Chanakyaa
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,538
- Reaction score
- -36
- Country
- Location
No Problemo Buddy.
Where we stand in education ?
- Thread starter HAIDER
- Start date
No Problemo Buddy.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Ah ! So you do admit that you like seeing indian women with naked bellies.
BTW, would like to know which news channel are you watching which has all these naked bellies.
On a serious note, its true that we won't get anywhere on the development charts unless we (in South Asia) educate our girl children. India's present efforts are abysmal and pathetic. Probably true of Pakistan as well. Till that happens, we are wasting our time wondering whether we make it to a list here or there.
khuramonline
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
In some cases, Education System itself becomes a problem. Here in this post, I am sharing article written by an Idian named Mr. Sandeep Pandey. In the next post, I will share my own article which highlights the same point of view:
More than schooling
A critique of the modern education system, by Sandeep Pandey.
The process of education is considered so important in our society that no parents, who can afford it, can imagine having their children go uneducated. It has become such an integral part of our lives that for most people, completing the process of education appears to be a matter of habit. Others, who have so far remained outside this process, are now being covered by the literacy programmes of the government and various non-governmental organizations. Extending the privilege to everybody in the country seems to be a top priority for various governments representing political thought of different shades. Those outside the education system see it as a desirable thing and are quite eager to take advantage of the opportunity offered to them. But, why exactly is education so indispensable?
The need for such an examination arises because everything does not seem to be going alright with the education system. The ground reality is that in most of the schools and colleges of India, students, teachers and administrators are apathetic towards the process of education, fraudulent ways are beings adopted to complete the process and a large number of educated youth find themselves without jobs. It is quite anomalous that when the people, government and those involved in implementing it, consider the education to be a desirable thing, they choose to ignore the real state of affairs on ground. Policy makers, politicians, social activists and education experts are seen taking idealist positions when talking about education, most of the time. Do they really want to continue and expand the existing education system in its present form? Besides the degeneration of the process, education as an activity seems to be going on without any direction.
The purpose of education
More precisely, the perceived goal of education to make the individual and the society 'better' in some qualitative sense, seems to missing in its current form. In our rush to get everybody educated, we do not consider it important to ask ourselves why do we need education?
An idealist notion about the necessity of education has been taken for granted. If fact this notion has been so strongly developed that we are taught to overlook the shortcomings in the implementation of this activity. Both independent groups, who have chosen to work in the field of education, and expert committees have only suggested ways of improving the effectiveness of present education system without addressing themselves to the more basic issues of the purpose of the entire activity. Such people often choose to ignore the disturbing trends, mentioned above, associated with the education system.
Most of the people will refuse to link the malaise in the system to the basic nature of the system itself, considering it to be a disorder which could be taken care of by implementing a proper machinery. Such assumptions need to be questioned. In this article we will present an analysis of the present education system, which will raise questions at such basic levels. When so much resources and the prime time of our children and youth are being given over to the education system, we as a society need to find out the achievement of this system in real terms. However, in this evaluation one must be prepared to dispense with the assumption that the modern education system, or some close variant of it, is absolutely indispensable, for on close examination this kind of education system itself appears to be at fault. The present article will restrict itself to being a critique of the modern education system and will highlight its inadequacies. The solution in the form of a new concept of education derived from a newly established philosophy, Sah Astitwawad Darshan, of Nagaraj Sharma of Amarkantak, will be the subject of a future article. The concept of education based on this philosophy offers the possibility of establishment of a just human order.
Let us first take a look at why people perceive education to be a desirable thing. When several groups of people in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh were asked as to why they felt the need of education, the answers fell in broadly three categories. The most common answer was that education makes people progressive in some sense and is necessary for the advancement of a civilized society. Next, people thought that it imparts knowledge. Lastly, very few people admitted, and that too quite hesitatingly, that it provides employment opportunities. It is interesting that educated people in formal conversation find it improper to voice the most popularly held view among the people that education opens up more job opportunities. It is probably a sign of their being 'civilized', which is quoted as the most important reason for getting educated. We will take up the issues of what people mean when they say that education makes one civilized or imparts knowledge, later.
Education and Job Opportunities
First we will look at the notion of education opening up job opportunities. It turns out that when parents send their children to school they are essentially seeking a 'secure future' for them, which basically means that their children upon getting educated would become eligible for salaried jobs. Even if they do not realize it, the societal norm which compels them to have their children go to school is guided by the same motivation. In fact, this pressure is so great that no parent can even think of doing otherwise. Considering that modern education system incurs some expenditure on the part of parents, it can easily be identified as a middle and upward class activity. The roots of our education system are in the Imperial days, where it was essentially meant to produce a class of people who would assist the British in running the administration of this country.
Even today the education system continues to serve the same function.
It produces a salaried middle class which acts as an appendage to the ruling class and helps keep a primarily coercive administrative system in place. Since the nature of such jobs is essentially of clerical type and there is almost no scope to exercise an individual's creativity. Most people, even those possessing highest of academic qualifications, cannot derive satisfaction out of their jobs. To compensate for their unproductive nature of jobs they have to be paid higher wages than can be earned otherwise. This creates an economic gap between the salaried class and the class of people who depend on their hard labour and often engaged in production activities which sustain the economy. It is primarily this high salary level accompanied by the associated proximity to ruling classes which becomes the motivating factor for any parents taking a decision to get their children educated.
Since the education system is also designed to produce merely a 'clerical' class, upon the completion of their education programmes the youth seek fixed salary and low risk secure jobs. The top priority is often government jobs because there is remote possibility of getting thrown out of them, in addition to other financial and material benefits offered by them. However, the number of such salaried jobs is limited. In fact the number of salaried jobs which are primarily of clerical nature cannot exceed a certain limit because a large segment of the population would be needed outside it, in the primary and secondary sectors of economy, which incidentally also happen to be the source of income for governments from where salaries are generated. Hence, there is a practical restraint on the number of people who can be 'benefitted' by the present education system.
To present the idea of education in its current form as a desirable thing and involving large masses of people in it through literacy programmes, thereby making them aspirants in a limited (salaried) job market, is an irresponsible behaviour. Even though it could be argued that economic liberalization programmes are creating more job opportunities, the number of people receiving education and going without a job is growing at a faster rate. Experience of working in the Ballia district shows that a large number of youth actually fail to make it to the job system. The education system with its urban and elitist bias puts the students from rural and semi-rural background in a disadvantaged position to begin with. Since it is basically a job-oriented education system where people are prepared for subordinate roles, the process of training need not maintain very high standards of excellence. In fact, the general quality of education in this country is very mediocre and at a number of places the whole exercise has been reduced to a farce.
Since what is needed to demonstrate when applying for a job is the certificate and not actual competence, people have devised ways of completing the process of obtaining the certificates without actually putting in the hard work to go through the entire exercise involved in the process of education. The students, parents, teachers, other staff and education department administrators, for example, have evolved a system in Ballia district where almost all the students clear their high school and intermediate examinations, conducted by the U.P. Board, by mass- scale malpractices. This method suits everybody as the administrators and teachers get financially benefitted, students pass their examinations and parents do not mind spending an extra sum to see their children obtain the certificates without wasting too much of their time. This system enjoys full political patronage and has over aperiod of roughly two decades obtained social acceptability. So much so that anybody not resorting to cheating in the examinations would be considered an anomaly.
Since examinations can now be passed without a rigorous program of studies, the entire process of classroom teaching has been short circuited. The teachers are content drawing their salaries. As the number of people possessing certificates, diplomas and degrees has gone up, so has the competition for jobs and the number of unemployed. Since the education system prepares a job mentality in people, a person is called unemployed if he/she is not in a salaried job.
The concept of employment after education leaves out a host of other activities which are absolutely necessary for the running of our economy. A lot of people who fall in the category of unemployed, if they had not gone through the education system, they would probably be engaged in some fruitful production activity. It is a well known fact that our education system creates a mind-set which makes people move away from the basic production processes in the economy. In this sense the problem of 'unemployment' has been merely a creation of our education system. In fact, the education system can be blamed for ruining the best years of our youth, whether unsuccessful or successful in getting a job.
In this light, demands of groups such as AISA, of education and employment for everybody, where by education they mean only the present form of education and by employment they mean the commonly held view of salaried jobs, are meaningless. They are again guided by the same idealist notion that education is a desirable thing for everybody, completely ignoring the ground realities. Considering that majority of our people live in villages, townships and small cities, they are deprived of the fruits of modern education system and a majority of educated youth in this country actually go without a job.
Contrary to the popular opinion that education opens up more job opportunities, it rewards only a minuscule percentage of the population, mostly coming from socio-economically privileged groups. It is only the dream of getting these small number of high salaried coveted jobs that has sustained the view that education opens up more job opportunities. If we consider the hard reality, education system today makes many more people jobless than it is able to provide jobs to. In fact, the process of education is so lop-sided and strangulating that it saps the person of all his/her imagination and enthusiasm making him/her unfit for any other work. The state of unemployment in Ballia is such that people holding even Bachelor's and Master's degrees are forced to take up teaching jobs in privately run primary and middle level schools for a meagre Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per month. Even a daily wage worker, involved in manual work can earn two or three times more. This crippling effect can only lead to frustration among the people who are unfortunate enough not to secure a job. The government and political parties only make the situation worse by creating an illusion that they can create more jobs. They only fuel the *** race of people going through the education system and then contending for jobs.
If we are to channelize the energy of our youth for constructive activity in society then we work to dispel the notion that education opens up more job opportunities. The sooner we agree to examine the myth that the present education system is a desirable thing, the better it would be for our society. A completely new form of education system with a different purpose altogether, has to be worked out for creating a healthy society. However, this will not be the subject of present article. Here, it is merely sufficient to mention that various efforts which have been carried out to make the modern education system more effective have failed to create an impact. These efforts either in the form of individual experts, independent self-motivated innovative groups or expert committees have not questioned the basis of the process of education. Most of them have concerned themselves with techniques and strategies rather than taking up the issue at a philosophical level.
For example, the vocational training programmes, including the ITIs, failed to motivate the youth to give up their salaried job mind set, because they were designed to merely supplement the modern education system. Such has been the fate of all innovative efforts. When they were incorporated in the education system, their role was limited to only a marginal one. Another example is the S.U.P.W., which was introduced in the C.B.S.E. syllabus. Kishore Bharati in Hoshangabad, working with the objective of inculcating scientific temper through education, was successful in getting books designed by it introduced in the state curriculum but was unsuccessful in qualitatively influencing either the process of education or lives of people in general.
So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it. Fortunately we are forced to re- examine our education system because, firstly, it is failing to provide jobs to everybody, and, secondly, to the people it has provided jobs, it is failing to provide satisfaction. In any case, the myth that education opens up more job opportunities needs to be dispensed with.
Does education make individuals progressive?
Next let us come to the aspect of education which makes an individual progressive in some sense. The state always projects education as necessary for the progress of society when pushing its literacy programmes. People are made to believe through the state run media that education has the potential for providing solutions to a number of society's problems. There is so much brainwashing done that lot of educated people grow up with the illusion that they are more civilized in some sense that the illiterate people. It is not very difficult to detect the condescending attitude that the educated people develop towards the less educated or uneducated people.
However, when several groups of people, including school teachers and college students from Delhi, Kanpur and Ballia were questioned on exactly how they were advanced compared to people who did not get a chance to go to school, people were at a loss to come up with convincing answers. Because of education they had acquired the skills of reading and writing, but other people in the society possessed some other skills which were in no way less valuable. In fact, skills like farming, cloth making and house building, more basic to our living, the educated people were completely unfamiliar with. What is a part of living for most of the people in the country and where they spend a major part of their time is reduced in the form of mere commodities which the educated people learn to buy in the market in exchange for money earned as part of their salaries. This is probably a basic difference between the educated and uneducated people. However, whether this is a sign of progress has become a debatable issue now.
The educated people would readily agree that inspite of enjoying more material comforts they do not think that they have become any more happy than the uneducated people. Also, education does not make any person a better human being. The educated people are not any more sensitive or sympathetic towards other human beings. Neither are they any more honest or responsible. Education does not free a person of superstition or blind belief in hypothetical concepts of super natural powers. An educated person is seen to be as much of a fatalist as an uneducated one. People possessing highest degrees in sciences are seen to behave in highly irrational and inexplicable ways. A document published when the Kishore Bharati experiment was wound up, points out that scientific rational way of thinking evaporates when economic and political interests of the people come in their way. Hence upon an honest evaluation it turns out that qualitatively there is not much of a difference between the educated and the uneducated people.
