The answer the purpose of education is to EDUCATE. Education is not about examinations, homework or classwork periods and class (grade) system. It is about providing students - knowledge, understanding and to indulge their deep curiosity of so many subjects and that there are in the world. Besides introducing them the enormous variety of subjects which exist in the world.
Understanding by accessing to a great deal of sources of information. Many which may contradict one another. Provide proof fill in gaps in data. Education is about ideas and their orgins, it is information and its origins. The more we know the better we understand – but in the given circumstances, students are never encouraged to do this. Education is about the letting students know about the vast number of subjects which exist give them an idea is what can be learnt at least have an idea as to what kind knowledge exists in the world.
None of this has anyting to do with thoroughly memorising a handful of subjects. The examanitation authorities tell the students such information has nothing to do with their formation of their careers. Which only goes to show that the meaning of education has been severely distorted, it is only about letting students know just about so much as so that they can do a job and never bother with acquiring the knowledge in other subject or show any interest in them at because it would hinder with their studies.
The examination authorities lie to the students because if students were to study the examination authotiries would not be able to manage it. Besides there not enough qualified examiners qualified in fact there are none to check a paper of every conceivable subject which exists, for instance if there is a subject entirely about on How The Ears Of Mickey Mouse Have Changed Over The Years there would be no examiner to check such paper. By limiting the number of subjects is like telling the students that humanity has progressed just because of a handful of subjects which they are studying which is an absolute lie.
One of the most venal thing which has been introduced apart from reducing the number of subjects are textbooks which limits knowledge to the bare minimum and does not allow for questions and ideas from outside. Textbooks abbreviates all knowledge and they can never be questioned or challenged. In any case teachers themselves do not have the answers, if they did if they would have spend more than allocated 45 minutes in answering a student’s question. The examination authorities are living a proof that they is against education itself. They want to make things easier for themselves by quashing the curiosity of students.
There is a major difference between memorising and understanding. If a student understands a subject he would quote any source to give an answer and if he sees fit his answer can be just a few words not more. Instead of replying questions on the basis of memorising but through thorough understanding it would be a major change from the norm. If students answer on the basis of understanding – then the examiner will have to be equally qualifed to follow the student’s argument in every question which has been answered. It is far easier to mark a paper in which to answer based purely on memory alone and not on understanding and analysis.
Education authorities say exams would be impossible to conduct exams, if students do no memorise the information in their textbooks. They oppose the idea that students giving detailed information from outside sources other than those mentioned in the textbook, they are bound to fail in the exams because the examiners do not consider such information valid answers, hence the student fails although what he has written down an answer which makes perfect sense. Some question in exams can be answered in two lines if it students were allowed to answer them by simply understanding them and simply giving a gist – but that is not good enough, students are supposed to memorise an entire chapter like a printing machine.
Students study a specific subject an entire year and they are expected to answer questions within a fixed time. Which is unfair they should be given several weeks to answer all the questions of every subject. So that it should be easy for students to reply every question of every subject. This makes the existing examion system absolutely ridiculous. Another thing which makes it rididulous they are for specific time
Examiners are obviously stupid, impatient and corrupt group of people. They also have a tendency to give bad or no marks to correctly answered questions. Take money from influential people for improving marks (grades).
However there is no way of confirming such massive corruption exists and several times these has been reported but nothing is ever done about it. Examiners hide the examination papers from the students so has to keep their poor and most of the time completely wrong marking is done and is kept secret – so that no one can be implicated – if it was not kept secret and students are shown what they have done and allowed to challenge the examiners (who consder themselves above scrutiny and even above the law) the examiners would have to justify their position of give proper marks to the student.
A student should have the right dispute the marking of his (or her) paper. If the student is told that he did not complete an answer of a question the student he should be given the opportunity to do so even make required changes and fill in the necessary answers ; after this is done the examination paper should be remarked. But such a suggestion is downright sacrilege. If marking procedures are challenged by letting students know what they have done in the exams and they are allowed to redo the paper with correct answers so that the student can improve his marks─ the all powerful position of the examining authorities would be severely undermined.
How does anyone know if the examiners are actually checking the papers correctly or just generally wasting their time?But when students start out with knowledge which is dogmatic, they will learn only to conform not change the way things are done, the result be that nothing will improve everything will remain the same. Just because students were never allowed to question anything.
None of the students who get to the top of the class ever do anything remarkable. None of them has done anything to make the world a better place, invented or discovered anything – they just receiving marks not to improve things in society on the whole. It is just a personal victory and as banal as just to get a job. But it is statically impossible and is patently absurd that out of several million students only a handful of them get top marks whereas all the others do not. When all the students have been taught the same subject they should all get equal marks.
Since what I have suggested will never change – the only question remains those who fail in exams or have dropped out because they do not like they way they are taught or because they have continuously receiving terrible marks their option is to rely on their own talent and aptitude, which can never never taught in present day environment. Those who know how to do certain things, which were never taught and for which there can never be in any examination these are the people who will change the world not those receive top. These are the people who will become entrepreneur and hiring the people who did well in exams since they were too busy studying they did not have time to catch up with the realities of the world. Or these people would be dead because they committed suicide as their peers would condemn for being incompetent and stupid.
Examination authorities wherever they are in the world should be abolished and let students learn things which they like and try to learn more about them no matter how many years with no class (or grade) system acting as a hurdle. What should be encouraged is curiosity,questions, searching for answers. Make education a free system in which there no limitations no barriers.
Textbooks are so bad consider the following – a textbook tells about archeological find called Moenjodaro and the information provided is that it is 5000 years old, no reason is given about how is it known that it is as old, students are expected simply accept the information without questioning. The history of the Mughals stops at Aurangzeb, then resumes after a gap of a century with the mention of the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar the textbooks do not comment as to what happened after Aurangzeb and what happened to the Mughal empire
After the British East India Company had occupied most of
Students are expected to accept it for all that it is worth, which is absolutely ridiculous
Comments