"
..had studied the theory at school. Aero planes flying at subsonic speeds send speed waves ahead of them - waves of sound like messengers, yelling to air, "Hey air - Move over! Plane's coming through and air would move and planes move through. But a plane that could travel as quickly as sound ... would arrive at same time as telegram. ..No advance warning, no advance word ..... air won't scatter .. fight back the plane... Planes would disintegrate... "
Airport'80 The Concorde
Kerry Stewart
(Text appeared in Concorde - capable of Mach 2 Speed - twice the speed sound.
OK, here we go.
Just starting with the blogs, which will be generally an outlet for me to reveal my dangerous side - rebellious side.
So, here is how I plan to do it - write up my ideas that will out-rage you (at least I
hope so ). In between, there will be links peppered out. I just want everyone - who hasn't left by or slept by now - to read blog sequentially - that is if there is a link - read it first before continuing with my ramble.
Now, I am going to destroy everything you have cherished or heard - I am going to destroy the concept that there should be Equality.
Before proceeding further, let us be clear what does equality mean?
Equality equals to access - equality equals to
right to access regardless of your wealth, social background and in general anything about an individual.
And therein, lies a problem.
If you don't differentiate between persons and have limited resources, how could you determine in what way will your resource be used most efficiently?
Let's take an example:
You have a
single dose of elixir with you. There are two needy persons.
Person A is rich, wealthy and in need of it pending which he would die shortly.
Person B is poor, and needs it just slightly more.
Who will you give it to? A single dose - two candidates either of which will die without the elixir.
Think.
How many of you said A?
How many of you said B?
And lastly... how many said that information was
incomplete.
We need more distinction, more inequality...
We need to decide which one has more ability and then we can reach a decision. We need distinction, inequality.
Each man/woman is superior to some other in some ways.
Choosing between Steve Jobs, who for all his faults, changed the world for better and brought art to tech - and a beggar who willingly don't work because acc. to him begging is easier than efforts (yes such beggars exist - and in fact, if you confront almost any beggar as to why they are begging - they will say - if they say at all i.e - they did not like the work they were able to get.)
Now, don't confuse equality and social mobility. Both are not same things.
I made this mistake fortnight ago.
A person should be able to move up the ladder - but if s/he has
ability for same and not simply because s/he is at bottom of ladder. Top of ladder is narrow space and we need best people.
Now lets go on meandering
Capitalism is better than socialism. It recognizes
efforts made rather than
needs of person.
Socialism on other hand needs to recognize that since there is a person, he or she
must be allotted some resources - regardless of whether they deserve it or not.
By the way - reservations for economically weaker sections, castes, communities and religions are based on
same principle - principle of equality. Fair competition divides people on merit - and tools like quotas try to recognize the
needs of person rather than his/her ability.
That's why Equality must be destroyed.
Another Wandering thought.
Lets take up how we are taught in classes.
Here is a link you should pursue before reading further:
Just to whet your appetite:
"Everyone knows that something is wrong. The politicians say, “we need higher standards.”
The schools say, “we need more money and equipment.” Educators say one thing, and teachers say another. They are all wrong. The only people who understand what is going on are the ones
most often blamed and least often heard: the students. They say, “math class is stupid and boring,” and they are right"
http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Now you
might say that she is right - or you might claim she is wrong, but you would be asking how it relates to concept of equality at hand.
Here is another thing you might not have observed in your schools, and that is, the whole of education system, at least in India where I studied is based on equality.
A teacher in High School - unwittingly - implements the policy of Equality.
S/he takes all the students in her/his class and comes at an average - A slightly below average student. It is to to this student her/his duties are mostly towards.
Slower persons should work up hard, and persons who understood it should keep quiet.
Doubts about
not understanding what is taught, and doubts about not understanding
what is taught as in why are treated separately.
We want to manufacture persons having equal abilities. We don't want extremes.
A bad extreme screws the result.
And of course, there is no positive extreme.
Geniuses are great, but not good - they destroy the sense of class-room - you see they ask too many
irrelevant questions, question the methods, question the course, question everything - hell I question them - curiosity is not part of classroom.
That is the reason Private coachings are making a killing.
One reason is they don't restrain themselves to boundaries of course, and sometimes challenge you - but the most important reason is they don't like equality.
In fact they thrive on inequality.
As soon as results are out in their hands, they segregate class.
Of course, they are far from perfect - but in some respects, an improvement from school classroom.
Does the scenario approve in college?
Nah.
Here teacher's duty just simply shifts from average student to that dastardly high amount of syllabus that is to be covered in short amounts of time.
Even the application areas are taken for granted - oh! you have this idea, but you see this thing works fine - Sir/Ma'am there is this limitation : ah yes, but this is best thing we have here, if you have better idea, why don't you write research paper on it - if we can tweak this - tweaks are not part of your syllabi - I have this doubt : after class come to me...
They forgot only those Management students really succeed who did something unexpected - break the rules. Only those Engineering students succeed - who did not listen to the reasons as why is not possible.
Get that ratio up, Make everyone an unique product instead of treating students same as objects moving on assembly line. Make them UNEQUAL.
But as some certain Bard would have said - "
There is something rotten in the state of education."
And let me tell you this rotten thing is Equality.
Let a teacher discuss an idea with class - say
why OS evolution happens,
how can we cure Cancer,
what could be physical meaning of partial derivatives,
when would smallest indivisible part of matter be obtained - and not care a whit whether everyone is involved in idea or not.
Why do you care if students are attending classes or not? Don't make attendance compulsory - make them totally optional - with no criteria or strings attached. Let them attend what they
want and not what you
think they should.
Why do you care if they are understanding the jargon gibberish? Care about whether they understood the underlying concept, fundamental -
soul, essence, -of it. And this could be established only by discussing, not
dictating the concept.
There is an idea for everybody. Everyone will get involved in some ideas.
And these are ideas that should finally form the basis of our inequality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Notes and comments.
1. For some of my International friends who are worried about decline of education and wants to force the students to attend classes of Hard science etc. - don't be fretted.
Those attending these classes want to and this is real gift.
I would rather live in nation which produces such astounding percentages of innovators - all made possible because by giving choice in hands of students, they divided them up from start with the most basic divider - interest.
You might ask about what about other percentages which is seeking easy way out - I ask you in return do those people even matter in scheme of things?
2. Singapore describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.
There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population. Although most agree that Singapore's economic success has been due in part to its strong emphasis on developing and promoting talented leaders, there are signs that an increasing number believe that it is instead becoming an elitist society. Defendants recall the ancient Chinese proverb 'Wealth does not pass three generations', suggesting that elitists will eventually be, and often are, replaced by those lower down the hierarchy. Indeed, many top political leaders in Singapore come from peasant backgrounds, while modern peasants boast about their great ancestry.
3. My problem is not with equality :o. Problem is with conception of it, that equality is there to satisfy the needs of person. No! Equality should mean equal opportunity to person of same talent, caliber and experience require for task. Not for some-one who needs it bad, real bad if s/he is less able.
And er... Your comments are most value-able, even if you have nothing to say, say that!!