Most of the people with whom it was discussed agreed with this conclusion. Then, in what way they thought they were more civilized left them thinking.
People agree that material advancement is not the only aspect of progress. In fact, it is the less important part of it. Most of the people were of the opinion that practice of human values, improvement on human relationships and a just order in society constituted real progress and those are the things they actually meant when using the notion of 'civilized' society. Unfortunately we have not moved ahead in that direction, and although the idea of education was conceived precisely for this purpose, we have so far not been able to develop the form of education, necessary to fulfil this objective. The modern education system is simply not designed to serve this purpose. All it does is only legitimizes material growth in the name of development. Modern science as an ideology, which has chosen to confine itself to only the study of matter, having gotten the support of the ruling classes, has exercised its hegemony through the modern education system to promote a material-centered thinking. This is reflected in the personal aspirations of a modern educated man as well as the development programmes of any modern state. However, that this is only a lop-sided view is reflected in the concerns of the people. Thus, the popular belief that education represents some kind of progress does not stand a deeper inquiry.
Misinterpreted Notion
Finally, we will take up the most profound and also the most misinterpreted notion of education as a means to seek 'knowledge'. The tradition of learning has always been associated with seeking of knowledge. However, what constitutes knowledge is highly debatable because before the advent of modern education system in this country knowledge was viewed only in mystical terms. Only a selected few with some special qualifications were eligible to acquire it. However, as the State patronage shifted from religion to science and a new education system was in place, more people were allowed access to the new 'knowledge'. Science was more successful than religion in penetrating different societies around the world and making itself more universally acceptable in the curricula of the education systems of the schools of the world. But it was soon discovered that it still remained pretty much in the hands of few experts. The 'spirit of enquiry', necessary for seeking 'knowledge', was in the domain of only those privileged few. Moreover, the direction of research was determined often by the state, which was funding the activity. The state had readily adopted the activity of science because it offered the possibility of vastly improved defence capabilities. Because of liberal state sponsorships, defence continues to occupy the interests of a majority of the scientists on earth today. In this light even the spirit of enquiry enjoyed by a few is restrained and the knowledge sought is with a very limited purpose. This explains why our programme of development is proceeding with an associated component of destruction.
Coming back to the education system in the era of science, what was designed for the majority of the people were skills and capsules of information necessary to sustain the efforts of the state. The science education in schools and colleges is no less dogmatic than the teachings of religion. What you can do in the name of science is clearly spelled out by the authorities, allowing no freedom for change even in enquiry. It obviously does not conform to the notion of science offering openness of thought and is certainly far removed from the concept of knowledge. It must be recognized very well that modern education system is not a programme of knowledge seeking even though it does maintain an illusion of that in the name of science. It basically consists of development of certain skills, like reading, writing, articulation, mathematics or giving out certain information through sciences and social sciences. It is a programme limited in terms of the content of curriculum and number of years required to complete it and can be completed by being successful in a definite type of examination.
The examinations, for which the skill of writing is necessary, can be passed by reproducing certain information or at the most by manipulation of this information. A person who is the product of modern education system and has completed most advanced of its programmes does not feel contended or knowledgeable enough to be able to provide answers to all queries relating to his/her specialization and certainly not comfortable answering the basic questions about life and existence in the realm of philosophy even though the education system may have honoured them with Doctor of Philosophy degrees. This is yet another proof of modern education system not being a knowledge seeking exercise. In fact, there appears to be a lot of confusion among people on what exactly is the nature of knowledge and the ways of going about acquiring it.
Most people are seen to use the term knowledge as a synonym for skills or information. Some people make it appear as something mystical, beyond the reach of ordinary people, and consider that knowledge or Truth can be obtained only through very specialized processes. However, such people are themselves not clear about the nature of knowledge or the way of obtaining it, as they have not experienced it themselves. Neither do they seem to have met anybody who has obtained knowledge. Hence, there is a lot of mystery about the mystical way. Like the first two popular beliefs about education, even the belief that education imparts some kind of knowledge appears to be a myth. While both the traditional and modern schools of thought use the term quite frequently, there appears to be no consensus or even clarity on its meaning. The Sah-Astitwawad Darshan has developed the concept of knowledge as a complete understanding of oneself and one's environment in relation to it, and furthermore, evolving a programme of living at the four stages of the self, the family, the society and nature, so that there is complete harmony among all the stages. The task of education is described as making people familiar with this entire concept. Under such a system the objective of education is determined as the realization of a just human order. This human centered thought identifies the two types of needs of human beings - material and human values - and offers a programme for the satisfaction of both. Education helps the human beings understanding these processes better and hence is more meaningful for life. This concept will be presented in detail in a separate article.
Conclusion
The purpose of the present article was only to point out the frailties of the modern education system and to show how some of the popularly held views about this system are merely myths, which are exposed on a closer examination. The education system is not serving any fruitful purpose in the society, except for keeping a handful of people in jobs. A larger objective of creating a healthy society, where all the needs of all human beings can be satisfied easily, is simply not on its agenda. The education system fails to provide intellectual satisfaction and hence a viable programme of living where mutually beneficial relationships can be established with other human beings, groups of people and with nature, which is necessary for the growth of society. As a result of the all round failure of our education system a need has been established for new thinking in this direction.
Sandeep Pandey
June 2001
More than schooling
A critique of the modern education system, by Sandeep Pandey.
The process of education is considered so important in our society that no parents, who can afford it, can imagine having their children go uneducated. It has become such an integral part of our lives that for most people, completing the process of education appears to be a matter of habit. Others, who have so far remained outside this process, are now being covered by the literacy programmes of the government and various non-governmental organizations. Extending the privilege to everybody in the country seems to be a top priority for various governments representing political thought of different shades. Those outside the education system see it as a desirable thing and are quite eager to take advantage of the opportunity offered to them. But, why exactly is education so indispensable?
The need for such an examination arises because everything does not seem to be going alright with the education system. The ground reality is that in most of the schools and colleges of India, students, teachers and administrators are apathetic towards the process of education, fraudulent ways are beings adopted to complete the process and a large number of educated youth find themselves without jobs. It is quite anomalous that when the people, government and those involved in implementing it, consider the education to be a desirable thing, they choose to ignore the real state of affairs on ground. Policy makers, politicians, social activists and education experts are seen taking idealist positions when talking about education, most of the time. Do they really want to continue and expand the existing education system in its present form? Besides the degeneration of the process, education as an activity seems to be going on without any direction.
The purpose of education
More precisely, the perceived goal of education to make the individual and the society 'better' in some qualitative sense, seems to missing in its current form. In our rush to get everybody educated, we do not consider it important to ask ourselves why do we need education?
An idealist notion about the necessity of education has been taken for granted. If fact this notion has been so strongly developed that we are taught to overlook the shortcomings in the implementation of this activity. Both independent groups, who have chosen to work in the field of education, and expert committees have only suggested ways of improving the effectiveness of present education system without addressing themselves to the more basic issues of the purpose of the entire activity. Such people often choose to ignore the disturbing trends, mentioned above, associated with the education system.
Most of the people will refuse to link the malaise in the system to the basic nature of the system itself, considering it to be a disorder which could be taken care of by implementing a proper machinery. Such assumptions need to be questioned. In this article we will present an analysis of the present education system, which will raise questions at such basic levels. When so much resources and the prime time of our children and youth are being given over to the education system, we as a society need to find out the achievement of this system in real terms. However, in this evaluation one must be prepared to dispense with the assumption that the modern education system, or some close variant of it, is absolutely indispensable, for on close examination this kind of education system itself appears to be at fault. The present article will restrict itself to being a critique of the modern education system and will highlight its inadequacies. The solution in the form of a new concept of education derived from a newly established philosophy, Sah Astitwawad Darshan, of Nagaraj Sharma of Amarkantak, will be the subject of a future article. The concept of education based on this philosophy offers the possibility of establishment of a just human order.
Let us first take a look at why people perceive education to be a desirable thing. When several groups of people in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh were asked as to why they felt the need of education, the answers fell in broadly three categories. The most common answer was that education makes people progressive in some sense and is necessary for the advancement of a civilized society. Next, people thought that it imparts knowledge. Lastly, very few people admitted, and that too quite hesitatingly, that it provides employment opportunities. It is interesting that educated people in formal conversation find it improper to voice the most popularly held view among the people that education opens up more job opportunities. It is probably a sign of their being 'civilized', which is quoted as the most important reason for getting educated. We will take up the issues of what people mean when they say that education makes one civilized or imparts knowledge, later.
Education and Job Opportunities
First we will look at the notion of education opening up job opportunities. It turns out that when parents send their children to school they are essentially seeking a 'secure future' for them, which basically means that their children upon getting educated would become eligible for salaried jobs. Even if they do not realize it, the societal norm which compels them to have their children go to school is guided by the same motivation. In fact, this pressure is so great that no parent can even think of doing otherwise. Considering that modern education system incurs some expenditure on the part of parents, it can easily be identified as a middle and upward class activity. The roots of our education system are in the Imperial days, where it was essentially meant to produce a class of people who would assist the British in running the administration of this country.
Even today the education system continues to serve the same function.
It produces a salaried middle class which acts as an appendage to the ruling class and helps keep a primarily coercive administrative system in place. Since the nature of such jobs is essentially of clerical type and there is almost no scope to exercise an individual's creativity. Most people, even those possessing highest of academic qualifications, cannot derive satisfaction out of their jobs. To compensate for their unproductive nature of jobs they have to be paid higher wages than can be earned otherwise. This creates an economic gap between the salaried class and the class of people who depend on their hard labour and often engaged in production activities which sustain the economy. It is primarily this high salary level accompanied by the associated proximity to ruling classes which becomes the motivating factor for any parents taking a decision to get their children educated.
Since the education system is also designed to produce merely a 'clerical' class, upon the completion of their education programmes the youth seek fixed salary and low risk secure jobs. The top priority is often government jobs because there is remote possibility of getting thrown out of them, in addition to other financial and material benefits offered by them. However, the number of such salaried jobs is limited. In fact the number of salaried jobs which are primarily of clerical nature cannot exceed a certain limit because a large segment of the population would be needed outside it, in the primary and secondary sectors of economy, which incidentally also happen to be the source of income for governments from where salaries are generated. Hence, there is a practical restraint on the number of people who can be 'benefitted' by the present education system.
To present the idea of education in its current form as a desirable thing and involving large masses of people in it through literacy programmes, thereby making them aspirants in a limited (salaried) job market, is an irresponsible behaviour. Even though it could be argued that economic liberalization programmes are creating more job opportunities, the number of people receiving education and going without a job is growing at a faster rate. Experience of working in the Ballia district shows that a large number of youth actually fail to make it to the job system. The education system with its urban and elitist bias puts the students from rural and semi-rural background in a disadvantaged position to begin with. Since it is basically a job-oriented education system where people are prepared for subordinate roles, the process of training need not maintain very high standards of excellence. In fact, the general quality of education in this country is very mediocre and at a number of places the whole exercise has been reduced to a farce.
Since what is needed to demonstrate when applying for a job is the certificate and not actual competence, people have devised ways of completing the process of obtaining the certificates without actually putting in the hard work to go through the entire exercise involved in the process of education. The students, parents, teachers, other staff and education department administrators, for example, have evolved a system in Ballia district where almost all the students clear their high school and intermediate examinations, conducted by the U.P. Board, by mass- scale malpractices. This method suits everybody as the administrators and teachers get financially benefitted, students pass their examinations and parents do not mind spending an extra sum to see their children obtain the certificates without wasting too much of their time. This system enjoys full political patronage and has over aperiod of roughly two decades obtained social acceptability. So much so that anybody not resorting to cheating in the examinations would be considered an anomaly.
Since examinations can now be passed without a rigorous program of studies, the entire process of classroom teaching has been short circuited. The teachers are content drawing their salaries. As the number of people possessing certificates, diplomas and degrees has gone up, so has the competition for jobs and the number of unemployed. Since the education system prepares a job mentality in people, a person is called unemployed if he/she is not in a salaried job.
The concept of employment after education leaves out a host of other activities which are absolutely necessary for the running of our economy. A lot of people who fall in the category of unemployed, if they had not gone through the education system, they would probably be engaged in some fruitful production activity. It is a well known fact that our education system creates a mind-set which makes people move away from the basic production processes in the economy. In this sense the problem of 'unemployment' has been merely a creation of our education system. In fact, the education system can be blamed for ruining the best years of our youth, whether unsuccessful or successful in getting a job.
