Individual aim of Education has been criticised on the following grounds: 1. Encouragement of Individualism: Individual aim of education supports individualism. The opponents of this aim of education hold that if education aims at development of individuality, then it will lead to spread of anarchy. The individual may begin to exert to the extent 'Ahm Brahmo Asmi.' (I am God) and then believe "life exists for me; cleer of my way. I must have what I want, and so on." It may produce persons like Hitler and Mussolini, and society will have to face harmful consequences of individualism. Thus individual aim of education is the enemy of socialism. Hence individual aim of education cannot be accepted in the socialistic state.

2. Disregard of Man's Social Nature: The supporters of individual aim of education ignore the fact that man is a social animal and his individuality or selfis realised through social interaction. Raymont says, "An isolated individual is a figment of imagination." It means that only in society and because of society, he acquires a personality—otherwise he remains an animal. 3. Disregard of Environment: Criticising Nunn's autonomous development of individuality, Rusk says that this idea is biological and therefore, defective. Biological development is determined by the past. It ignores the influence of socio-cultural environment and stresses only heredity. Psychology has proved that environment plays a

very significant role in the development of the individuality of the child. Ross beautifully remarks, "Individuality is of no value and personality is a meaningless term apart from social environment." 4. Dimculty in Making Social Adjustment: Under all circumstances man has to live with other individuals in the society. For leading a successful life, it is essential for him to make adjustment with others. Too much emphasis on individual aim will cause difficulty in making social adjustment. 5. Not Practicable: Theoretically individual aim of education may be accepted but it is not practicable. It is not possible at any stage to fix different types of curriculum for each student. In the light of above discussion, we can say that the extreme individual aim is not desirable. We must admit that individual cannot develop his individuality in vacuum. He can develop his maximum potentialities in the social context alone. Self-expression is essential for the development of the

individual, but it does not mean that the individual should have absolute freedom. Absolute freedom enjoyed by the individual will disintegrate society. Self-expression is desirable only when it integrates rather than disintegrates society. Similarly, self-realization is good, but it should not be achieved in isolation from the society; it should be realized while living in the society. Thus the emphasis that is now- a-days being placed on the individual aims of education does not imply total neglect of the social aims. It is in fact a synthesis of the individual and social aims. It is impossible to conceive of one in the total absence of the other. There is no human being outside society and society is made up of human beings. Hence, even if education is designed to aim at social service, it implicitly promotes the interests and the individuality of the human being.

supporters of the social aim of education believe that society or state alone is the real, and the individual is only a means. They hold that an individual should be educated for the good of the society. The social