There is a race underway in every school and university in the world.
It begins early — earlier than most people remember. It begins the first time a child brings home a test result and reads their family’s face before they read the number. It begins the first time they understand, viscerally and without words, that their value is somehow connected to their performance. That love, or approval, or safety, is at least partially conditional on getting it right.
By the time that child reaches a university lecture hall, the race is the only game they know. The only frame they have for evaluating themselves, each other, and the meaning of what they are doing.
And the race is destroying them.
Not the ambition — ambition is not the problem. Not the effort — effort is not the problem. Not even the competition itself, in moderation, in context, with appropriate meaning attached to it.
The problem is that we have built an entire educational architecture around competition as the primary organising principle of a young person’s development — and we have forgotten, somewhere along the way, to ask what the competition is actually for.
The modern educational system was not designed to produce flourishing human beings. It was designed to produce literate, disciplined workers and capable soldiers.
The Prussian model of mass education — adopted across Europe and then the world in the nineteenth century — was explicitly conceived as a mechanism for producing reliable state subjects: people who could follow instructions, tolerate hierarchy, perform repetitive tasks, and subordinate individual inclination to collective (specifically, national) purpose. The examination system, the grading system, the hierarchical organisation of subjects by perceived economic utility — all of this was architecture designed for a specific purpose, and that purpose was not human flourishing.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is documented educational history. And while the explicit Prussian framing has long since been shed, the underlying structure — rank, grade, compete, sort, credential, repeat — has proven remarkably durable. It has survived industrialisation, digitalisation, and a revolution in our understanding of how human beings actually learn and develop. It has survived, essentially unchanged in its deep assumptions, into an era that has made almost all of those assumptions obsolete.
We are preparing students for a world that no longer exists, using a framework designed for human beings as we have never actually been.
A student who graduates from a prestigious university with first-class honours has demonstrated, conclusively, that they can perform well in academic assessment environments under sustained pressure.
We know almost nothing else about them from that transcript.
We do not know whether they can regulate their emotions under genuine adversity. We do not know whether they can build and sustain relationships of depth and trust. We do not know whether they have a coherent sense of what they value and why — or whether they have simply absorbed the values of the institution that assessed them. We do not know whether they can sit with uncertainty, tolerate failure, recover from loss, or find meaning in work that is difficult and unrewarded. We do not know whether they are happy, in any durable sense of the word.
And here is what makes this a genuine educational crisis rather than merely a philosophical concern: happiness research is unambiguous that these capacities — the ones the transcript does not measure — are among the strongest predictors of every outcome we actually care about.
The Harvard Study of Adult Development — 85 years of longitudinal research on what makes a good life — found that the quality of relationships is the single strongest predictor of health, happiness, and longevity. Not academic achievement. Not professional success. Relationships.
Research by Sonja Lyubomirsky, Shawn Achor, and their colleagues at Harvard shows that positive affect — the presence of genuine wellbeing — predicts higher productivity, greater creativity, stronger interpersonal effectiveness, lower absenteeism, and significantly better decision-making. The causal arrow runs, more reliably than most people assume, from wellbeing to performance rather than the other way.
What we are currently measuring in our educational system is not a reliable proxy for what we actually want. And what we are failing to measure — and more importantly, failing to cultivate — is precisely what research shows matters most.
The statistics are important, but they do not fully capture what is actually happening to young people inside the systems we have built.
In India, where the Rekhi Foundation for Happiness works most intensively, student suicide rates are among the highest in the world. The National Crime Records Bureau documents thousands of student deaths by suicide per year — a figure that represents the visible, statistical tip of a much larger reality of suffering that never reaches official records. Over 60% of students in higher education in India report significant symptoms of anxiety. Nearly one in three meets clinical criteria for depression.
These are not the symptoms of a generation that lacks resilience or toughness. They are the symptoms of human beings being asked to survive a system that was never designed to serve their humanity.
The United States tells a similar story. The American College Health Association’s annual surveys consistently show that over 60% of college students have experienced overwhelming anxiety in the past twelve months. Rates of depression, loneliness, and reported meaninglessness have risen continuously for fifteen years. The demand for campus mental health services consistently outpaces the capacity to provide them — which is itself a signal that the system is producing more distress than it can absorb.
The United Kingdom. Australia. South Korea — where the pressure of the suneung university entrance exam has produced a publicly acknowledged mental health crisis among teenagers. Japan, where karoshi — death from overwork — begins, in its cultural and psychological origins, not in the boardroom but in the classroom.
These are not isolated national problems. They are the predictable output of a global educational architecture that has optimised for measurable academic performance and left everything else to chance.