In this light, demands of groups such as AISA, of education and employment for everybody, where by education they mean only the present form of education and by employment they mean the commonly held view of salaried jobs, are meaningless. They are again guided by the same idealist notion that education is a desirable thing for everybody, completely ignoring the ground realities. Considering that majority of our people live in villages, townships and small cities, they are deprived of the fruits of modern education system and a majority of educated youth in this country actually go without a job.
Contrary to the popular opinion that education opens up more job opportunities, it rewards only a minuscule percentage of the population, mostly coming from socio-economically privileged groups. It is only the dream of getting these small number of high salaried coveted jobs that has sustained the view that education opens up more job opportunities. If we consider the hard reality, education system today makes many more people jobless than it is able to provide jobs to. In fact, the process of education is so lop-sided and strangulating that it saps the person of all his/her imagination and enthusiasm making him/her unfit for any other work. The state of unemployment in Ballia is such that people holding even Bachelor's and Master's degrees are forced to take up teaching jobs in privately run primary and middle level schools for a meagre Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per month. Even a daily wage worker, involved in manual work can earn two or three times more. This crippling effect can only lead to frustration among the people who are unfortunate enough not to secure a job. The government and political parties only make the situation worse by creating an illusion that they can create more jobs. They only fuel the *** race of people going through the education system and then contending for jobs.
If we are to channelize the energy of our youth for constructive activity in society then we work to dispel the notion that education opens up more job opportunities. The sooner we agree to examine the myth that the present education system is a desirable thing, the better it would be for our society. A completely new form of education system with a different purpose altogether, has to be worked out for creating a healthy society. However, this will not be the subject of present article. Here, it is merely sufficient to mention that various efforts which have been carried out to make the modern education system more effective have failed to create an impact. These efforts either in the form of individual experts, independent self-motivated innovative groups or expert committees have not questioned the basis of the process of education. Most of them have concerned themselves with techniques and strategies rather than taking up the issue at a philosophical level.
For example, the vocational training programmes, including the ITIs, failed to motivate the youth to give up their salaried job mind set, because they were designed to merely supplement the modern education system. Such has been the fate of all innovative efforts. When they were incorporated in the education system, their role was limited to only a marginal one. Another example is the S.U.P.W., which was introduced in the C.B.S.E. syllabus. Kishore Bharati in Hoshangabad, working with the objective of inculcating scientific temper through education, was successful in getting books designed by it introduced in the state curriculum but was unsuccessful in qualitatively influencing either the process of education or lives of people in general.
So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it. Fortunately we are forced to re- examine our education system because, firstly, it is failing to provide jobs to everybody, and, secondly, to the people it has provided jobs, it is failing to provide satisfaction. In any case, the myth that education opens up more job opportunities needs to be dispensed with.
Does education make individuals progressive?
Next let us come to the aspect of education which makes an individual progressive in some sense. The state always projects education as necessary for the progress of society when pushing its literacy programmes. People are made to believe through the state run media that education has the potential for providing solutions to a number of society's problems. There is so much brainwashing done that lot of educated people grow up with the illusion that they are more civilized in some sense that the illiterate people. It is not very difficult to detect the condescending attitude that the educated people develop towards the less educated or uneducated people.
However, when several groups of people, including school teachers and college students from Delhi, Kanpur and Ballia were questioned on exactly how they were advanced compared to people who did not get a chance to go to school, people were at a loss to come up with convincing answers. Because of education they had acquired the skills of reading and writing, but other people in the society possessed some other skills which were in no way less valuable. In fact, skills like farming, cloth making and house building, more basic to our living, the educated people were completely unfamiliar with. What is a part of living for most of the people in the country and where they spend a major part of their time is reduced in the form of mere commodities which the educated people learn to buy in the market in exchange for money earned as part of their salaries. This is probably a basic difference between the educated and uneducated people. However, whether this is a sign of progress has become a debatable issue now.
The educated people would readily agree that inspite of enjoying more material comforts they do not think that they have become any more happy than the uneducated people. Also, education does not make any person a better human being. The educated people are not any more sensitive or sympathetic towards other human beings. Neither are they any more honest or responsible. Education does not free a person of superstition or blind belief in hypothetical concepts of super natural powers. An educated person is seen to be as much of a fatalist as an uneducated one. People possessing highest degrees in sciences are seen to behave in highly irrational and inexplicable ways. A document published when the Kishore Bharati experiment was wound up, points out that scientific rational way of thinking evaporates when economic and political interests of the people come in their way. Hence upon an honest evaluation it turns out that qualitatively there is not much of a difference between the educated and the uneducated people.
Most of the people with whom it was discussed agreed with this conclusion. Then, in what way they thought they were more civilized left them thinking.
People agree that material advancement is not the only aspect of progress. In fact, it is the less important part of it. Most of the people were of the opinion that practice of human values, improvement on human relationships and a just order in society constituted real progress and those are the things they actually meant when using the notion of 'civilized' society. Unfortunately we have not moved ahead in that direction, and although the idea of education was conceived precisely for this purpose, we have so far not been able to develop the form of education, necessary to fulfil this objective. The modern education system is simply not designed to serve this purpose. All it does is only legitimizes material growth in the name of development. Modern science as an ideology, which has chosen to confine itself to only the study of matter, having gotten the support of the ruling classes, has exercised its hegemony through the modern education system to promote a material-centered thinking. This is reflected in the personal aspirations of a modern educated man as well as the development programmes of any modern state. However, that this is only a lop-sided view is reflected in the concerns of the people. Thus, the popular belief that education represents some kind of progress does not stand a deeper inquiry.
Misinterpreted Notion
Finally, we will take up the most profound and also the most misinterpreted notion of education as a means to seek 'knowledge'. The tradition of learning has always been associated with seeking of knowledge. However, what constitutes knowledge is highly debatable because before the advent of modern education system in this country knowledge was viewed only in mystical terms. Only a selected few with some special qualifications were eligible to acquire it. However, as the State patronage shifted from religion to science and a new education system was in place, more people were allowed access to the new 'knowledge'. Science was more successful than religion in penetrating different societies around the world and making itself more universally acceptable in the curricula of the education systems of the schools of the world. But it was soon discovered that it still remained pretty much in the hands of few experts. The 'spirit of enquiry', necessary for seeking 'knowledge', was in the domain of only those privileged few. Moreover, the direction of research was determined often by the state, which was funding the activity. The state had readily adopted the activity of science because it offered the possibility of vastly improved defence capabilities. Because of liberal state sponsorships, defence continues to occupy the interests of a majority of the scientists on earth today. In this light even the spirit of enquiry enjoyed by a few is restrained and the knowledge sought is with a very limited purpose. This explains why our programme of development is proceeding with an associated component of destruction.
Coming back to the education system in the era of science, what was designed for the majority of the people were skills and capsules of information necessary to sustain the efforts of the state. The science education in schools and colleges is no less dogmatic than the teachings of religion. What you can do in the name of science is clearly spelled out by the authorities, allowing no freedom for change even in enquiry. It obviously does not conform to the notion of science offering openness of thought and is certainly far removed from the concept of knowledge. It must be recognized very well that modern education system is not a programme of knowledge seeking even though it does maintain an illusion of that in the name of science. It basically consists of development of certain skills, like reading, writing, articulation, mathematics or giving out certain information through sciences and social sciences. It is a programme limited in terms of the content of curriculum and number of years required to complete it and can be completed by being successful in a definite type of examination.
The examinations, for which the skill of writing is necessary, can be passed by reproducing certain information or at the most by manipulation of this information. A person who is the product of modern education system and has completed most advanced of its programmes does not feel contended or knowledgeable enough to be able to provide answers to all queries relating to his/her specialization and certainly not comfortable answering the basic questions about life and existence in the realm of philosophy even though the education system may have honoured them with Doctor of Philosophy degrees. This is yet another proof of modern education system not being a knowledge seeking exercise. In fact, there appears to be a lot of confusion among people on what exactly is the nature of knowledge and the ways of going about acquiring it.
Most people are seen to use the term knowledge as a synonym for skills or information. Some people make it appear as something mystical, beyond the reach of ordinary people, and consider that knowledge or Truth can be obtained only through very specialized processes. However, such people are themselves not clear about the nature of knowledge or the way of obtaining it, as they have not experienced it themselves. Neither do they seem to have met anybody who has obtained knowledge. Hence, there is a lot of mystery about the mystical way. Like the first two popular beliefs about education, even the belief that education imparts some kind of knowledge appears to be a myth. While both the traditional and modern schools of thought use the term quite frequently, there appears to be no consensus or even clarity on its meaning. The Sah-Astitwawad Darshan has developed the concept of knowledge as a complete understanding of oneself and one's environment in relation to it, and furthermore, evolving a programme of living at the four stages of the self, the family, the society and nature, so that there is complete harmony among all the stages. The task of education is described as making people familiar with this entire concept. Under such a system the objective of education is determined as the realization of a just human order. This human centered thought identifies the two types of needs of human beings - material and human values - and offers a programme for the satisfaction of both. Education helps the human beings understanding these processes better and hence is more meaningful for life. This concept will be presented in detail in a separate article.
Conclusion
The purpose of the present article was only to point out the frailties of the modern education system and to show how some of the popularly held views about this system are merely myths, which are exposed on a closer examination. The education system is not serving any fruitful purpose in the society, except for keeping a handful of people in jobs. A larger objective of creating a healthy society, where all the needs of all human beings can be satisfied easily, is simply not on its agenda. The education system fails to provide intellectual satisfaction and hence a viable programme of living where mutually beneficial relationships can be established with other human beings, groups of people and with nature, which is necessary for the growth of society. As a result of the all round failure of our education system a need has been established for new thinking in this direction.
Sandeep Pandey
June 2001
khuramonline
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
This thread starts with a list of most "productive" universities of Islamic world. Fact is that all these universities are producing only rote learner degree holders. These universities cannot produce any real scientist or thinker. In the next post, I am sharing my own article that discusses same things in details.
Last edited:
khuramonline
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
How to make Progress? And Role of Education System:
by: Khuram
Progress means forward movement in the way of developments etc. But to move in forward direction requires that we must ‘think’ in forward direction. We cannot move in forward direction if we think in backward direction. In case we do not ‘think’ at all i.e. our thinking is ‘static’, again we cannot make progress in this way. To move forward, towards the way of development, (i.e. to make progress) is possible only when we ‘think’ in forward direction.
The direction of our ‘thinking’ depends on the way we handle any new information. The usual course of handling any new information can be described in terms of following formula:
Learning = New Information + Updating the previous understanding
As a result of the application of new information, we usually update our previous understanding on the issue. In this way we ‘learn’. Learning also can be defined as “up-dating the previous understanding structure as a result of the application of new information”.
But, above is only the usual way of handling new information. All people, in all cases do not handle new information in the above mentioned way. There are basically three approaches for handling new information; (i) Regressive Approach; which is ‘backward thinking’ approach, (ii) Static Approach; where people do not ‘think’ by themselves and; (iii) Progressive Approach; which is the ‘forward thinking’ approach and is necessary for making progress.
These three approaches have been briefly described below:
1- Regressive Approach:
Every new information is viewed in such a manner as to just confirm the authenticity of old information. In this way, the structure of old information is not changed or up-dated in this case. We have defined ‘learning’ to be the ‘updating’ of the structure of previous understanding as a result of the application of new information. In regressive approach, basically every effort is made to protect and safeguard the structure of previous understanding. New information is not properly considered and evaluated. Any information that seems to be contradictory to the structure of previous information (understanding) is just rejected without proper considering or evaluating it. Since there occurs no ‘up-dating’ of the structure of previous understanding, therefore ‘learning’ also does not occur in a regressive approach of handling any new information.
