In Bihar, 300 people were recently arrested for cheating in exams. Many of them are parents of the students sitting the exams.
The Hindustan Times has a picture of people scaling up a 4-storey wall to throw paper-airplanes carrying answers to exam papers. However, the chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board said that cheating has not happened within the exam halls. He claims that it happens from the outside. Fines have been imposed, students have been failed or expelled and exams have been cancelled as a result of the publicity around such cheating experiences.
People live in a society where passing exams is seen to be the make-or-break point to their need to live in poverty. After all, these are the leaving school exams, and consequently, the last chance the students have to show that they have gained some value out of their schooling.
Cheating has apparently become more rampant since the state government offered cash rewards to lower-caste students who were able to answer about half the questions on their tests. Attempts to chase away family members lurking outside test centres failed, as mobs threw stones at the law-enforcement agents.
What do you think of such a culture? Has something gone wrong? Or is this fine? How can it be made right if it has gone wrong?
The Education Board has tried to counsel parents and students against cheating, while many parents blame the government and the teachers for being indifferent and uncaring.
Can such a culture change for the better? How?
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
22 March 2015
08 February 2015
Student thinking
Students are supposed to learn, right? And learning results in passing exams, right? That means that a good student, knowing enough to pass exams, has a good level of intelligence, right?
Maybe not. The mentality of passing exams hampers one's ability to think, apparently, if the Secret Teacher's article is to be believed.
Secret Teacher found that students had difficulty thinking things out for themselves. Thinking is a strenuous exercise. They need guidance to think - how big to draw a diagram, what words to use in a sentence, what conclusion should they arrive at, what are the correct answers, how many examples to give, etc ... what will show up in the exams - as they see their goal is to accomplish what is required for the grading tasks, in order to receive good grades.
The objective of actually learning something is not present in their thoughts. Thoughts are distractions. Showing the marker what he wants to see in order to be deemed worthy of good grades is the actual goal. Figuring it out for one's self isn't.
Do you see this kind of mindset in students today? Or is Secret Teacher's observation not universal?
I think that to a degree, Higher Education does not want students to think. They want students to gather thoughts from other "experts" as they need to read up many references and quote them in essays. Research is mostly repeating laboratory exercises and quoting from other people's work. The only time when students get to do any real thinking is when they are working towards their Ph D, but even then, much of the work is in consultation with other "experts" in the field, as they gather information through readings and discussions.
To have a thought to abstract is probably "wrong". Thinking is good, but it needs to be verified.
What do you think? How should one think? According to the norms that society and the education system tells us to? Or may one think more independantly?
Who is to guide, if the instructors are wrong?
Can one really discern right from wrong? How? Is education the answer?
Maybe not. The mentality of passing exams hampers one's ability to think, apparently, if the Secret Teacher's article is to be believed.
Secret Teacher found that students had difficulty thinking things out for themselves. Thinking is a strenuous exercise. They need guidance to think - how big to draw a diagram, what words to use in a sentence, what conclusion should they arrive at, what are the correct answers, how many examples to give, etc ... what will show up in the exams - as they see their goal is to accomplish what is required for the grading tasks, in order to receive good grades.
The objective of actually learning something is not present in their thoughts. Thoughts are distractions. Showing the marker what he wants to see in order to be deemed worthy of good grades is the actual goal. Figuring it out for one's self isn't.
Do you see this kind of mindset in students today? Or is Secret Teacher's observation not universal?
I think that to a degree, Higher Education does not want students to think. They want students to gather thoughts from other "experts" as they need to read up many references and quote them in essays. Research is mostly repeating laboratory exercises and quoting from other people's work. The only time when students get to do any real thinking is when they are working towards their Ph D, but even then, much of the work is in consultation with other "experts" in the field, as they gather information through readings and discussions.
To have a thought to abstract is probably "wrong". Thinking is good, but it needs to be verified.
What do you think? How should one think? According to the norms that society and the education system tells us to? Or may one think more independantly?
Who is to guide, if the instructors are wrong?
Can one really discern right from wrong? How? Is education the answer?
29 October 2014
Evolution and Big Bang real
Apparently, Pope Francis believes that the theories of the Big Bang and of evolution are real. Or so, Adam Withnall understands, based on an article published by the Independent today.
