Propents of rigid school system have always touted that values system is always instilled by the parental system. The school neither play any part nor have any resposiblity for catharsis of the value system in a child. However, closer examination suggest that although parent play most important role in creating a value in infant but the importance of the school system cannot be neglected.
First and foremost, one must remember that value system is created by two aspects first something that is carried in genes and other which an individual learns. No one have control in former. The second factor hence become vital in creation of the values. How is this learning process takes place? The are again two factor here which effects the learning : first is the interpretation of incidence which are taking place in his ecosystem and second is deviation of this interpretations based on the innovation abiliity of a child. The conclusion is the envirnoment around the child is essential and deciding factor in development of the child's intellectual. Quite obivious the school is the main part of this envirnoment. Hence a big chunk values in child comes from the institution. Thus the resposiblity, which the school always tries to skip, comes quite naturally to play its part in instilling values.
Further, the school is the place where the child comes to the contact with the world outside. The school facilitate a emulation of virtual world which have different aspects like competition, friendship, hostility etc. How a child behave and react to such emotion is a creation of the values. School is place whare an innocent mind comes into contact with so many other peoples having different values and different way of the thinking. In this choas of the ideas the child pick of the values which he interpret pertitent for him. The responsiblity of the school is to enable a child to make such educated decisions for rest of the life. With decreasing time a parent spend with child and increasing time teachers spent with students the responsiblity is far much greater today.
But beyond the creation of virtual world and time spent , the bottom line issue is what does fundamentally education means? Is its sole purpose is limited to preach knowledge so that he can get decent job? The defination of the education includes instilling values in a child. So that he can pertinently live in the world. School have resposiblity to make aware the child changing values which is changing as the thinking process of the world is changing. If a child would have got values from the parent alone the value would have remain unchanged from the generation and it would have remained constant even the world outside is changing. Clearly this is false values are changing. Thus the conclusion is the parent are not solely responsible for the instilling values in the child. The school resposiblity is hence tantamoutous to develop the child intellect according to the changing world.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Curicullum
The proponents of the classical education have long touted the role of educator must be the inassilable and they must decide the curriculum. However, closer examination of the modern requirement reveals that the statement have nearly lost meaning in present scenario. The student must be the primary vehicle who should make the educated decision on the content and context of the studies. The role of educator must be here should be limited to guide who help the student to make such pertinent decision.
First and foremost, with rapid changing of the vigrant scenario of the modern world, the content of the education need to change not intermittently but frequently which begets the need of constant monitoring. The fundamental of the education always remains the same, and they will be always be premogeniture of any course. But the practical application need to be change continuously. Usually student more actively aware of the changing world than the professor, who are in most case ''like frog of well" unware of the development outside. Thus student are the in most case in better position to make such vital decisions. For intance, take the example of the computer science, its techonoly is changing at so much furious pace that its impluasible for educationist to track it. In most of the cases the ebullient students are better aware of the development going on, like new software or new innovate algorithm.
Further the student should be given choice as it is his career the institution is helping him to make. The career is something that will decide his future. Thus any of the rational theory will give not only a option but also a right to chose his future. Hence its not the job of the educationist to decide the future of a student. Educationist can play a role of a guide. In case a student is not experienced enough or mature enough he can make some of the decesion for him. But once a student is mature enough to make his own choice its his buisness to mind his choices. There is one more aspect to this. The sense of the responsiblity of making his own decision put an extra effort. This extra effort is vital for futher intelectually development of the child.
But beyond the curriculum upgradation and right to make choice, the bottomline issue is "what is the primary goal of any educational institution?". Its precisely to educate the student. Thus student is pith of this system, and the core of institution is not to propiate the educationist. In other world all functioning of institution must be decided by taking in consideration the necessity of student. The student here is person who know his need better than any one else , therefore one should respect his decision in case of the curriculum.
Beside the most educationist is bit of more patronize in thinking. This hamper the institution and to the student career finally. For instance, a science professor will always wants to keep his favourate subject in the curriculum. Thus its kind of bulldozing your preference to other. Furher the educationist are in most of the case proselytize to one of the doctrine. They try to proselytize the student in further. This always has hampering effect in student's mental development as it may try to make other prespective nebulous thus exposing him to only one side of the story.
While it becomes clear that the curriculum must be decided by the students, it is apparent the role of educationist as guide is also of utmost importance. Actually this system of decision based on the active feedbacks, makes system for animated and leaves very little room for the any curriculum to become luguburious.
