This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Multiple Education Systems in One Single Country: Productive or Counter-Productive?
"It is 3 am now. You should go get some sleep, son" my mom told me as I sat on the sofa, with legs stretched, reading lessons on world history.
"Mom, you know what if i don't get good grades I wont make it to college". I said, with heavy eyes.
This was the every night scenario in my house when I was appearing for my 10th Board Exams. If you are an Indian, you know the horror of Board exams and if you aren't, I will sum it up in one line: Your life depends on the results of these exams.
There are two systems of education in India : The Central and The State. In Central system, all the schools affiliated to the Central Board will have a common curriculum. As for the state, all the schools affiliated to the State Board will have same curriculum. And the number of state boards equals the number of states in the country.
Doesn't sound all that bad until you find out the fact that all the Colleges are affiliated to the boards of their respective states.
Here is where the problem arises: A student moving from the Central system to a college faces multiple issues. You may have scored 90% under Central system (which generally has more advanced curriculum compared to state) and there are students from State system with 90% score. All the students, at the time of admission, are judged based on their % score while disregarding the curriculum.
What was the story at the start for: Well, I knew I was going from Central system to the state system so I had to work hard to prepare for any 'tremors' I may face at the ti me of admission. I MUST have a very high % score or else....
So my question here is: Are you in favor of such a system? Also, does your country have such a system?
Andres Barboon
george lockwood 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
yet again, common sense beats the "state logic". we as average pedestrians value an online course, life experience or reading a good book as forms of education. we accept interviews or tests a valid way of evaluating knowledge, as opposed to official documents. but until education is freed, we have to fit in the government regulated monolithic, multi year, formalized education systems that benefit no one.
Fasih Khatib
Andres Barboon
But hopefully thinkers like Sir Ken Robinson can change their minds.
Share your boredom and flourish your creativity on gath, on facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gath-a-way-out-of-boredom/414213575306901
Krisztián Pintér 200+
if education is free, what difference does it make what politicians think?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
yes, it is easy to take money, and provide something to all. the hard thing is to provide high quality. it needs constant trial and error, and lot of creativity. not something the government can do.
David Hamilton 50+
In the private school system, you can teach almost any way you want, because people are paying to learn. All religious institutions are private, but so are all cutting edge high performing institutions. In general, private schools are better, and because people must pay to attend, they create a form of classism, which seperates rich from poor. Upside, downside.
Luckily both systems use the SAT's, and while public school children typically do not do as well... If you do, it's actually a bit more impressive.
The idea that a single test can determine your entire life, sounds like nonsense, but really think about it. Society has been trying to educate you for 12 years or so... If 50% of the people in your class learned more than you did... should you really be a doctor?
Lots of people will say... "Of course, anyone can be a doctor"... I say "Do you want the 50th percentile guy operating on your brain tumor?"
Having different tests doesn't sound like a good idea, and sounds unfair, but testing in general, and high pressure being applied to children might be a neccessary evil.
Fasih Khatib
Besides, most undergrad courses have a curriculum that assumes no prior knowledge of the topic.
I agree that the guy from private school might have edge over the public school kid but its not that guy from public school can't take lead.
Now for the 'rich and poor are different' philosophy being spread, now that need to be opposed.
David Hamilton 50+
It is however, the benefit of one standard test. Since there is only one test, the motivated child in public school, can take the lead and learn what they need to, in order to excel, and get into a great university, or med school, we have a similar one test for that, the MCAT.
Rich and poor philosophy, is not working well for us, and we are trying to change it.
Think about the doctor analogy hard though. The student who learns 70-75% of the information on the test, lands in the 50th percentile. They knew the test was coming, and most of them had access to the material to prepare for the test. The people in the 90th percentile, learned 95-100% of the information.
Would you really rather have a doctor who learns 70-75% of the information he is asked to learn, and has access to? I understand if you would, but I would suggest that is the emotional part of your mind talking, not the rational.
Fasih Khatib
David Hamilton 50+
When choosing a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, I would rather have the child who studied hard, got good grades, and did well on the test. They understand the material.
If more students who do poorly on the tests, are allowed to become doctors, doctors will become cheaper, and more plentiful. It's a trade, you get cheaper medicine, and more doctors, with worse results, and more mistakes, because you let people who don't study hard, or know the material, call themselves doctors.
Fasih Khatib
george lockwood 30+
Fasih Khatib