The Pope was speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He said that God is not a magician. He did not create the world by waving a magic wand, unlike the impression that some have from their understanding of Genesis. Instead, God created and gave the system some "internal laws" with which the creation was able to progressively develop.
So evolution and the Big Bang theories describe the progression, and these theories are not inconsistent with what the Bible says about creation.
Would you agree with the Pope's point of view?
Do you think he is just trying to be politically correct? The Catholic church has been historically opposed to scientific views, as it persecuted Galileo for his views. As Catholic schools need to promote the popular culture of science, is the Catholic church putting up hypothesis to make their views consistent?
Are the theories of the Big Bang and evolution even correct? The scientific method can change its present conclusions when more information comes to light, if the extra information correct current views.
Would God reject the present scientific theories? Do the theories limit God, or describe what He has done?
What do you believe? Why?
The Pope was speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He said that God is not a magician. He did not create the world by waving a magic wand, unlike the impression that some have from their understanding of Genesis. Instead, God created and gave the system some "internal laws" with which the creation was able to progressively develop.
So evolution and the Big Bang theories describe the progression, and these theories are not inconsistent with what the Bible says about creation.
Would you agree with the Pope's point of view?
Do you think he is just trying to be politically correct? The Catholic church has been historically opposed to scientific views, as it persecuted Galileo for his views. As Catholic schools need to promote the popular culture of science, is the Catholic church putting up hypothesis to make their views consistent?
Are the theories of the Big Bang and evolution even correct? The scientific method can change its present conclusions when more information comes to light, if the extra information correct current views.
Would God reject the present scientific theories? Do the theories limit God, or describe what He has done?
What do you believe? Why?
23 March 2014
Prayer at public school
Should everybody at public school be forced to pray? To which god? What if they don't believe in god? What do you think?
I don't mean private schools or Christian schools, when I ask this question. I think the expectations are clear that if a child were to attend one of these, then they are expected to fit into the culture of that school. And it can be expected that Christian schools would want people to pray, Buddhist schools expect people to chant, etc.
But public schools cater to the masses. Children whose parents cannot afford the cost of private schooling are sent to these schools, since schooling is compulsory. They go to the school that is assigned to them, often based on the geographical area of where they live. Should such children be forced to pray?
A story in today's Sun-Herald set me thinking.
The article spoke of a parent who pulled out his child, not because he was anti-religious, but because he thought the practice not to be inclusive for everybody. He thought that scripture classes or prayer groups within the school can have prayer time, but not during the school assemblies where everybody is expected to attend. But the majority of the parents in that school voted to retain prayer in the school assemblies.
Another school said there would be no way that Christian prayer would be conducted at their school assembly, since that school was 90% Muslim.
Yet another school runs it such that sometimes, the children would pray to Allah. At other times, they would read Sanskrit text, and at yet other times, sing Christian hymns and practice meditation. This school thinks that the exposure to the religious practices of a multicultural society would be good for the children.
What do you think?
Should governments segregate swimming pools and prayer rooms so to satisfy the requests of the Muslim community? Should there be combined prayer time or separate ones? Why even have prayer time at all? How should public schools run with regards to this aspect?
I don't mean private schools or Christian schools, when I ask this question. I think the expectations are clear that if a child were to attend one of these, then they are expected to fit into the culture of that school. And it can be expected that Christian schools would want people to pray, Buddhist schools expect people to chant, etc.
But public schools cater to the masses. Children whose parents cannot afford the cost of private schooling are sent to these schools, since schooling is compulsory. They go to the school that is assigned to them, often based on the geographical area of where they live. Should such children be forced to pray?
A story in today's Sun-Herald set me thinking.
The article spoke of a parent who pulled out his child, not because he was anti-religious, but because he thought the practice not to be inclusive for everybody. He thought that scripture classes or prayer groups within the school can have prayer time, but not during the school assemblies where everybody is expected to attend. But the majority of the parents in that school voted to retain prayer in the school assemblies.
Another school said there would be no way that Christian prayer would be conducted at their school assembly, since that school was 90% Muslim.