2- Static Approach:
As a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding (i.e. the structure of previous information) may be up-dated but the new (resulting) understanding is not evaluated for further outstanding questions and also no new conclusions are derived. In fact, the new information, in as it is form, is just integrated in the previous mindset (i.e. structure of understanding). The previous structure of understanding is up-dated in this way. Since the previous structure of understanding is up-dated, so ‘learning’ takes place under the ‘static approach’ of handling new information. But since no new conclusions are derived under this approach, so there is no or at least less scope for the generation of new ideas under this approach. Missing of ‘new ideas’ simply means that the total knowledge is ‘static’ i.e. up to the level where it was before the application of new information except in case where ‘new information’ comes from direct observation of a whole new thing. Only in this case there has occurred some expansion in the total knowledge and in all other cases, ‘learning’ has been occurred only in an individual’s mind and so in this way, nothing ‘new’ has been ‘learned’ by the humanity as a whole. In ‘static model’, usually, already existing knowledge is just transferred from one mind to other or others. To whom the knowledge is so transferred, does not draw his own conclusions. He does not draw his own conclusions because actually he does not ‘think’ by himself. Whatever has been told to him, he accepts it in as it is form without properly considering its detailed implications. He does not consider the detailed implications of the new information because he does not ‘think’ by himself. The ‘static approach’ is so termed also because the ‘thinking process’ is ‘static’ under this approach. In this approach, ‘learning’ does occur but the idea generations do not take place due to the fact that ‘self thinking’ is ‘static’ or absent in this case. The knowledge remains ‘static’ up to the level of ‘up-dated’ understanding until another new information has come from the external world. One who follows static approach is only a follower of progressive people. Whatever the progressive people shall tell him, he shall accept it in as it is manner. No doubt he is ‘moving’ in a ‘forward’ direction because after all ‘learning’ is present in this approach. The type of this ‘forward movement’, however, is not impressive at all. The progressive people actually are ‘running’ in forward direction and our ‘static person’ is just ‘crawling’ behind them. Logically he cannot overtake the progressive people. He also cannot go towards any new direction. He only has to follow the path which was already explored by the progressive people. Also he moved up to the level to which he has been ‘pulled’ by the rapid progress of the progressive people. So in this type of ‘non-impressive’ forward movement, our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. Actually he is being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. This approach is ‘static’ also because our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. He is just being ‘pulled’.
3- Progressive approach:
In progressive approach, as a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding is up-dated. This up-dated ‘new’ understanding is further evaluated for the further outstanding questions. Answers to those outstanding questions are found out and new conclusions are drawn accordingly. Need for the new information is also recognized at various levels and efforts are made to get the required information. The new information so acquired again up-dates the previous understanding and the cycle continues. In this way the knowledge makes progress. Progressive approach not only is a continuous learning process, it has a greater potential of generating new ideas as well. The progressive person ‘thinks’ by himself. Since he ‘thinks’, so he draws his own conclusions. Many of such conclusions can come up to the definition of ‘new idea’. So there is greater potential for the generation of new ideas under the progressive approach. A progressive person is not ‘pulled’ by other progressive people. He, by himself seeks for new information from every potential source but he is not just the follower of those information sources. He draws his own conclusions and thus organizes his own knowledge. He makes improvements in knowledge. He is moving in forward direction in an impressive style. A static person was just crawling behind the fast moving progressive people. Our this progressive person is one of the fast moving persons. Whether or not he is actually behind other progressive persons does not matter at all. Since a progressive person draws his own conclusions, so in fact he is exploring an entirely new way. He is the leader of his own way. Actually all the progressive persons are leaders of their respective fields. Even if the progressive persons belong to same area of study, still then there is sharp difference between a progressive person and a static person. The static person is just crawling behind the progressive people and is being ‘pulled’ by those progressive people. In case of a progressive person who is actually moving behind other progressive people, even in this case, his position is far better than that of a static person. Unlike a static person he is not ‘crawling’ behind the progressive people. He is ‘running’ after the other running progressive people. Unlike a static person, he is not being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people, he is actually ‘running’ by himself. Since the static person is ‘crawling’ behind the running people, so logically he cannot overtake those progressive people. The progressive person in this case, on the other hand, is also ‘running’ behind the other running persons. He may have his speed greater than other progressive people because after all he is ‘running’ and not just ‘crawling’. So logically, the possibility exists that he may overtake other progressive persons in that particular field.
Education System:
Our formal education system basically is an example of ‘static model’. Students are taught only that material which is written in syllabus books by some progressive people. Students only have to go through that written material and only have to improve their understanding of the related concepts. But that ‘improved’ understanding is considered to be the ‘upper limit’ or the ‘upper boundary’ of all what students can be expected to do. Students are not required to further improve that ‘improved’ understanding with the help of their own ‘thinking and analysis’. Any further improvement is considered possible only in a situation when the same author has written a new edition of the same book. Only this ‘new edition’ is considered to be the sole source of any kind of ‘further’ improvement in the understanding level.
In this way, what a progressive person has done, the students have to follow it. Students are required to ‘crawl’ behind that progressive person. Students (and many teachers also) remain static up to that level to which they have been ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. By themselves, students cannot (also not expected to and also not required to) go beyond.
Students are evaluated only for their ‘improved’ understanding level and it is still irrelevant to consider that if they are able to practically apply that ‘improved’ understanding or not. Students actually are bound to remain unable to practically apply their better understanding level because ‘practical approach’ is missing in this kind of ‘static’ understanding ‘improvement’ model.
Students themselves do not analyze or evaluate what is written in the syllabus books. They view the written text only from a single angle. Practical situations always require analysis of situation from maximum possible angles. Since students do not do that, they remain unable to handle the practical situations.
Students only have to ‘follow’ the progressive people so they are bound to remain behind those progressive people. Whatever ‘milestone’ they have covered, in fact has already been left behind by those progressive people. The situation is the worst in the case of static minded teachers. In fact static students are still in a better position than to the one which is held by the static minded teachers. Students are ‘improving’ their understanding. They go to next class and ‘further improve’ their understanding. But the static minded teachers – they actually, even are not ‘improving’ their understanding. They are just teaching the same material which was already known to them. They are just teaching the same material over and over again and from year to year. Since they are required to teach the ‘same’ material under this education system, so actually they are not in need to generate any new ideas in the related subject. So the static minded teachers are not even doing what is being done by the static students because students after all, are improving their understanding level from year to year but these teachers are at the same level of understanding for the most part of their respective careers.
Suggestions for improvement:
The situation can be improved and this static education system can be transformed into a better progressive system. Following are the necessary points or steps that are required for this purpose.
i. Class room should not be only lecture based. There should mainly be formal discussion activities in the class rooms. Every student should be required to give his/ her opinion on the topic. He/ she also should be required to identify further necessary areas of investigation in the current topic.
ii. There should be discussion groups who can choose different topics for the discussion.
iii. Evaluation of students should be based on their participation level and their performance in the discussion activities.
iv. For every discussion topic, all students should be required to write down their own analysis, opinions and conclusions in the form of thesis.
v. However, half the class time can be devoted to lectures also.
vi. Written examination system must have to be thoroughly changed. Only those subjects or topics should be evaluated in written examination which otherwise cannot be evaluated. Even in such conditions, written examination must have to be analytical oriented i.e. not just descriptive or calculation oriented.
Progressive information handling approach actually is simple and easy as compare to the static approach. In the static approach, one has to go through all the contents of, lets say, syllabus books because the maximum goal in this approach is to get satisfactory understanding of all the contents of that knowledge which is already available in those syllabus books. To acquire the understanding of all the contents of syllabus books, using the static approach is a tedious task. With relatively more effort, the maximum result is only a ‘satisfactory’ understanding of the already existing knowledge.
In the progressive approach, on the other hand, the progressive person only has to choose the issue or topic which is the most interesting for him. Then he has to analyze all its related aspects. He has to mentally organize all the related information in a proper, meaningful and in a systematic and consistent manner. For a progressive person, it is not difficult at all to choose the issue or topic for his analytical activities. Progressive person is the one who ‘thinks’ by himself. In this way, the most ‘interesting’ subject or topic for this person would be that issue or subject etc. about which he ‘thinks’ in his spare time. Under this approach, since the progressive person has to choose that subject or topic, for his analytical activities, which happened to be the most interesting subject for him and since the most interesting subject for him is that one about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time so in this way he would choose the subject, for his analytical activities, about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time. As a result, this progressive person would acquire a definite purpose and a proper line of action for himself. Having a definite purpose in his mind, he himself shall search for maximum information about the subject or issue from whatever sources of information that shall include not only the syllabus books on the subject but shall include other non-syllabus sources of information that would include direct observations as well. In this way, he may has to go through all the contents of those syllabus books along with also consulting the non-syllabus sources of information. He also has to generate new ideas about the topic/ issue. The successful search of the information from all the available sources of information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’ whereas the new ideas shall result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’. He also has to critically analyze the issue which shall result in ‘improvement’ in knowledge because such critical analysis shall ‘improve’ the ‘accuracy level’ of knowledge on the issue.
The above mentioned activities apparently may seem to be more tedious than to that of the static approach, but the fact is opposite. Since the person who is doing all the above mentioned things for the sake of a ‘definite purpose’ i.e. analysis of issue/ topic/ subject etc. for which he is personally interested, so he shall take all these activities lightly. He has a definite purpose and a proper line of action. He does not have to memorize/ understand all the boring and un-interesting topics of syllabus books though he might has to go through even more new information materials as may be offered by any set of syllabus, for the performance of his analytical activities.
It has been mentioned in this discussion that the progressive person, first chooses a subject of interest and then start analyzing various aspects of that ‘interesting’ subject. It may seem that this progressive person shall keep himself confined up to the search and positive responsiveness towards only those information sources that are directly related to his own area of interest. This may be true as for as the so called ‘professionalism’ is concerned but this, however is not true in the case of a progressive person. Progressive approach is different or rather opposite to this so called ‘professionalism’. In this professionalism, efforts are made to get expertise/ specialization in only one field of study through reading/ analyzing only those subjects that are directly related to the main field of study. Subjects having no direct link/ relationship with the main field of study are considered to be ‘irrelevant’. Study/ analysis of ‘irrelevant’ subjects is avoided because it is considered just useless for the achievement of the main objective, which is to get expertise or specialization in only one field of study. In this way these ‘professionals’ willingly keep themselves limited within the framework of their area of ‘specialization’.
As previously has been stated that the progressive person not only has to get maximum possible information on the topic, he also has to generate new ideas as well. In this way, he actually has to make ‘improvements’ and ‘expansions’ in knowledge. This objective is possible to achieve if his approach is compatible with the optimum functioning system of human mind. For the optimum functioning, human mind can accommodate any amount of information whether relevant or irrelevant provided that too much burden of un-necessary memorization of the ‘material objective information’ is avoided. This fact has been explained in another section of this thesis. Idea generation process does not require ‘material objective information’ as its input but idea generation process shall function at optimum level if more and more information, whether relevant or irrelevant to the main subject, is continuously integrated in the mindset. For the optimum functioning of the idea generation process, it is only the ‘material objective information’ which is not used as input but more and more ‘abstract objective or subjective information’ however is compulsorily required irrespective of the fact that it has any direct relation with the main subject/ issue or not. Since a progressive person, unlike a ‘professional’, also has to generate new ideas and since the optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’, so in order to generate more new ideas, the progressive person shall not confine himself in getting only the ‘relevant’ information. He would be requiring ‘irrelevant (abstract) information’ also for the generation of more new ideas.
Human mind’s working principle is the ‘identification’ of similarities and associations between various sets of information and then manipulating those ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information in a way which ultimately results in the formation of ‘knowledge’. We know that the concepts of ‘similarity’ and ‘association’ do not have any rigid meanings. Human mind is able to identify (or detect) ‘similarities’ and ‘associations’ even in those sets of information that belong to totally different or even opposite fields of study. Thus we are able to detect similarities and associations in those two sets of information, let’s say, one of which belongs to the study of Ethics and the other belongs to the study of Mechanics. Now consider a person who is a ‘professional’ in the field of Mechanics and being a ‘professional’, he considers the study of Ethics to be useless for him because the study of Ethics would be ‘irrelevant’ to his profession. In this case, since this ‘professional’ shall not study Ethics so he shall remain unable to identify that ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ which exists between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. Since this ‘professional’ does not identify the similarity (or association) between different sets of information so no manipulation operation can be performed by his mind because mind can perform manipulation operations only on ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information. Since the ultimate result of the manipulation operations by the mind on the ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information would have to be the formation of particular ‘knowledge’, so this ultimate result shall not be taken by this professional because in this case no such manipulation operation has been performed by the mind due to his non-identification of existing similarity or association between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. In this way this ‘professional’ shall remain unable to conceive that new idea (most probably this new idea would have to be related to his own area of study) which was possible to be conceived by him if he did not avoid studying Ethics. As a result, this ‘professional’ actually would be acquiring expertise/ specialization only in already existing theories of his subject and he would not actually be further identifying/ exploring more new issues related to his own subject.
