Is elite education really useful?

With reference to the article:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html

An elite education is supposed to nurture the cream of the crop. This special group of privileged students undergoes a more intensive, advanced and rigorous curriculum so as to breed a new generation of thinkers who will help to sustain and advance the world into the future. These students are educated for the betterment of mankind.

However, the effectiveness of such curriculums and systems are questionable. Take a look at a very familiar local context –Raffles Institution. Students in this institution are reminded time and time again that they are part of the top few percent of students in each cohort, and how the education they have would make them all ready for their days outside school. “Nurturing the Thinker, Leader and Pioneer”, the tagline of the school is frequently broadcasted as well, and the students are pressurized to excel In education. As a result of this, there exist students who think that this elite education would encompass solely the concept of grades.

I know a great deal of students whose conversation topics never leave the term “GPA”. Questions never fail to arise with regard to the most recent tests, how hard it was, how they think they would fare, and watching these conversations go on every single day leaves me wondering, is it all about the grades? Personally, I would shun all conversations, which kick off in that direction, as grades to me are not the only important things in my education. I admit, yes my grades are not ideal and they should be priority, but do the grades define how you will turn out in the real world? It has occurred to me that to most of my ‘elite’ peers, numerical values, existing as GPAs, seem to define one’s future.

However, grades per se definitely do not prepare us for the real world, the real world requires other skills and competencies as well, some of which an elite education just does not provide. With reference to the article, it can be said that an elite education makes “you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you”. The Gifted Education Programme, although currently not in effect in RI, brings the brightest students together, to have a somewhat more intensive education. Many of my friends were from GEP in primary school. Yet it irks me at times that there are some people who seem to have drowned far too deep in this isolation. There exist people who have become ridiculously caught up in their grades, that they find it awkward to speak to people who may not be just as smart. Personally, I was rather disturbed at how a few schoolmates described neighborhood school students as ‘twits’, simply because of grammatical errors or the lack of vocabulary. Perhaps, elite education has caused students to be overly confident of themselves at times, that they now place themselves above others.

If we cannot integrate into society, understand how the common people or how others speak, our grades would certainly not be able to bridge that gap.

Having an elite education is supposed to prepare (no s) students for the real world. Yet, brought to us are projects, worksheets, tests, assignments, performance tasks, summaries, the list extends. It appears to be more like an ongoing process of more and more isolation. Throw in the brainwashing of “you are the best of the best” and students forget the human touch. Ultimately, the elite education system translates into a competition of numerical values.

Though I am a part of it myself, numerals are certainly not my cup of tea.

I think elite schools need to teach their students about living in the real world first.

Democracy creates stability in a society

Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens have equal influence, to have an equal say, and are treated equally. The people are given the choice of how they would want their country to be run.

In modern society, one would say that democracy would be the best form of government as everyone has a voice of his own in how the country is run. This brings us to the question of whether democracy would really bring stability in a society. At this point, stability could encompass three other subdivisions – social, political and social stability.

Democracy would bring about the ‘stability’ as mentioned, because everyone is given a right to speak up for the common good. With a direction set by the people, agreed and not debated, the country would be able to progress stably, without the higher authorities making the decisions.
Social stability would be attained because of the above statements, that the people influence the very way they live in society, as they have the control in their hands. Their needs and wants are addressed and thus, they would not have disputes or discontent in this society. As such, political stability would also be achieved, as the government is in the people’s hands. With success in maintaining peace amongst the people, the political field would not be an issue for instability. As for the economic field, investors would be attracted to such a society. With the back of these investors, in a way, economic stability would be assured as well.

However, one would go against the mentioned points for stability, in light of the possible corruption of government despite the verbal promises of a democratic government. For example, lest the government still holds great power in controlling the economy, and the higher authority would have the final say in this field, no matter what the citizens have to say, they will not be influential. An example of such a ‘failed’ democratic government would be of Bangladesh.

Even so, looking at the other example – Switzerland, which practices direct democracy where as long as 1% of the electorate signs a petition, a referendum must be held, democracy still holds a stand. Enabling the people to constantly change the policies that they are dissatisfied with, without having to wait a few years, would gain the trust and respect of the people. Switzerland enjoys a stable society and where people are generally happy as they decide how they want to live. This example shows that democracy does create stability in a country.

The best form of democracy is not when it is perfect, but rather, when it is the least imperfect. It would be impossible to bring about a Utopian society whereby everything is perfect with the absence of any conflicts. With slight disputes and conflict, that is when the people can earn each other’s trust and understanding for their views, offering a chance for everyone.

As the above has mentioned, I do think that democracy brings about stability because it ensures that: there are no rifts between the people, and everyone has his say regardless of characteristics, the entire system of government is corruption free, the government is not the decision maker but the channel of the people's power, and the people are truthfully informed of what is going on.

To Be Graded:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7276939.stm

Title of Article: Was Childhood ever Innocent?

Author:  Tom Geoghegan

Publisher: BBC News Magazine

Date: 5 March 2008

___________

Is it not common to see teenagers, or even children, these days walking on the paths of Orchard Road with a mobile phone in their hands? Or perhaps, teens blasting music from their newest iPods into their ears as they doze off on the trains? Maybe a good ten years ago, all these would not exist, and in their place, would be teenagers clad in simple clothes and armed with no mobile phone, but just a nice book, or maybe a Rubik’s cube.

Only adults carried mobile phones, or maybe only the business class owned them. It was not a necessity back then, when payphones were largely used by the young. As we look into this situation today, we realize that majority of teenagers own mobile phones. It has become part of their everyday lives – to swipe out that phone to send a message to their friends, or call a girl friend to gossip about everything. Something that used to be for work has been integrated into everyday life.

To see that even children have their own mobile phones would irk certain adults, I believe. These days, we can see kids as young as 7, carrying their own phone and playing away. I was a spoilt child myself. I received my first mobile phone when I was in Primary 3, and at that time I was proud of it. In retrospect, I did not have a need for a phone at that age – the payphones in school were perfectly useful! Yet nowadays, even the parents are willing to spend that much for their young children. We can even notice that younger and younger people own a mobile phone.

To say that only the material wants of children, or teenagers for that matter, have evolved over the years would be a grave mistake. I do think that the above article is very accurate in saying that the disciplinary actions taken on misbehaving children have changed, and so have the conditions they are in. Children back then did not have much influence from the media. Their lives were restricted, and revolved around simple games and toys. With the introduction of televisions, radios and most significantly, the Internet – children nowadays are exposed to much more things.

People say that the media is all about sex because sex sells, and I agree to that. With the increasing number of advertisements that contain suggestive sexual innuendos and whatnot, our young are getting exposed to this much earlier than the young years ago. Perhaps this young exposure is what brings about the influx of pre-marital sex and teenage parents.

I believe that the media is the key factor to the increment of our young being badly influenced or “growing up too fast”. After all, the curiosity of the young is a fire raging madly. Their quest to obtain knowledge on certain things would make them do things they should not do at their age.

That is why Mother always says not to watch too much TV.

to the next blog: www.3c09-wilbert.blogspot.com