First and foremost, with rapid changing of the vigrant scenario of the modern world, the content of the education need to change not intermittently but frequently which begets the need of constant monitoring. The fundamental of the education always remains the same, and they will be always be premogeniture of any course. But the practical application need to be change continuously. Usually student more actively aware of the changing world than the professor, who are in most case ''like frog of well" unware of the development outside. Thus student are the in most case in better position to make such vital decisions. For intance, take the example of the computer science, its techonoly is changing at so much furious pace that its impluasible for educationist to track it. In most of the cases the ebullient students are better aware of the development going on, like new software or new innovate algorithm.
Further the student should be given choice as it is his career the institution is helping him to make. The career is something that will decide his future. Thus any of the rational theory will give not only a option but also a right to chose his future. Hence its not the job of the educationist to decide the future of a student. Educationist can play a role of a guide. In case a student is not experienced enough or mature enough he can make some of the decesion for him. But once a student is mature enough to make his own choice its his buisness to mind his choices. There is one more aspect to this. The sense of the responsiblity of making his own decision put an extra effort. This extra effort is vital for futher intelectually development of the child.
But beyond the curriculum upgradation and right to make choice, the bottomline issue is "what is the primary goal of any educational institution?". Its precisely to educate the student. Thus student is pith of this system, and the core of institution is not to propiate the educationist. In other world all functioning of institution must be decided by taking in consideration the necessity of student. The student here is person who know his need better than any one else , therefore one should respect his decision in case of the curriculum.
Beside the most educationist is bit of more patronize in thinking. This hamper the institution and to the student career finally. For instance, a science professor will always wants to keep his favourate subject in the curriculum. Thus its kind of bulldozing your preference to other. Furher the educationist are in most of the case proselytize to one of the doctrine. They try to proselytize the student in further. This always has hampering effect in student's mental development as it may try to make other prespective nebulous thus exposing him to only one side of the story.
While it becomes clear that the curriculum must be decided by the students, it is apparent the role of educationist as guide is also of utmost importance. Actually this system of decision based on the active feedbacks, makes system for animated and leaves very little room for the any curriculum to become luguburious.
Generality to specaility
Proponent of the top down approach have long touted the "specialist" as a pith of the any system. So much so that they allude them as not only essential but also sufficient for a complete system. However, close examination reveals that although the specialist is essential part of the system but not sufficient for proper working of the system. The system essentially requires generalist to provide "global" perspective. This is essential considering the functioning of the system is of more importance than the individual anatomies of it. The role of generalist is of hence of utmost importance.
First and foremost any system cannot work in independence. It need a intergration. The specialist of any of the individual subsystem cannot perform this job. It has to be essentially done by a person who know most, if not all, of the aspect of the system. For instance, take a example of the modern day software industries, it follow the bottom up approach. Each of the subsystem (piece of the software) is developed first. Then it is integrated. The integrate here need to have the knowledge of the most of the aspects of the individual subsystem, at least the knowledge of the peripherials which connect with each other. This cannot be done by any specialist.
Further such generalist have better idea to track any problem in the system. The generalist is aware or rather the knowledge of every part of the system.
Hence he is in better position to localize this problem. For examples take the examples of manager who are the actually generalist. They tries to manage each of anatomy of the system comprising of specialists. Now whenever the problem arises in the overall hierarchy of final product, the generalist role become vital. They not only provide the better tracking mechanism of the error, but also facilitate a seamless interaction between each of the parts.
But beyond the integration and tracking of the error , the bottom line of function of the generalist is providing a broader and better perspective, defining a system an unit. They seamlessly provide perspective to bring improvisation in the system. They guide each of specialist to bring optimization or updation which could facilitate a better system. They can even bring a better corroboration and symbiotic relationship in system. For example functioning of the Government , have many secretaries,a specialist, to handle each of the department. But most vital role in governess is that of President,a generalist. He most responsible in the government hierarchy.
While it may be clear that the we need more Generalist for broader perspective and seamless development of any institution; It should be noted they cannot surrogate the job of specialist. The generalist doesn't replace the specialist in fact its compliment it position.
First and foremost any system cannot work in independence. It need a intergration. The specialist of any of the individual subsystem cannot perform this job. It has to be essentially done by a person who know most, if not all, of the aspect of the system. For instance, take a example of the modern day software industries, it follow the bottom up approach. Each of the subsystem (piece of the software) is developed first. Then it is integrated. The integrate here need to have the knowledge of the most of the aspects of the individual subsystem, at least the knowledge of the peripherials which connect with each other. This cannot be done by any specialist.
Further such generalist have better idea to track any problem in the system. The generalist is aware or rather the knowledge of every part of the system.