Yet another school runs it such that sometimes, the children would pray to Allah. At other times, they would read Sanskrit text, and at yet other times, sing Christian hymns and practice meditation. This school thinks that the exposure to the religious practices of a multicultural society would be good for the children.
What do you think?
Should governments segregate swimming pools and prayer rooms so to satisfy the requests of the Muslim community? Should there be combined prayer time or separate ones? Why even have prayer time at all? How should public schools run with regards to this aspect?
19 June 2013
Children grow up
"Gang rapes hit global headlines" in Delhi, according to SBS Dateline ... but apparently, more of the same thing happens in Phnom Penh that goes unreported.
According to the article, 5% of men surveyed have reported participating in gang rape, whereas in other parts of the world, only about 1-2% of men respond similarly. Apparently, there is a cultural practice called "bauk" where men consider the act to be a "plus"; to be male-bonding and having fun. They do not see it as rape or as bad behaviour. They do it because they think it to be normal within their society.
Apparently, sex workers are hired, and then forced to have sex with a group. Women, generally, do not fear getting attacked.
The justice system catches and punishes some men, and some people try to "correct" the situation.
The article explains that "In Cambodia like many countries young men are under pressure to appear tough and fit in. There is also a cultural reluctance among the older generation to talk to them about sex and healthy relationships."
It appears that the culture and the older generation are perhaps negligent in educating the younger ones about sex and acceptable, responsible behaviour. This leads to a practice that is perhaps deemed as undesirable in many other societies. To try to correct such behaviour suddenly would leave the young people to question why they are taught differently from what they have grown up believing.
So how do we address such issues?
Apparently, the older generation needs to take responsibility.
In Australia, it has been deemed that girls grow up too quickly, "worrying about weight, looks, boys and fashion at the age of ten" instead of enjoying childhood.
Generally, girls experience puberty while their ages are between 10 and 14 years. At this stage, they understand their bodies are changing, and they wonder what it means to be women. According to essentialkids.com.au, they can learn these things from adults, or from their peers. The opinion of the author is that adults make better mentors compared to peers. Peer influence tend to (generally speaking) be more dangerous.
For this reason, it is recommended that adults make time to spend with their developing children. It is inevitable that kids will learn from peers anyway, but some adult influence can be positive.
Do you think so? What do you think? How do we cure the problems that society will potentially face in the next generation? How much time do we spend with our children? How much do our children look up to us?
Does God have a role in all this?
According to the article, 5% of men surveyed have reported participating in gang rape, whereas in other parts of the world, only about 1-2% of men respond similarly. Apparently, there is a cultural practice called "bauk" where men consider the act to be a "plus"; to be male-bonding and having fun. They do not see it as rape or as bad behaviour. They do it because they think it to be normal within their society.
Apparently, sex workers are hired, and then forced to have sex with a group. Women, generally, do not fear getting attacked.
The justice system catches and punishes some men, and some people try to "correct" the situation.
The article explains that "In Cambodia like many countries young men are under pressure to appear tough and fit in. There is also a cultural reluctance among the older generation to talk to them about sex and healthy relationships."
It appears that the culture and the older generation are perhaps negligent in educating the younger ones about sex and acceptable, responsible behaviour. This leads to a practice that is perhaps deemed as undesirable in many other societies. To try to correct such behaviour suddenly would leave the young people to question why they are taught differently from what they have grown up believing.
So how do we address such issues?
Apparently, the older generation needs to take responsibility.
In Australia, it has been deemed that girls grow up too quickly, "worrying about weight, looks, boys and fashion at the age of ten" instead of enjoying childhood.
Generally, girls experience puberty while their ages are between 10 and 14 years. At this stage, they understand their bodies are changing, and they wonder what it means to be women. According to essentialkids.com.au, they can learn these things from adults, or from their peers. The opinion of the author is that adults make better mentors compared to peers. Peer influence tend to (generally speaking) be more dangerous.
For this reason, it is recommended that adults make time to spend with their developing children. It is inevitable that kids will learn from peers anyway, but some adult influence can be positive.
Do you think so? What do you think? How do we cure the problems that society will potentially face in the next generation? How much time do we spend with our children? How much do our children look up to us?
Does God have a role in all this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)