To understand why competition-as-primary-organising-principle is so damaging, it helps to understand what it does, neurologically and psychologically, to the developing human brain.
The competitive academic environment as typically structured is a sustained, chronic stressor. It activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis — the body’s primary stress response system — and maintains elevated cortisol in students who internalise the stakes of academic performance as threats to their safety, belonging, or worth.
Chronic cortisol elevation has well-documented effects on the developing brain: it impairs the hippocampus’s ability to consolidate new learning. It suppresses the prefrontal cortex’s capacity for creative and integrative thinking — precisely the kinds of thinking that the most sophisticated academic and professional work actually requires. It increases amygdala reactivity, making students more emotionally volatile and more sensitive to perceived threat. And it narrows the attentional field in ways that make genuine curiosity — the actual engine of learning — progressively harder to access.
There is a profound irony here. The competitive pressure applied to students in the name of academic excellence is, at chronic levels, neurologically incompatible with the kind of learning and thinking that genuine excellence requires. We are stressing students in the name of performance while systematically impairing the neurological conditions for performance.
Research by Carol Dweck at Stanford on growth versus fixed mindsets makes this concrete. Students who learn to associate their academic performance with their fundamental worth — a fixed-mindset orientation — show greater anxiety, lower resilience after failure, reduced willingness to attempt difficult things, and ultimately lower long-term achievement than students who understand their abilities as developmental rather than fixed. The competitive system, which ranks and grades and sorts on the basis of current performance, systematically reinforces the fixed-mindset orientation. It teaches students that their results are a measurement of what they are rather than evidence of what they have learned so far.
The concept of human flourishing has a long and rich history in philosophy and, more recently, in psychological science — and it is worth being precise about what it means, because it is frequently mistaken for a softer version of achievement.
Flourishing is not happiness in the hedonic sense — not simply the presence of positive emotion or the absence of difficulty. It is a multidimensional state of genuine wellbeing that includes vitality, meaning, engagement, authentic relationships, personal growth, and a sense of contribution to something beyond oneself.
Martin Seligman’s PERMA model — the most influential framework in contemporary happiness research — identifies five components of flourishing: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Achievement. Note that Achievement is one element among five — necessary but not sufficient, and not the most reliably predictive of overall wellbeing. The research consistently shows that people who pursue Achievement at the expense of the other four elements produce a particular profile of success: impressive on paper, hollow in experience.
Aristotle called the highest form of human wellbeing eudaimonia — often translated as flourishing, sometimes as happiness, most accurately as “living in accordance with one’s deepest nature and capacities.” He distinguished it clearly from hedonia (pleasure) and from mere achievement. Eudaimonia is not what you accumulate. It is not what you accomplish. It is the quality of the life being lived from the inside.
This distinction — ancient in its origins, rigorously validated in contemporary psychological science — is precisely what the competitive educational system obscures. It produces graduates who have been extensively trained in the accumulation of credentials and extensively neglected in the cultivation of a life.
The question is not only diagnostic. It is constructive. If competition-as-sole-organising-principle is the problem, what is the alternative — and can it actually be implemented within real educational institutions, at real scale, with real students?
The answer, from the Rekhi Foundation’s experience across more than 50 universities in 6 countries, is yes. And it does not require the abolition of academic standards, the elimination of grades, or the transformation of universities into therapy centres.
It requires adding something that is currently absent.
Emotional wellbeing education teaches students what emotions actually are — not problems to be suppressed or performed, but a sophisticated biological signalling system that, when understood and worked with skillfully, dramatically improves both psychological health and cognitive performance.
Students learn to name their emotional states with precision — what psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett calls emotional granularity — which research shows measurably improves emotional regulation. They learn the difference between processing a difficult emotion and being overwhelmed by it. They learn that anxiety before a presentation is not a sign of inadequacy but a signal of care — and that working with it rather than against it produces better outcomes than either suppression or avoidance.
These are not therapeutic skills. They are life skills. And they are precisely the skills that the competitive academic environment most systematically fails to develop — because competition, as currently structured, teaches students to suppress the emotional reality of their experience rather than engage with it skillfully.
The inclusion of mindfulness training in educational curricula is sometimes met with scepticism — a sense that it is insufficiently rigorous, or that it displaces more academically serious content. This scepticism dissolves in contact with the neuroscience.
Mindfulness training measurably strengthens the prefrontal cortex — the region responsible for planning, decision-making, creative thinking, and emotional regulation. It reduces Default Mode Network rumination — the brain’s tendency to replay concerns and anticipate threats — which is one of the primary mechanisms of both anxiety and impaired learning. It improves sustained attention and working memory. It increases the metacognitive awareness that is, arguably, the most sophisticated cognitive capacity a student can develop — the ability to observe their own thinking, notice its patterns, and choose their responses rather than being driven by them.