The task before the progressive person is not just to get expertise only in the already existing theories of his subject. The task before him is to move forward. To move forward, by himself, the progressive person has to look forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories. He has to identify more new issues so that he may perform analysis of those newly identified issues. Proper analysis of those new issues is possible to do if the progressive person regularly conceives/ generates new ideas. As previously has been stated that optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’. But only this continuous addition of more and more information of every sort alone cannot stimulate the idea generation process to function at optimum level. Idea generation process can be stimulated for its optimum performance by first having outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind and then by regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Here, it should be noted that most of the times, it shall be the acquisition of that ‘irrelevant’ information that would help in identifying new issues/ problems/ questions relating to the main subject of interest as has been explained in the previously stated example where the professional in the field of Mechanics would possibly become able to find new issues in the subject of Mechanics just if he did not avoid studying Ethics. So the proper sequence of all this process identified here is that first the progressive person shall choose a subject of interest. Then he shall engage himself in acquiring more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The acquisition of the ‘relevant’ information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’. The acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information, on the other hand, shall help him in the identification of new issues/ problems/ questions etc. relating to the main subject of interest. By keeping these outstanding issues/ problems/ questions in mind, the progressive person shall continue to engage himself in acquiring of still more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Now at this time, he would be fulfilling both the essential requirements of the optimum functioning of the idea generation process which are (i) presence of outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind; and (ii) regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The new ideas that shall be resulting due to the ‘optimum functioning’ of the idea generation process in this way would be having the basis, the important component of which was that newly acquired ‘irrelevant’ information. In this way, the acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information shall ultimately result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’.
We know that idea generation process basically is an analogical process. It means that it is not in the best interest of a person, who really wants expansions in his knowledge, to keep himself confined to the study of only one subject/ issue even if his main objective is to get expertise/ specialization in only that subject because if he studies other subjects also, he in this way, possibly can expand his knowledge about the main subject/ topic just by making analogies with even ‘irrelevant’ topics. It means that more and more general knowledge can help in making him more and more specialist in any particular field, which usually has to be his own subject of interest. To become more specialist in his own subject of interest by adopting this strategy is possible when that person is acquiring more and more general knowledge while keeping the outstanding issues/ problems/ questions of his own subject of interest in mind. If the person studies only one topic, he expands his knowledge only in linear mode. But if he studies more and more topics/ subjects, he is expanding his knowledge about the main subject of interest in both linear as well as in parallel mode. In linear mode also because the apparently irrelevant topic may have direct connections or relations with the main subject of interest. And in parallel mode also because by having more diverse sets of information in mind, he becomes able to draw more valid analogical inferences.
We can conclude, on the basis of above discussion that progressive approach may prove to be more time consuming than to the static approach but this progressive approach, however is not tedious. Progressive approach offers more comprehensive results than can be offered by the static approach. Progressive person not only forms new knowledge, he also gets better, clear and more transparent level of understanding. That much transparent level of understanding is not possible to get in the static approach because in the static approach, analytical activities are missing. Only self analytical activities can give a better understanding level.
We have seen previously that the progressive person has a definite purpose and a proper line of action for him. The ‘definite purpose’ is to move forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories and the ‘line of action’ is to make expansions and improvements in his overall knowledge with particular emphasis on the main subject of interest, first by identifying new outstanding issues/ problems/ questions relating to main subject of interest and then by continuously acquiring of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information, and finally by doing analysis of the information so acquired, as well as of those new ideas that shall be conceived by him during all these processes. ‘To move forward’ also have another sense and this is continuous ‘upward shift’ in the ‘overall understanding’ and ‘level of abilities’. Up-grades in the ‘overall understanding’, under progressive approach is relatively a routine matter because progressive approach is a continuous learning process and the process of learning involves up-grades in the overall understanding. Whereas the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ has specific meanings in this context. As we already have identified that the task before the progressive person is to move forward. He has to move forward, not only beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories but also beyond the limits of his own maximum abilities. But can a person really go beyond his own maximum abilities? The answer to this important question would be No, if asked from us and we are to answer the question while keeping in view the real implications of the static education system. Under this static education system if a student remains unable, even in some case – due to certain un-avoidable reasons, to get passing marks in the examinations, he would not be allowed to take admission in the next class even in case where courses offered for study in the next class happen to be relatively easier and more interesting for him than to that of the previous class. In this way that student would be considered, by this static education system, to be not able to do such a task which actually be at much below the level of his maximum abilities. The actual problem with this static education system is that this system cannot identify the levels of students’ abilities and so cannot take any effective steps for the improvements in those levels. This system only can do whatever is more convenient to do. It is quite easy to devise a rigid syllabus, then to teach only the syllabus subjects to all the students, then to force all the students to get themselves familiar (only) with the contents of those subjects and then making ‘assessments’ about the levels of students’ abilities on the basis of such types of examinations which are quite easy to conduct and whose purpose is only to check the compliance of students’ understanding with those syllabus contents. In this way if the ‘level of abilities’ in case of a student is found to be ‘in compliance with’ the syllabus requirements, then he would be considered to be able to go to next class. Being ‘able’ to go to next class would be considered to be equivalent to the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ of that student, under this static education system. In this way the answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not would be positively answered by this education system itself.
In my opinion, the real answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not, would be yes but not in that sense in which this question is ‘positively’ answered by the education system. A person can really go beyond his own maximum abilities if he actually achieves his own maximum level. To become able to go beyond his own maximum abilities, by a person, may not make proper sense at first instance. But to become able to achieve his own maximum level by that person does make proper sense. A person can achieve his own maximum level if he successfully performs that task/ activity etc. such that to perform that task/ activity was possible only if he would have applied his maximum effort and ability. Once this maximum level is achieved, now onward it is no more the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person. Now onward, the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person would be located somewhere at a higher level than before. That person, as a result of this ‘upward shift’ in his ‘level of maximum ability’, becomes able to perform such a task/ activity which was impossible to be performed by him previously when his relatively lower level of ‘maximum ability’ could not let him perform ‘higher level’ tasks or activities. Now when he is at a ‘higher level of maximum ability’, some of those ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities are no more at ‘higher level’ for him. And obviously there shall still be infinite number and kinds of those tasks/ activities which would still be beyond the scope of this new and improved level of abilities. Now again when this person shall ‘achieve’ his new ‘maximum level’, he would become able to perform still ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities and this cycle shall continue in this way. A point, here, needs to be clarified. It has been stated that after when a person ‘achieves’ his own maximum level, that person as a result becomes able to perform those tasks/ activities etc. which were impossible to be performed by him previously. This point actually does not give any such meanings as for example before when a syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for students to understand the contents of book. We earlier stated that ‘up-ward shifts in the level of abilities’ have specific meanings in this context. In this example, if we keep ‘specific’ meanings of ‘up-ward shift in the level of abilities’ in mind, we shall not conclude that before when particular syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for the students to understand the contents of that book. By keeping the ‘specific’ meanings in mind, our conclusion would be that it was within the range of normal abilities of students that if taught by a teacher, they were able to understand the contents of that book. So if students understand some new syllabus contents in this way they actually do not cross their ‘level of maximum ability’. The maximum level for them is still at the same point where it was located previously.
But what is that ‘specific’ meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’? First of all we should clarify that we are considering here, only the mental abilities and we are not addressing the issue of improvements in ‘physical’ abilities of persons. By the term ‘mental abilities’ we mean such abilities of persons as ability to understand new and strange things/ situations, ability to handle and solve new and puzzling problems/ situations, ability to generate more complex new ideas and/ or to formulate new theories etc. Keeping in view the issue of improvements in these types of abilities which are related to mind’s performance, the meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ can be considered to be like as to become able to understand those things/ situations, or to become able to handle and solve those problems/ situations, or to become able to generate more complex new ideas, and/ or to become able to formulate new theories such that previously it was out side the scope of maximum ability of the person to perform any of these tasks. Previously the person, in this case was not able to perform any of the above mentioned tasks. But now if he has become able to perform any of these tasks, then it means that actually he has crossed his previous level of maximum ability which also means that there has occurred ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ in case of this person.
Thus in the case of example given in the previous paragraph, lets say that person first successfully handles a complicated issue such that to handle that issue was possible by him only if he applied his maximum efforts and skills. Before handling the issue, that person was in a state of doubt. He was not fully confident that he could successfully accomplish the task. If he did not apply his maximum effort and ability in order to accomplish the task, he would still remain in state of doubt in the possibility of successful accomplishment of that task by him. The state of doubt shall continue and the person shall remain in trap of his already existing vision. But if he apply his maximum efforts and in this way brings himself out of the trap of his previous limited vision, that person as a result would get a new broader vision about his next objectives. Those next objectives were outside the scope of his previous limited vision. Previous vision was limited because its corresponding objectives were still un-accomplished. Now when previous objectives have been accomplished the person’s vision has been broadened due to the fact that he has got such new objectives for him which were simply outside the scope of his previous level of maximum ability. Now the level of his maximum ability would be located at some higher level. His new maximum vision would be showing him those objectives such that to accomplish those objects would have been considered by the person just close to something impossible. He again would be in need to apply his (better) maximum ability in order to accomplish those near to impossible objectives. He would successfully accomplish those new objectives also when he would apply his new better maximum ability. He again would get still broader vision for him and some new objectives shall come within the range of new broader vision. In this way the person shall continue himself in a ‘forward’ movement.
So in order to move in forward direction in a real sense, a person should prefer to undertake to perform only those tasks which should appear to him close to impossible to be successfully accomplished by him. The tasks which may seem to be ‘close’ to the impossibility actually are not quite impossible to do. Such tasks can possibly be performed provided the person uses his maximum effort and skill in order to accomplish those tasks. If the person continues to engage himself in the performance of just routine type of tasks such as those which are normally assigned to students by the static education system, he shall continue to remain at the same level of his maximum ability. He would be having his vision static and fixed at a particular level. He shall not undertake to accomplish the maximum possible objectives so those objectives may remain ‘close to impossible’ throughout his career.
by: Khuram
Progress means forward movement in the way of developments etc. But to move in forward direction requires that we must ‘think’ in forward direction. We cannot move in forward direction if we think in backward direction. In case we do not ‘think’ at all i.e. our thinking is ‘static’, again we cannot make progress in this way. To move forward, towards the way of development, (i.e. to make progress) is possible only when we ‘think’ in forward direction.
The direction of our ‘thinking’ depends on the way we handle any new information. The usual course of handling any new information can be described in terms of following formula:
Learning = New Information + Updating the previous understanding
As a result of the application of new information, we usually update our previous understanding on the issue. In this way we ‘learn’. Learning also can be defined as “up-dating the previous understanding structure as a result of the application of new information”.
But, above is only the usual way of handling new information. All people, in all cases do not handle new information in the above mentioned way. There are basically three approaches for handling new information; (i) Regressive Approach; which is ‘backward thinking’ approach, (ii) Static Approach; where people do not ‘think’ by themselves and; (iii) Progressive Approach; which is the ‘forward thinking’ approach and is necessary for making progress.
These three approaches have been briefly described below:
1- Regressive Approach:
Every new information is viewed in such a manner as to just confirm the authenticity of old information. In this way, the structure of old information is not changed or up-dated in this case. We have defined ‘learning’ to be the ‘updating’ of the structure of previous understanding as a result of the application of new information. In regressive approach, basically every effort is made to protect and safeguard the structure of previous understanding. New information is not properly considered and evaluated. Any information that seems to be contradictory to the structure of previous information (understanding) is just rejected without proper considering or evaluating it. Since there occurs no ‘up-dating’ of the structure of previous understanding, therefore ‘learning’ also does not occur in a regressive approach of handling any new information.
2- Static Approach:
As a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding (i.e. the structure of previous information) may be up-dated but the new (resulting) understanding is not evaluated for further outstanding questions and also no new conclusions are derived. In fact, the new information, in as it is form, is just integrated in the previous mindset (i.e. structure of understanding). The previous structure of understanding is up-dated in this way. Since the previous structure of understanding is up-dated, so ‘learning’ takes place under the ‘static approach’ of handling new information. But since no new conclusions are derived under this approach, so there is no or at least less scope for the generation of new ideas under this approach. Missing of ‘new ideas’ simply means that the total knowledge is ‘static’ i.e. up to the level where it was before the application of new information except in case where ‘new information’ comes from direct observation of a whole new thing. Only in this case there has occurred some expansion in the total knowledge and in all other cases, ‘learning’ has been occurred only in an individual’s mind and so in this way, nothing ‘new’ has been ‘learned’ by the humanity as a whole. In ‘static model’, usually, already existing knowledge is just transferred from one mind to other or others. To whom the knowledge is so transferred, does not draw his own conclusions. He does not draw his own conclusions because actually he does not ‘think’ by himself. Whatever has been told to him, he accepts it in as it is form without properly considering its detailed implications. He does not consider the detailed implications of the new information because he does not ‘think’ by himself. The ‘static approach’ is so termed also because the ‘thinking process’ is ‘static’ under this approach. In this approach, ‘learning’ does occur but the idea generations do not take place due to the fact that ‘self thinking’ is ‘static’ or absent in this case. The knowledge remains ‘static’ up to the level of ‘up-dated’ understanding until another new information has come from the external world. One who follows static approach is only a follower of progressive people. Whatever the progressive people shall tell him, he shall accept it in as it is manner. No doubt he is ‘moving’ in a ‘forward’ direction because after all ‘learning’ is present in this approach. The type of this ‘forward movement’, however, is not impressive at all. The progressive people actually are ‘running’ in forward direction and our ‘static person’ is just ‘crawling’ behind them. Logically he cannot overtake the progressive people. He also cannot go towards any new direction. He only has to follow the path which was already explored by the progressive people. Also he moved up to the level to which he has been ‘pulled’ by the rapid progress of the progressive people. So in this type of ‘non-impressive’ forward movement, our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. Actually he is being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. This approach is ‘static’ also because our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. He is just being ‘pulled’.
