competence — the ability to learn new skills quickly, work across disciplines, and make decisions under incomplete information.
A student who enters college aspiring for economics may, within a decade, find opportunities in behavioural analysis, sustainability markets, or AI-governed financial systems.
So there is a divergence: parental aspirations are security-driven, whereas the future is fluid. Our young people must prepare for flexibility rather than routine and permanence.
2. In what ways do parental expectations shape identity, choice, and self-worth during the transition to higher education?
Parental expectations act as a reference point against which students calibrate their own worth. Over the years, I have seen academically strong students who equate “not disappointing parents” with success. This narrow framing suppresses exploration.
For instance, many students who are equally capable in Mathematics and Design choose the former because the social signal is clearer. Their sense of identity becomes externally anchored.
Students who grow up in environments that value effort, curiosity, and honesty — rather than specific outcomes — transition far more confidently into higher education. Their choices reflect their interests, not their anxieties.
3. How do common definitions of “success” in Indian households influence risk-taking and creativity?
A large part of the Indian middle-class imagination equates success with predictability: marks, ranks, and recognisable professions. This makes students excellent at meeting defined expectations but less comfortable with uncertainty.
I often tell students: you solve complex economic models confidently, but you hesitate when I ask, “What would you like to do next?”
Because the former has a correct answer; the latter requires judgment.
Countries that normalise failure as feedback — such as Israel or parts of Europe — see greater creative risk-taking. In our context, broadening the meaning of success can release a great deal of latent creativity.
4. What psychological or developmental needs are most overlooked in the push for academic preparation?
Three stand out across years of teaching:
Autonomy — the permission to make incremental decisions.
Emotional regulation — learning to handle setbacks without internal turmoil.
Belonging — the knowledge that one’s worth is not tied solely to performance.
I have seen exceptionally bright students struggle because they never learned to make small independent decisions. Academic excellence without emotional grounding often leads to fragile confidence.
5. Which abilities matter more for real-world adaptability than the skills parents prioritise?
Parents often overestimate the value of specialised skills and underestimate the value of transferable abilities.
From long observation, the abilities that consistently predict long-term adaptability are:
the capacity for self-directed learning,
clear communication,
cross-cultural competence,
comfort with ambiguity, and
good judgment.
A former student of mine moved from development economics to behavioural science and then to finance — none of which he foresaw. His adaptability, not his initial specialisation, determined his trajectory.
6. How does the home environment influence a young adult’s ability to handle pressure and change?
A home that combines warmth with reasonable autonomy produces the most resilient young adults.
Students from highly controlled environments perform well when the structure is clear but struggle when required to navigate open-ended tasks or collaborative decision-making.
I also notice geographical patterns: students raised in cosmopolitan cities, where exposure to diversity is high and parental control is relatively moderate, tend to handle ambiguity better. The same is true for those coming from families with limited educational attainment but a strong belief in its liberating force.
7. At what stages is the mismatch between parental guidance and developmental needs the greatest?
The conflict peaks between ages 17 and 20. This is the phase where students need practice in independent thinking, but parents tend to increase control because “college is crucial.”
Universities often witness this mismatch during course selection, internships, and placements. Many students seek guidance, but what they actually need is scaffolded autonomy — structured freedom, not prescriptive decision-making.
8. What patterns have you noticed in high-performing, well-resourced students who struggle with purpose?
The pattern is quite consistent: these students excel in structured, rule-bound systems but are uncomfortable defining goals for themselves. Their achievements are strong, but their inner compass is weak.
They have mastered performance but not self-authorship.
The moment they encounter environments without fixed rubrics, they feel directionless. Helping them build a clearer sense of agency often makes a significant difference.
9. What belief of yours has evolved the most about preparing young people for the future?
Earlier in my career, I believed that clarity of direction was central to preparation. Today, I recognise that clarity is temporary, but capability is enduring.
The future will reward those who can learn, unlearn, recalibrate, and adapt without losing their ethical grounding.
Preparing young people, therefore, is less about predicting the world and more about strengthening their capacity to navigate it with maturity and judgment.