These are not wellness benefits. They are educational benefits. And they are achievable with as little as ten minutes of daily practice, sustained over eight weeks — making them entirely compatible with the time demands of a full academic programme.
One of the most consistently replicated findings in happiness research is that structured gratitude practice — the deliberate, specific acknowledgement of what is good in one’s experience — shifts the brain’s attentional defaults away from the negativity bias and toward a more balanced perception of reality.
For students immersed in competitive environments where what is going wrong is far more salient than what is going right — where a B+ on one paper occupies more cognitive bandwidth than four A’s — this attentional retraining is not a luxury. It is a cognitive intervention with measurable effects on wellbeing, motivation, social relationships, and academic engagement.
Perhaps the most radical element of an education for flourishing is the explicit, structured engagement with the questions that competitive education systematically avoids: What do I value? What kind of person do I want to be? What does a life well-lived look like to me?
These questions are not too personal for academic treatment. They are ancient academic questions — the central questions of philosophy, ethics, and the humanities — that modern curriculum design has progressively displaced in favour of more immediately credentialisable content.
Research on purpose and wellbeing by William Damon at Stanford, and on meaning by Michael Steger and colleagues, shows that young people with a clear sense of purpose show dramatically greater resilience under stress, better academic engagement, lower rates of depression and anxiety, and higher life satisfaction across every measure available. The question is not whether universities should cultivate this. It is whether they can afford not to.
The Rekhi Foundation for Happiness was established on a conviction that is simultaneously ancient and urgently contemporary: that the most important education a person can receive is education in the conditions for their own flourishing.
Since 2016, the Foundation has been building that education into real universities, at real scale, with real students — not as an elective enrichment programme but as a credit-bearing academic discipline. The Science of Happiness Course is taught at more than 50 institutions across 6 countries, including IIT Kharagpur, IIM Lucknow, Amity University, Delhi University, and partner institutions in the United States, Japan, the UAE, and Pakistan.
The MindLab technology — biofeedback devices that measure physiological indicators of stress and wellbeing in real time — brings scientific rigour to what might otherwise remain subjective. Students do not just learn about the neuroscience of wellbeing. They see it operating in themselves.
What the Foundation has learned, across a decade of this work, is that students are hungry for it. Not because they want to feel good without working — but because they sense, often before they can articulate it, that the race they are running does not lead anywhere they actually want to go. That the credential at the end of it is necessary but not sufficient. That something important is missing — and that its absence has a cost they are already paying.
The Science of Happiness Course gives that something a name, a body of evidence, and a set of practices. It tells students, in academic terms that carry institutional weight: your inner life matters. Your capacity for joy and connection and meaning is not a distraction from your education. It is the point of it.
Universities are extraordinarily good at answering the question: How do we produce graduates who can compete?
They have spent 200 years optimising for it. The infrastructure is remarkable. The examination systems are sophisticated. The credential architecture is globally recognised. The sorting mechanisms are refined to a precision that would have astonished any previous generation.
What universities have not asked — at least not with anything approaching the same rigour and institutional commitment — is the other question:
How do we produce graduates who can flourish?
These questions are not in opposition. A person who flourishes — who has genuine emotional wellbeing, authentic relationships, a clear sense of purpose, and the psychological resilience to navigate difficulty without being destroyed by it — is also, the research shows, more creative, more productive, more collaborative, more innovative, and more likely to contribute something genuinely valuable to the world.
Flourishing and achievement are not alternatives. Flourishing is the foundation from which the most meaningful achievement becomes possible.
The race we are teaching students to run is real. The pressures that drive it are real. The consequences of falling behind in it are real.
But the race is not the whole of a life. And the student who wins it but has not learned to inhabit their own existence fully — with presence, with joy, with meaning, with the quality of connection that the Harvard study found to be the strongest predictor of everything we actually care about — has not, in any deep sense, been educated.
They have been sorted.
Education is something more than that. It is, at its best, an invitation into the fullness of what it means to be human. And the fullness of what it means to be human includes — has always included — the capacity to flourish.
It is time to teach it.