3- Progressive approach:
In progressive approach, as a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding is up-dated. This up-dated ‘new’ understanding is further evaluated for the further outstanding questions. Answers to those outstanding questions are found out and new conclusions are drawn accordingly. Need for the new information is also recognized at various levels and efforts are made to get the required information. The new information so acquired again up-dates the previous understanding and the cycle continues. In this way the knowledge makes progress. Progressive approach not only is a continuous learning process, it has a greater potential of generating new ideas as well. The progressive person ‘thinks’ by himself. Since he ‘thinks’, so he draws his own conclusions. Many of such conclusions can come up to the definition of ‘new idea’. So there is greater potential for the generation of new ideas under the progressive approach. A progressive person is not ‘pulled’ by other progressive people. He, by himself seeks for new information from every potential source but he is not just the follower of those information sources. He draws his own conclusions and thus organizes his own knowledge. He makes improvements in knowledge. He is moving in forward direction in an impressive style. A static person was just crawling behind the fast moving progressive people. Our this progressive person is one of the fast moving persons. Whether or not he is actually behind other progressive persons does not matter at all. Since a progressive person draws his own conclusions, so in fact he is exploring an entirely new way. He is the leader of his own way. Actually all the progressive persons are leaders of their respective fields. Even if the progressive persons belong to same area of study, still then there is sharp difference between a progressive person and a static person. The static person is just crawling behind the progressive people and is being ‘pulled’ by those progressive people. In case of a progressive person who is actually moving behind other progressive people, even in this case, his position is far better than that of a static person. Unlike a static person he is not ‘crawling’ behind the progressive people. He is ‘running’ after the other running progressive people. Unlike a static person, he is not being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people, he is actually ‘running’ by himself. Since the static person is ‘crawling’ behind the running people, so logically he cannot overtake those progressive people. The progressive person in this case, on the other hand, is also ‘running’ behind the other running persons. He may have his speed greater than other progressive people because after all he is ‘running’ and not just ‘crawling’. So logically, the possibility exists that he may overtake other progressive persons in that particular field.
Education System:
Our formal education system basically is an example of ‘static model’. Students are taught only that material which is written in syllabus books by some progressive people. Students only have to go through that written material and only have to improve their understanding of the related concepts. But that ‘improved’ understanding is considered to be the ‘upper limit’ or the ‘upper boundary’ of all what students can be expected to do. Students are not required to further improve that ‘improved’ understanding with the help of their own ‘thinking and analysis’. Any further improvement is considered possible only in a situation when the same author has written a new edition of the same book. Only this ‘new edition’ is considered to be the sole source of any kind of ‘further’ improvement in the understanding level.
In this way, what a progressive person has done, the students have to follow it. Students are required to ‘crawl’ behind that progressive person. Students (and many teachers also) remain static up to that level to which they have been ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. By themselves, students cannot (also not expected to and also not required to) go beyond.
Students are evaluated only for their ‘improved’ understanding level and it is still irrelevant to consider that if they are able to practically apply that ‘improved’ understanding or not. Students actually are bound to remain unable to practically apply their better understanding level because ‘practical approach’ is missing in this kind of ‘static’ understanding ‘improvement’ model.
Students themselves do not analyze or evaluate what is written in the syllabus books. They view the written text only from a single angle. Practical situations always require analysis of situation from maximum possible angles. Since students do not do that, they remain unable to handle the practical situations.
Students only have to ‘follow’ the progressive people so they are bound to remain behind those progressive people. Whatever ‘milestone’ they have covered, in fact has already been left behind by those progressive people. The situation is the worst in the case of static minded teachers. In fact static students are still in a better position than to the one which is held by the static minded teachers. Students are ‘improving’ their understanding. They go to next class and ‘further improve’ their understanding. But the static minded teachers – they actually, even are not ‘improving’ their understanding. They are just teaching the same material which was already known to them. They are just teaching the same material over and over again and from year to year. Since they are required to teach the ‘same’ material under this education system, so actually they are not in need to generate any new ideas in the related subject. So the static minded teachers are not even doing what is being done by the static students because students after all, are improving their understanding level from year to year but these teachers are at the same level of understanding for the most part of their respective careers.
Suggestions for improvement:
The situation can be improved and this static education system can be transformed into a better progressive system. Following are the necessary points or steps that are required for this purpose.
i. Class room should not be only lecture based. There should mainly be formal discussion activities in the class rooms. Every student should be required to give his/ her opinion on the topic. He/ she also should be required to identify further necessary areas of investigation in the current topic.
ii. There should be discussion groups who can choose different topics for the discussion.
iii. Evaluation of students should be based on their participation level and their performance in the discussion activities.
iv. For every discussion topic, all students should be required to write down their own analysis, opinions and conclusions in the form of thesis.
v. However, half the class time can be devoted to lectures also.
vi. Written examination system must have to be thoroughly changed. Only those subjects or topics should be evaluated in written examination which otherwise cannot be evaluated. Even in such conditions, written examination must have to be analytical oriented i.e. not just descriptive or calculation oriented.
Progressive information handling approach actually is simple and easy as compare to the static approach. In the static approach, one has to go through all the contents of, lets say, syllabus books because the maximum goal in this approach is to get satisfactory understanding of all the contents of that knowledge which is already available in those syllabus books. To acquire the understanding of all the contents of syllabus books, using the static approach is a tedious task. With relatively more effort, the maximum result is only a ‘satisfactory’ understanding of the already existing knowledge.
In the progressive approach, on the other hand, the progressive person only has to choose the issue or topic which is the most interesting for him. Then he has to analyze all its related aspects. He has to mentally organize all the related information in a proper, meaningful and in a systematic and consistent manner. For a progressive person, it is not difficult at all to choose the issue or topic for his analytical activities. Progressive person is the one who ‘thinks’ by himself. In this way, the most ‘interesting’ subject or topic for this person would be that issue or subject etc. about which he ‘thinks’ in his spare time. Under this approach, since the progressive person has to choose that subject or topic, for his analytical activities, which happened to be the most interesting subject for him and since the most interesting subject for him is that one about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time so in this way he would choose the subject, for his analytical activities, about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time. As a result, this progressive person would acquire a definite purpose and a proper line of action for himself. Having a definite purpose in his mind, he himself shall search for maximum information about the subject or issue from whatever sources of information that shall include not only the syllabus books on the subject but shall include other non-syllabus sources of information that would include direct observations as well. In this way, he may has to go through all the contents of those syllabus books along with also consulting the non-syllabus sources of information. He also has to generate new ideas about the topic/ issue. The successful search of the information from all the available sources of information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’ whereas the new ideas shall result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’. He also has to critically analyze the issue which shall result in ‘improvement’ in knowledge because such critical analysis shall ‘improve’ the ‘accuracy level’ of knowledge on the issue.
The above mentioned activities apparently may seem to be more tedious than to that of the static approach, but the fact is opposite. Since the person who is doing all the above mentioned things for the sake of a ‘definite purpose’ i.e. analysis of issue/ topic/ subject etc. for which he is personally interested, so he shall take all these activities lightly. He has a definite purpose and a proper line of action. He does not have to memorize/ understand all the boring and un-interesting topics of syllabus books though he might has to go through even more new information materials as may be offered by any set of syllabus, for the performance of his analytical activities.
It has been mentioned in this discussion that the progressive person, first chooses a subject of interest and then start analyzing various aspects of that ‘interesting’ subject. It may seem that this progressive person shall keep himself confined up to the search and positive responsiveness towards only those information sources that are directly related to his own area of interest. This may be true as for as the so called ‘professionalism’ is concerned but this, however is not true in the case of a progressive person. Progressive approach is different or rather opposite to this so called ‘professionalism’. In this professionalism, efforts are made to get expertise/ specialization in only one field of study through reading/ analyzing only those subjects that are directly related to the main field of study. Subjects having no direct link/ relationship with the main field of study are considered to be ‘irrelevant’. Study/ analysis of ‘irrelevant’ subjects is avoided because it is considered just useless for the achievement of the main objective, which is to get expertise or specialization in only one field of study. In this way these ‘professionals’ willingly keep themselves limited within the framework of their area of ‘specialization’.
As previously has been stated that the progressive person not only has to get maximum possible information on the topic, he also has to generate new ideas as well. In this way, he actually has to make ‘improvements’ and ‘expansions’ in knowledge. This objective is possible to achieve if his approach is compatible with the optimum functioning system of human mind. For the optimum functioning, human mind can accommodate any amount of information whether relevant or irrelevant provided that too much burden of un-necessary memorization of the ‘material objective information’ is avoided. This fact has been explained in another section of this thesis. Idea generation process does not require ‘material objective information’ as its input but idea generation process shall function at optimum level if more and more information, whether relevant or irrelevant to the main subject, is continuously integrated in the mindset. For the optimum functioning of the idea generation process, it is only the ‘material objective information’ which is not used as input but more and more ‘abstract objective or subjective information’ however is compulsorily required irrespective of the fact that it has any direct relation with the main subject/ issue or not. Since a progressive person, unlike a ‘professional’, also has to generate new ideas and since the optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’, so in order to generate more new ideas, the progressive person shall not confine himself in getting only the ‘relevant’ information. He would be requiring ‘irrelevant (abstract) information’ also for the generation of more new ideas.
Human mind’s working principle is the ‘identification’ of similarities and associations between various sets of information and then manipulating those ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information in a way which ultimately results in the formation of ‘knowledge’. We know that the concepts of ‘similarity’ and ‘association’ do not have any rigid meanings. Human mind is able to identify (or detect) ‘similarities’ and ‘associations’ even in those sets of information that belong to totally different or even opposite fields of study. Thus we are able to detect similarities and associations in those two sets of information, let’s say, one of which belongs to the study of Ethics and the other belongs to the study of Mechanics. Now consider a person who is a ‘professional’ in the field of Mechanics and being a ‘professional’, he considers the study of Ethics to be useless for him because the study of Ethics would be ‘irrelevant’ to his profession. In this case, since this ‘professional’ shall not study Ethics so he shall remain unable to identify that ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ which exists between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. Since this ‘professional’ does not identify the similarity (or association) between different sets of information so no manipulation operation can be performed by his mind because mind can perform manipulation operations only on ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information. Since the ultimate result of the manipulation operations by the mind on the ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information would have to be the formation of particular ‘knowledge’, so this ultimate result shall not be taken by this professional because in this case no such manipulation operation has been performed by the mind due to his non-identification of existing similarity or association between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. In this way this ‘professional’ shall remain unable to conceive that new idea (most probably this new idea would have to be related to his own area of study) which was possible to be conceived by him if he did not avoid studying Ethics. As a result, this ‘professional’ actually would be acquiring expertise/ specialization only in already existing theories of his subject and he would not actually be further identifying/ exploring more new issues related to his own subject.
