Intellectual vexation at work

I have seen today a so-called academic environment where sharpness intelligence and personality do not receive any kind of incentives in terms of academic reward (read MARK). With the terms above, I mean participation to the problem, interest, finding oneself inside the issue, putting some brain in speaking about it and some good human heart.It is useless to enter the merit of the intercourse i had there. But my emotional reaction to that attains its absolute worth because it deals with intellectual frustration.The student environment is poor at the beginning of the year, and this because the subject, The field is a kind of social science, is usually not the one that the most endowed individual choose: many go there because they wish to "have a degree" (with which advantages, besides fertility decline?).These perspective students, fortunately, have not so high survival instinct to think that they are anyway wonderful, excellent and bright (vs. Angloamericans. I bet this concurs in continental europeans causing some problems to themselves). So they are usually not very motivated: this is the worst and most realistic pictures that a teacher finds before his eyes. So, what shall a teacher do before some sprouts of enthusiasm?... well ... the very paradoxical thing is that in practice involvement is not recognized - not detected, not rewarded. They do not care if your eyes are bright for the subject: they punish you for "imperfections",they punish you for not being conformist to their way of thinking, to their political embedness, and in the worst cases they assert their superiority by arbitrariness - some sociological stuff is easily made illogic and when you abandon plain reasonment or common sense without entering philosophy or superior reasonment, this means you are in the dark. And when you are in the dark, the worst things happen: uncontrolled mass movements, loss of language, loss of right, (someone would say: "atomization").Universities are supposed to be there to combat these phaenomena and to preserve the possibility of infusion of rationality in modern society.If they become incubators of the contrary, then they are pervert by definition.The consequence of that is twofold: first of all, students come to believe that culture is that - universioty is that - a professor is that. This is a direct consequence of the principle of survival, and of the fact that our memory and general sense of things tends to readjust depending on our practical experience and limited realm of action. So they would not understand what closing a universioty means, and they do not have an idea of what studying and knowledge is. This is much worst of the simple farmers, because at least he is blank about such arguments - instead, these poor people substituted the content of the notion of knowledge with what they experienced as such.the second consequence is more socially relevant, and very sad and is a sort of poverty trap. The student who borns poor, at the dawn of university, is encouraged to stay poor. His/her poor ideas of himself/herself and of studies are corroborated empirically. ARGH! So the intellect of the student is working against his interest in this way. Moreover, the more humble possibilities you have (if you just "want a degree" you are probably not socially advantaged, yr parents are not professors or politicians, your income might not be exceptionally high), the less your eventual "original" and free beginning of passion and superiority is cultivated. Poor people are maintained in captivity, and upward honest communication becomes difficult.