Damon, W. (2008). The Path to Purpose: How Young People Find Their Calling in Life. Free Press. Stanford developmental psychologist William Damon’s research on the role of purpose in adolescent and young adult development — showing that young people with a clear sense of meaning show dramatically greater resilience, academic engagement, and life satisfaction. → https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=14375
The competitive academic environment, as typically structured, functions as a chronic stressor — activating the body's sustained stress response through the persistent experience of evaluation, ranking, and the association of performance with worth. Research in educational neuroscience shows that chronic stress impairs hippocampal memory consolidation, suppresses prefrontal creative and integrative thinking, and increases amygdala reactivity — all of which degrade precisely the cognitive capacities that genuine academic excellence requires. Carol Dweck's research on mindset shows that students who internalise competitive frameworks as measurements of fixed worth show greater anxiety, lower resilience after failure, and ultimately lower long-term achievement than those with growth-oriented frameworks. The result is a system that applies pressure in the name of performance while systematically undermining the neurological conditions for performance. Emotional wellbeing education — as the Rekhi Foundation delivers through the Science of Happiness Course — addresses this directly by teaching students to understand their emotional experience, regulate their stress responses, and engage with their education from a foundation of psychological security rather than threat.
Teaching students to flourish means providing them with the knowledge, skills, and practices that enable genuine wellbeing — not the absence of difficulty, but the development of the psychological resources to engage with difficulty without being destroyed by it. Practically, it means including emotional wellbeing education as a core academic subject rather than an extracurricular supplement. It means teaching the neuroscience of stress and emotional regulation, the science of mindfulness training and gratitude practice, the research on social connection and relationships, and the philosophical and empirical case for meaning and purpose as foundations of a good life. It means taking seriously the question — which every great educational tradition before ours placed at its centre — of what it means to live well. This is not in opposition to academic rigour. Research by Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues at Harvard shows that genuine wellbeing predicts higher creativity, productivity, and interpersonal effectiveness. Teaching students to flourish is not an alternative to teaching them to excel. It is the most reliable route to both.
Yes — and the evidence is both robust and counterintuitive for those who assume a trade-off between wellbeing and performance. Research by Shawn Achor at Harvard shows that positive affect — genuine wellbeing — improves performance on cognitive tasks, increases creative problem-solving capacity, and enhances the social and collaborative skills that determine effectiveness in most professional environments. Mindfulness training research shows measurable improvements in sustained attention, working memory, and metacognitive awareness — all of which directly support academic performance. The Rekhi Foundation's own outcome data from the Science of Happiness Course across 50+ university partnerships shows that students who engage with the curriculum report not just lower anxiety and greater life satisfaction but more authentic academic engagement — a qualitative shift from performing for grades toward learning for understanding. This shift, research on intrinsic motivation consistently shows, predicts better long-term retention, greater creative output, and more sustained professional growth than extrinsic, grade-oriented motivation alone.
Not only can it — the argument that it would compromise rigour misunderstands what the field involves. Happiness research is among the most carefully studied domains in contemporary social science, drawing on randomised controlled trials, longitudinal studies, neuroimaging, and cross-cultural surveys spanning decades. The Science of Happiness Course as taught by the Rekhi Foundation at IIT Kharagpur, IIM Lucknow, Amity University, Delhi University, and 50+ other institutions is a credit-bearing academic subject with formal assessment, peer-reviewed research foundations, and outcome measurement using MindLab biofeedback technology. Students engage with the primary literature in positive psychology and neuroscience, critically evaluate evidence for specific wellbeing interventions, and apply frameworks drawn from both ancient philosophical traditions and contemporary empirical research. This is academically demanding work. It is also — as students consistently report — the most personally significant academic work they encounter in their university careers. Rigour and relevance are not opposites. Happiness science demonstrates that they are complementary.
Universities have a responsibility to student wellbeing that extends far beyond crisis intervention through counselling services. Counselling is intervention — it helps students who are already suffering. What universities also owe their students is prevention: the proactive cultivation of the psychological resources that enable them to navigate their academic and life experiences with resilience, meaning, and genuine wellbeing. This means treating emotional wellbeing education as a structural element of the curriculum — not a wellness programme available to those who seek it, but a core academic discipline available to everyone. It means designing the academic environment itself with attention to the psychological conditions for learning: autonomy, belonging, mastery, and meaning — the four conditions identified by self-determination theory as foundational to intrinsic motivation and genuine engagement. And it means asking, at the institutional level, the question that the Rekhi Foundation's work poses to every partner university: are we producing graduates who can compete, or graduates who can flourish? The former is necessary. The latter is the actual purpose of education — and it is achievable, at scale, with the knowledge and tools that happiness research already provides.
Rekhi Foundation, founded in 2016, promotes Happiness Science via university centers, collaborating globally across six countries.
Table of Contents
6/79, S/F, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005, INDIA
2051, Last Chance Court, Gold River, CA 95670, USA