The task before the progressive person is not just to get expertise only in the already existing theories of his subject. The task before him is to move forward. To move forward, by himself, the progressive person has to look forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories. He has to identify more new issues so that he may perform analysis of those newly identified issues. Proper analysis of those new issues is possible to do if the progressive person regularly conceives/ generates new ideas. As previously has been stated that optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’. But only this continuous addition of more and more information of every sort alone cannot stimulate the idea generation process to function at optimum level. Idea generation process can be stimulated for its optimum performance by first having outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind and then by regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Here, it should be noted that most of the times, it shall be the acquisition of that ‘irrelevant’ information that would help in identifying new issues/ problems/ questions relating to the main subject of interest as has been explained in the previously stated example where the professional in the field of Mechanics would possibly become able to find new issues in the subject of Mechanics just if he did not avoid studying Ethics. So the proper sequence of all this process identified here is that first the progressive person shall choose a subject of interest. Then he shall engage himself in acquiring more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The acquisition of the ‘relevant’ information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’. The acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information, on the other hand, shall help him in the identification of new issues/ problems/ questions etc. relating to the main subject of interest. By keeping these outstanding issues/ problems/ questions in mind, the progressive person shall continue to engage himself in acquiring of still more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Now at this time, he would be fulfilling both the essential requirements of the optimum functioning of the idea generation process which are (i) presence of outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind; and (ii) regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The new ideas that shall be resulting due to the ‘optimum functioning’ of the idea generation process in this way would be having the basis, the important component of which was that newly acquired ‘irrelevant’ information. In this way, the acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information shall ultimately result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’.
We know that idea generation process basically is an analogical process. It means that it is not in the best interest of a person, who really wants expansions in his knowledge, to keep himself confined to the study of only one subject/ issue even if his main objective is to get expertise/ specialization in only that subject because if he studies other subjects also, he in this way, possibly can expand his knowledge about the main subject/ topic just by making analogies with even ‘irrelevant’ topics. It means that more and more general knowledge can help in making him more and more specialist in any particular field, which usually has to be his own subject of interest. To become more specialist in his own subject of interest by adopting this strategy is possible when that person is acquiring more and more general knowledge while keeping the outstanding issues/ problems/ questions of his own subject of interest in mind. If the person studies only one topic, he expands his knowledge only in linear mode. But if he studies more and more topics/ subjects, he is expanding his knowledge about the main subject of interest in both linear as well as in parallel mode. In linear mode also because the apparently irrelevant topic may have direct connections or relations with the main subject of interest. And in parallel mode also because by having more diverse sets of information in mind, he becomes able to draw more valid analogical inferences.
We can conclude, on the basis of above discussion that progressive approach may prove to be more time consuming than to the static approach but this progressive approach, however is not tedious. Progressive approach offers more comprehensive results than can be offered by the static approach. Progressive person not only forms new knowledge, he also gets better, clear and more transparent level of understanding. That much transparent level of understanding is not possible to get in the static approach because in the static approach, analytical activities are missing. Only self analytical activities can give a better understanding level.
We have seen previously that the progressive person has a definite purpose and a proper line of action for him. The ‘definite purpose’ is to move forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories and the ‘line of action’ is to make expansions and improvements in his overall knowledge with particular emphasis on the main subject of interest, first by identifying new outstanding issues/ problems/ questions relating to main subject of interest and then by continuously acquiring of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information, and finally by doing analysis of the information so acquired, as well as of those new ideas that shall be conceived by him during all these processes. ‘To move forward’ also have another sense and this is continuous ‘upward shift’ in the ‘overall understanding’ and ‘level of abilities’. Up-grades in the ‘overall understanding’, under progressive approach is relatively a routine matter because progressive approach is a continuous learning process and the process of learning involves up-grades in the overall understanding. Whereas the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ has specific meanings in this context. As we already have identified that the task before the progressive person is to move forward. He has to move forward, not only beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories but also beyond the limits of his own maximum abilities. But can a person really go beyond his own maximum abilities? The answer to this important question would be No, if asked from us and we are to answer the question while keeping in view the real implications of the static education system. Under this static education system if a student remains unable, even in some case – due to certain un-avoidable reasons, to get passing marks in the examinations, he would not be allowed to take admission in the next class even in case where courses offered for study in the next class happen to be relatively easier and more interesting for him than to that of the previous class. In this way that student would be considered, by this static education system, to be not able to do such a task which actually be at much below the level of his maximum abilities. The actual problem with this static education system is that this system cannot identify the levels of students’ abilities and so cannot take any effective steps for the improvements in those levels. This system only can do whatever is more convenient to do. It is quite easy to devise a rigid syllabus, then to teach only the syllabus subjects to all the students, then to force all the students to get themselves familiar (only) with the contents of those subjects and then making ‘assessments’ about the levels of students’ abilities on the basis of such types of examinations which are quite easy to conduct and whose purpose is only to check the compliance of students’ understanding with those syllabus contents. In this way if the ‘level of abilities’ in case of a student is found to be ‘in compliance with’ the syllabus requirements, then he would be considered to be able to go to next class. Being ‘able’ to go to next class would be considered to be equivalent to the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ of that student, under this static education system. In this way the answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not would be positively answered by this education system itself.
In my opinion, the real answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not, would be yes but not in that sense in which this question is ‘positively’ answered by the education system. A person can really go beyond his own maximum abilities if he actually achieves his own maximum level. To become able to go beyond his own maximum abilities, by a person, may not make proper sense at first instance. But to become able to achieve his own maximum level by that person does make proper sense. A person can achieve his own maximum level if he successfully performs that task/ activity etc. such that to perform that task/ activity was possible only if he would have applied his maximum effort and ability. Once this maximum level is achieved, now onward it is no more the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person. Now onward, the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person would be located somewhere at a higher level than before. That person, as a result of this ‘upward shift’ in his ‘level of maximum ability’, becomes able to perform such a task/ activity which was impossible to be performed by him previously when his relatively lower level of ‘maximum ability’ could not let him perform ‘higher level’ tasks or activities. Now when he is at a ‘higher level of maximum ability’, some of those ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities are no more at ‘higher level’ for him. And obviously there shall still be infinite number and kinds of those tasks/ activities which would still be beyond the scope of this new and improved level of abilities. Now again when this person shall ‘achieve’ his new ‘maximum level’, he would become able to perform still ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities and this cycle shall continue in this way. A point, here, needs to be clarified. It has been stated that after when a person ‘achieves’ his own maximum level, that person as a result becomes able to perform those tasks/ activities etc. which were impossible to be performed by him previously. This point actually does not give any such meanings as for example before when a syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for students to understand the contents of book. We earlier stated that ‘up-ward shifts in the level of abilities’ have specific meanings in this context. In this example, if we keep ‘specific’ meanings of ‘up-ward shift in the level of abilities’ in mind, we shall not conclude that before when particular syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for the students to understand the contents of that book. By keeping the ‘specific’ meanings in mind, our conclusion would be that it was within the range of normal abilities of students that if taught by a teacher, they were able to understand the contents of that book. So if students understand some new syllabus contents in this way they actually do not cross their ‘level of maximum ability’. The maximum level for them is still at the same point where it was located previously.
But what is that ‘specific’ meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’? First of all we should clarify that we are considering here, only the mental abilities and we are not addressing the issue of improvements in ‘physical’ abilities of persons. By the term ‘mental abilities’ we mean such abilities of persons as ability to understand new and strange things/ situations, ability to handle and solve new and puzzling problems/ situations, ability to generate more complex new ideas and/ or to formulate new theories etc. Keeping in view the issue of improvements in these types of abilities which are related to mind’s performance, the meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ can be considered to be like as to become able to understand those things/ situations, or to become able to handle and solve those problems/ situations, or to become able to generate more complex new ideas, and/ or to become able to formulate new theories such that previously it was out side the scope of maximum ability of the person to perform any of these tasks. Previously the person, in this case was not able to perform any of the above mentioned tasks. But now if he has become able to perform any of these tasks, then it means that actually he has crossed his previous level of maximum ability which also means that there has occurred ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ in case of this person.
Thus in the case of example given in the previous paragraph, lets say that person first successfully handles a complicated issue such that to handle that issue was possible by him only if he applied his maximum efforts and skills. Before handling the issue, that person was in a state of doubt. He was not fully confident that he could successfully accomplish the task. If he did not apply his maximum effort and ability in order to accomplish the task, he would still remain in state of doubt in the possibility of successful accomplishment of that task by him. The state of doubt shall continue and the person shall remain in trap of his already existing vision. But if he apply his maximum efforts and in this way brings himself out of the trap of his previous limited vision, that person as a result would get a new broader vision about his next objectives. Those next objectives were outside the scope of his previous limited vision. Previous vision was limited because its corresponding objectives were still un-accomplished. Now when previous objectives have been accomplished the person’s vision has been broadened due to the fact that he has got such new objectives for him which were simply outside the scope of his previous level of maximum ability. Now the level of his maximum ability would be located at some higher level. His new maximum vision would be showing him those objectives such that to accomplish those objects would have been considered by the person just close to something impossible. He again would be in need to apply his (better) maximum ability in order to accomplish those near to impossible objectives. He would successfully accomplish those new objectives also when he would apply his new better maximum ability. He again would get still broader vision for him and some new objectives shall come within the range of new broader vision. In this way the person shall continue himself in a ‘forward’ movement.
So in order to move in forward direction in a real sense, a person should prefer to undertake to perform only those tasks which should appear to him close to impossible to be successfully accomplished by him. The tasks which may seem to be ‘close’ to the impossibility actually are not quite impossible to do. Such tasks can possibly be performed provided the person uses his maximum effort and skill in order to accomplish those tasks. If the person continues to engage himself in the performance of just routine type of tasks such as those which are normally assigned to students by the static education system, he shall continue to remain at the same level of his maximum ability. He would be having his vision static and fixed at a particular level. He shall not undertake to accomplish the maximum possible objectives so those objectives may remain ‘close to impossible’ throughout his career.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
With deep regret I have to state that all of the above discussion is of little use in Pakistans context. Recent events in Pakistan suggest that the people who cheated and won election on false degrees are in the ascendance.18th amendment eliminated the graduation requirement. Parliament is sovereign and can make any laws, I have no quarrel with that.
However, things did not stop at this. MNAs & MPAs who were disqualified by the High Court for committing the crime of wining the previous election on fake degrees; were again given party tickets by the PPP as well as PML-N and were re-elected.
To my simple mind, falsifying documents is a Criminal offence; but Pakistan voters and political leaders dont care a fig about this crime and re-elect law breakers to make laws to govern the country!
This also implies that in the opinion of Pakistans policy makers as well as Joe public, education is a complete waste of time. In other words, most of us who spent millions of Rupees and years of our life in completing higher education are idiots. Does anyone really expect any action towards improving education standards will be forthcoming from these bunch of immoral rascals?
It appears that neither Pakistani voter nor Pakistani politicians can distinguish between right and wrong. To hell with this kind of democracy?
I apologize if I sound very harsh, but I do feel very strongly about the fake degree affair and how politicians are making a mockery of the education.
However, things did not stop at this. MNAs & MPAs who were disqualified by the High Court for committing the crime of wining the previous election on fake degrees; were again given party tickets by the PPP as well as PML-N and were re-elected.
To my simple mind, falsifying documents is a Criminal offence; but Pakistan voters and political leaders dont care a fig about this crime and re-elect law breakers to make laws to govern the country!
This also implies that in the opinion of Pakistans policy makers as well as Joe public, education is a complete waste of time. In other words, most of us who spent millions of Rupees and years of our life in completing higher education are idiots. Does anyone really expect any action towards improving education standards will be forthcoming from these bunch of immoral rascals?
It appears that neither Pakistani voter nor Pakistani politicians can distinguish between right and wrong. To hell with this kind of democracy?
I apologize if I sound very harsh, but I do feel very strongly about the fake degree affair and how politicians are making a mockery of the education.
Last edited:
khuramonline
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
@ niaz
Dear,,,, please carefully read both detailed articles. I have selected following out of Sandeep Pandey's article:
"So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it."
I have presented these two articles not because I am any advocate of present education system. I am an opponent of this system. I reproduce the above referred quote to give answer to your particular post:
"So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it.
So dear, this system has been purposefully designed to produce obedient people. This education system is for general public. This system gives more marks to conforming people and this system just expels non-conforming people. This system has been designed to promote obeying and accepting. There is no room for any questioning in this system. So it is a system for general people.
This is not the system or requirement for the ruling class. General Musharaf did mistake to make it compulsory for ruling class. He was a dictator but his decisions were more democratic. He tried to make equality but in wrong way. There are many compulsions on general public. To have high fi degrees to earn a reasonable living is also a compulsion on general public. He wrongfully extended that compulsion to ruling class.
And now ruling class has proved that they cannot be brought under any compulsion. Compulsions are there only for general public.
Democracy is bad not because people do elect cheaters who possess fake degrees. Democracy is bad because it gives voting rights to herd that have been tamed like pet animals.
In democracy, dominant general opinion is considered to be the final authority. Dear ... awam to bas kisi patte ki tarah hawa k dosh per he urrte hain. Good political leader wo hota hai jo hawa ki future direction ka theek andaza laga ker os direction main pehle he chalna shuru ker de.
