Knowledge without purpose, education which fails

Right up to class 8 - schools can teach more or less whatsoever they like to. They introduce a whole range subjects. Some schools even have art and music teachers. Surprisingly there is even geology. There is no bar what you can learn what you cannot. The school has a limited number of students in each class. So if a student's performance is to be gauged it will from the those 45 to 60 students. The teacher is both teacher and examiner. So she (or he) knows more about the student than anyone else. If the student has some difficulty - a mental or physical problem - it would be conveyed to the parents directly. Many learning problems are related to poor eyesight, undue fatigue, some kind of illness. Which the teacher can tell the parents and the parents in turn can make the proper arrangements to help their child
But as soon the student  is in 9th class - everything which happened before comes to an abrupt end - it as if it never existed. 
Students are treated as if they are machines not human beings. What counts then are the Board Exams and ridiculous curriculum. All of a sudden the number of subjects are reduced to a handful and are divided in Science, Commerce and Art. Students are not allowed to ask questions, they are supposed start memorising their textbooks, without understanding what they contain.
It is the worst  time for knowledge to be broken into different component parts, it is the time when students have more access to more information - it should go on for several classes not just 9, 10, 11 and 12. there should be a 13th class also. They should seek knowledge not memorise it. They should be asking questions, try to learn and understand. But they are never given the opportunity. This will happen when brain dead sycophantic bureaucrats take over and make absolutely worthless rules.

The more subjects are taught the more students know and understand.

Memorising should never be the aim, the purpose should be to convey an answer in the best one can. Presently the way questions are asked in exams are:

• When they say answer in your own words - what they really mean is repeat everything which is in the text book. Know the exact chapter where the answer is. Know it word for word, punctuation for punctuation mark. It does not literally mean your own words like a student should give a concise reply in his (her) words. Which actually be the case. The student should give the central idea. There is no reason why an exam should last three hours, when all the questions have to be answered in the student's own words. It should be only for one hour.
• The other way questions are asked in exams are cryptic - so they the students have to first decipher them. The purpose is to confuse the student and should not be able to tell what the question is on the face of it. Only a fucking sociopath would make questions like this (the purpose is to make it impossible for the majority of the students get through the exam - if all the students go through then there would be an employment problem, most of the students should get very low grades or they fail). 
• Give hints and clues in the exam - but they have to be ordered in a specific manner - which only the examiner knows and the student has to work at to understand.
• The contest of the students is with thousands of others. Since one person can check all the papers, the task of checking papers is sub-contracted to paper checkers. For each paper they check (most of the time do not) they get Rs 100 per paper. A paper checker ends up with a Rs 1 lakh.  How the paper was checked no one really knows (I saw a paper checker check a bagful of papers on a train - he did not give enough time to any paper - less than a minute thenhe was checking another - he must have checked up to more than a hundred papers before got down at the next station).  How can such system do justice for a students efforts is anyone's guess. 

Unlike sports, in which someone should be a winner, education is different. Education is not a game or a sporting event. The parents of every student pay to have their child to learn well enough so that he can get through the exam which should not be difficult to understand. They pay so that teachers give their child the required attention and their child should be able to understand. If the end result of their child's education is going low marks or failure, then it is entirely the fault of the school or college. (Sociopaths however view exams also as deadly contest - for them winning is everything 'losers deserve to die'). The most important question is this - what do those people do who fail? Should they give up on life because they cannot get a job? Is an examination result the end all and be all?  That is what people are made to feel, the truth the kind of education we have and the system of examination does not reflect the true talent and ability of the individual. 
What the existing education is trying to suppress the potential of the people. Whether people liked or not the fashion industry took off. Choreographers are in demand. Good photographers are sought after. We have some of the most brilliant scientist in the world. We are not mediocre by any standard we can invent and we can innovate all that it needs is some motivation.