Awam phir automatically os k peeche he chalti hai. Jo politicians apne analysis main truth per hote hain aur phir apni sachayi ki lagan ki waja se hawa k rukh k against jane ka panga lene ki koshish kerte hain ... to phir awam on k peeche nahi chalti. Because awam ka apna momentum hota hai jis ki truth ki taraf direction hona zaroori nai. Os momentum ki direction bas hawa k rukh pe he hoti hai.
Aur ye education system waghaira bhi hawa ka rukh apni merzi ka set kerne ki koshish hai... It is hard earned effort of ruling class. Ruling class khud iss ki paband nahi ban sakti.
Regards!
Dear,,,, please carefully read both detailed articles. I have selected following out of Sandeep Pandey's article:
"So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it."
I have presented these two articles not because I am any advocate of present education system. I am an opponent of this system. I reproduce the above referred quote to give answer to your particular post:
"So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it.
So dear, this system has been purposefully designed to produce obedient people. This education system is for general public. This system gives more marks to conforming people and this system just expels non-conforming people. This system has been designed to promote obeying and accepting. There is no room for any questioning in this system. So it is a system for general people.
This is not the system or requirement for the ruling class. General Musharaf did mistake to make it compulsory for ruling class. He was a dictator but his decisions were more democratic. He tried to make equality but in wrong way. There are many compulsions on general public. To have high fi degrees to earn a reasonable living is also a compulsion on general public. He wrongfully extended that compulsion to ruling class.
And now ruling class has proved that they cannot be brought under any compulsion. Compulsions are there only for general public.
Democracy is bad not because people do elect cheaters who possess fake degrees. Democracy is bad because it gives voting rights to herd that have been tamed like pet animals.
In democracy, dominant general opinion is considered to be the final authority. Dear ... awam to bas kisi patte ki tarah hawa k dosh per he urrte hain. Good political leader wo hota hai jo hawa ki future direction ka theek andaza laga ker os direction main pehle he chalna shuru ker de.
Awam phir automatically os k peeche he chalti hai. Jo politicians apne analysis main truth per hote hain aur phir apni sachayi ki lagan ki waja se hawa k rukh k against jane ka panga lene ki koshish kerte hain ... to phir awam on k peeche nahi chalti. Because awam ka apna momentum hota hai jis ki truth ki taraf direction hona zaroori nai. Os momentum ki direction bas hawa k rukh pe he hoti hai.
Aur ye education system waghaira bhi hawa ka rukh apni merzi ka set kerne ki koshish hai... It is hard earned effort of ruling class. Ruling class khud iss ki paband nahi ban sakti.
Regards!
Over the top
De-education for everyone
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Masood Hasan
The good news is that in a few years we will be able to eliminate whatever education we have still left here and drown all the teachers so that this vice does not spread ever again. A little over a week back, Prime Minister Gilani blazed a new path for the nation when campaigning for our new national hero, Jamshaid Dasti (most babies are now named after him) in Muzaffargarh. He thundered that mere education was nothing as compared to the voice of the people.
Dasti being the shining example of that, we can now simply supplicate ourselves and burn our degrees unless these were claimed fraudulently in which case they are kosher in Pakistan. Senator Sughra Imam who was at the rally should immediately burn her Columbia University degree, file a case against her mom Chandi for sending her there and get a real degree from Dasti's supplier. The press called Dasti 'a fake degree holder' insulting this illustrious son of the soil and his 147 compatriots who are usually napping in the National Assembly and have genuinely fake degrees.
There has been a suggestion that Dasti should be asked to take over as minister for education and personally, this is just about the best news I have heard since Chuadhry Shujaat returned my buffalo he mistakenly took as his own. With Dasti taking care of education, we can fast forward to a time when no one will be able to read and write here this has always been the agenda of all who have ruled here, in or out of uniform, and explains why the molasses industry has done far better than all the schools, colleges, universities and institutes we have allowed to grow like warts on our fair face.
Rumours that Dasti is unable to multiply two by two are lies because he is pretty good at tables of one. After that tables of two are a piece of cake as we all know. We also know that all the doctors here are not doctors and frankly why should they be? Ask the prime minister and he will give you a perfectly good explanation for that. Mr Babar Awan for example has a doctorate from a university called Monticello which is just as well known as Oxford and offers special courses for aspiring hookers.
Another doctor some wags said he was a quack though many of us felt that was rather an insulting thing to say about quacks was at a university that apparently cannot issue degrees for love or money but the good and learned doctor who transmits heavenly cures for the afflicted of this nation from one of those infernal channels, has plunged ahead making tons of money and selling balms to soothe the tortured souls of the country.
The president cannot remember where he went to study but it wasn't Cambridge which is a relief. He also is on record as having misspelt God, which might have caused a problem but I guess the good Lord is used to this. El Presidente has no degree although he cannot be faulted for that. Without the burden of that useless parchment, he has made it to the top and given financial aerobics a new dimension. The 147 sleepy Joes erroneously referred to as members of the National Assembly may be they mean another kind of members, who pass bills faster than horses pass water, are able to do so because they simply do not and cannot read what is on the many papers. However they are able to affix their correct thumbs on their TA/DA vouchers which is encouraging news for the people and a major achievement for those who are the choice of the people. It is a sobering thought that burdened with an education they might have had to read the bills and that might have taken a hundred years give or take a decade or two.
The Pakistan team, we recently learnt, has only one graduate who has already been dropped from the national side well, side it hardly is, more a national waste of time. The rest contain a couple or so who laboriously clawed their way to intermediate or inter which is of the same standard that you find on Pakistan Railways (are they still running?). The rest gave education a wide miss and made it barely to matric which means being able to read some of the signs on the roads like 'Do Not Cross'.
This may also explain that all skippers since Imran lifted the World Cup in 1864, are unable to speak without the standard 'first of all thanks be to Almighty Allah and the boys who is work hard.' Mercifully Ramiz Raja stopped Umar Akmal short by resorting to Urdu. He should have done the same for Al Afridi, who, as skipper, has the same chances of success as the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.
I wonder what the hockey players do when accosted by a mike. Probably call it a carrot. Will the team play better once they are educated? Probably yes because they will be able to read and understand that cricket is not only played on the ground but in the head as well. However there is nothing to worry about that happening. If Yawar Saeed can be the manager till the year 3000, why should the cricketers think about A Apple, B Bat, C Cot?
I think the biggest mistake I made was to 'read and write' because it has done me no good. I have never been recruited by the ISI, CIA, M5 or IB although I have made no secret of my desire to be with the boyz. I have never won an election and never managed to default a bank.
A failure in more ways than you can count I assume there still are some people who can count. Many summers back, a friend of my late brother, called Ezo Massey sauntered into his room in Sialkot which wasn't a hick town in those days. My brother asked Ezo if he had read Dostoevsky to which Ezo replied, 'Khalid you know perfectly well I don't read Urdu literature.' Ezo could have been a good president of Pakistan come to think of it.
The writer is a Lahore-based columnist. Email: masoodhasan66@gmail.com
De-education for everyone
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Masood Hasan
The good news is that in a few years we will be able to eliminate whatever education we have still left here and drown all the teachers so that this vice does not spread ever again. A little over a week back, Prime Minister Gilani blazed a new path for the nation when campaigning for our new national hero, Jamshaid Dasti (most babies are now named after him) in Muzaffargarh. He thundered that mere education was nothing as compared to the voice of the people.
Dasti being the shining example of that, we can now simply supplicate ourselves and burn our degrees unless these were claimed fraudulently in which case they are kosher in Pakistan. Senator Sughra Imam who was at the rally should immediately burn her Columbia University degree, file a case against her mom Chandi for sending her there and get a real degree from Dasti's supplier. The press called Dasti 'a fake degree holder' insulting this illustrious son of the soil and his 147 compatriots who are usually napping in the National Assembly and have genuinely fake degrees.
There has been a suggestion that Dasti should be asked to take over as minister for education and personally, this is just about the best news I have heard since Chuadhry Shujaat returned my buffalo he mistakenly took as his own. With Dasti taking care of education, we can fast forward to a time when no one will be able to read and write here this has always been the agenda of all who have ruled here, in or out of uniform, and explains why the molasses industry has done far better than all the schools, colleges, universities and institutes we have allowed to grow like warts on our fair face.
Rumours that Dasti is unable to multiply two by two are lies because he is pretty good at tables of one. After that tables of two are a piece of cake as we all know. We also know that all the doctors here are not doctors and frankly why should they be? Ask the prime minister and he will give you a perfectly good explanation for that. Mr Babar Awan for example has a doctorate from a university called Monticello which is just as well known as Oxford and offers special courses for aspiring hookers.
Another doctor some wags said he was a quack though many of us felt that was rather an insulting thing to say about quacks was at a university that apparently cannot issue degrees for love or money but the good and learned doctor who transmits heavenly cures for the afflicted of this nation from one of those infernal channels, has plunged ahead making tons of money and selling balms to soothe the tortured souls of the country.
The president cannot remember where he went to study but it wasn't Cambridge which is a relief. He also is on record as having misspelt God, which might have caused a problem but I guess the good Lord is used to this. El Presidente has no degree although he cannot be faulted for that. Without the burden of that useless parchment, he has made it to the top and given financial aerobics a new dimension. The 147 sleepy Joes erroneously referred to as members of the National Assembly may be they mean another kind of members, who pass bills faster than horses pass water, are able to do so because they simply do not and cannot read what is on the many papers. However they are able to affix their correct thumbs on their TA/DA vouchers which is encouraging news for the people and a major achievement for those who are the choice of the people. It is a sobering thought that burdened with an education they might have had to read the bills and that might have taken a hundred years give or take a decade or two.
The Pakistan team, we recently learnt, has only one graduate who has already been dropped from the national side well, side it hardly is, more a national waste of time. The rest contain a couple or so who laboriously clawed their way to intermediate or inter which is of the same standard that you find on Pakistan Railways (are they still running?). The rest gave education a wide miss and made it barely to matric which means being able to read some of the signs on the roads like 'Do Not Cross'.
This may also explain that all skippers since Imran lifted the World Cup in 1864, are unable to speak without the standard 'first of all thanks be to Almighty Allah and the boys who is work hard.' Mercifully Ramiz Raja stopped Umar Akmal short by resorting to Urdu. He should have done the same for Al Afridi, who, as skipper, has the same chances of success as the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.
I wonder what the hockey players do when accosted by a mike. Probably call it a carrot. Will the team play better once they are educated? Probably yes because they will be able to read and understand that cricket is not only played on the ground but in the head as well. However there is nothing to worry about that happening. If Yawar Saeed can be the manager till the year 3000, why should the cricketers think about A Apple, B Bat, C Cot?
I think the biggest mistake I made was to 'read and write' because it has done me no good. I have never been recruited by the ISI, CIA, M5 or IB although I have made no secret of my desire to be with the boyz. I have never won an election and never managed to default a bank.
A failure in more ways than you can count I assume there still are some people who can count. Many summers back, a friend of my late brother, called Ezo Massey sauntered into his room in Sialkot which wasn't a hick town in those days. My brother asked Ezo if he had read Dostoevsky to which Ezo replied, 'Khalid you know perfectly well I don't read Urdu literature.' Ezo could have been a good president of Pakistan come to think of it.
The writer is a Lahore-based columnist. Email: masoodhasan66@gmail.com
Frankenstein
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,985
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
khuramonline
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
Well Hutchro,,
De-Degreeization is not equivalent to de-educaction. Degree aik besaakhi ki tarah hai. Common people iss ki support le k khud ko prove kerte hain. Outstanding log apne bal bote pe,,, kisi degree ki support liye baghair bhi khud ko prove ker sakte hain.
Degree holders may better know table of two and Jamshed Dasti may only know table of one. But fact is that degree holders also do not know more than table of two...!!! And .... I do not advise degree holders to burn their degrees. Like main kisi apahij person ko apni besaakhi break ker dene ka nahi keh sakta...!!!
Regards!
De-Degreeization is not equivalent to de-educaction. Degree aik besaakhi ki tarah hai. Common people iss ki support le k khud ko prove kerte hain. Outstanding log apne bal bote pe,,, kisi degree ki support liye baghair bhi khud ko prove ker sakte hain.
Degree holders may better know table of two and Jamshed Dasti may only know table of one. But fact is that degree holders also do not know more than table of two...!!! And .... I do not advise degree holders to burn their degrees. Like main kisi apahij person ko apni besaakhi break ker dene ka nahi keh sakta...!!!
Regards!
Similar threads