Hence he is in better position to localize this problem. For examples take the examples of manager who are the actually generalist. They tries to manage each of anatomy of the system comprising of specialists. Now whenever the problem arises in the overall hierarchy of final product, the generalist role become vital. They not only provide the better tracking mechanism of the error, but also facilitate a seamless interaction between each of the parts.
But beyond the integration and tracking of the error , the bottom line of function of the generalist is providing a broader and better perspective, defining a system an unit. They seamlessly provide perspective to bring improvisation in the system. They guide each of specialist to bring optimization or updation which could facilitate a better system. They can even bring a better corroboration and symbiotic relationship in system. For example functioning of the Government , have many secretaries,a specialist, to handle each of the department. But most vital role in governess is that of President,a generalist. He most responsible in the government hierarchy.
While it may be clear that the we need more Generalist for broader perspective and seamless development of any institution; It should be noted they cannot surrogate the job of specialist. The generalist doesn't replace the specialist in fact its compliment it position.
Friday, November 7, 2008
team work
Pessimist have always touted the individual working alone produce better result than a group working. However, the close examination of the issue reveals that although individual work offer few apparent advantages but the team work have many advantages over the individual working alone and thus the team of work has been developed to be state of art in most of the professional world.
First and foremost, team work produce the faster result. It is obvious that a time taken to complete a work by two person will be in most cases less than time take to complete it by a single person. Though might not be mathematically exact, that is it is not necessary the time taken would by former exactly half of that taken by later. But this depend entirely upon the kind of the work. This is reason when the projected is needed to be completely before schedule the work force is increased.
Further the team work produce better result than that done by individual. The reason behind this is. When a work is done by two person then there is two perspective are involved in it. This facilitates the kind of constructive feedback(negative feedback technically speaking) in the whole system. In this system each one as a monitoring system for the others work and feedback are continually pitched in the system. This reduces the possibility of the error to be introduced into the work and thus a better quality is introduced. For instance, most of the project now a days have a separate designer and a separate reviewer for the work. Thus reviewer can check those things which a designer have never thought of or purposely ignored.
But beyond the faster execution of the work and better result, the bottom line advantage of the team work is the symbiotic relationship, in terms of the thinking process and ideas, that develops between the individual of a team. When two individual work in a team the idea put by one individual work as foundation the other individual can build on that initial idea. He can produce his new idea this will generate the other new idea by the first individual and he then put forward improvement and so on. This develop a kind a positive feedback. This is precise reason why in teams the occurrence of deadlock in terms of creative ideas is much more less evident than when worker work individual.
Additionally, the team work produce a healthy competition among individual which in most of cases are advantageous for firm. When individuals compete with each other there is more pressure on them to perform better.
While it may be now clear the advantages of team work is tantamountous, the team work has proven to be symbiotic. There are although some inherent disadvantages of the team work like conflict among team member. But considering team work advantages those disadvantages are minuscule.
First and foremost, team work produce the faster result. It is obvious that a time taken to complete a work by two person will be in most cases less than time take to complete it by a single person. Though might not be mathematically exact, that is it is not necessary the time taken would by former exactly half of that taken by later. But this depend entirely upon the kind of the work. This is reason when the projected is needed to be completely before schedule the work force is increased.
Further the team work produce better result than that done by individual. The reason behind this is. When a work is done by two person then there is two perspective are involved in it. This facilitates the kind of constructive feedback(negative feedback technically speaking) in the whole system. In this system each one as a monitoring system for the others work and feedback are continually pitched in the system. This reduces the possibility of the error to be introduced into the work and thus a better quality is introduced. For instance, most of the project now a days have a separate designer and a separate reviewer for the work. Thus reviewer can check those things which a designer have never thought of or purposely ignored.
But beyond the faster execution of the work and better result, the bottom line advantage of the team work is the symbiotic relationship, in terms of the thinking process and ideas, that develops between the individual of a team. When two individual work in a team the idea put by one individual work as foundation the other individual can build on that initial idea. He can produce his new idea this will generate the other new idea by the first individual and he then put forward improvement and so on. This develop a kind a positive feedback. This is precise reason why in teams the occurrence of deadlock in terms of creative ideas is much more less evident than when worker work individual.
Additionally, the team work produce a healthy competition among individual which in most of cases are advantageous for firm. When individuals compete with each other there is more pressure on them to perform better.
While it may be now clear the advantages of team work is tantamountous, the team work has proven to be symbiotic. There are although some inherent disadvantages of the team work like conflict among team member. But considering team work advantages those disadvantages are minuscule.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Plastic
Conservatives have always touted the laws and rules and regulation must not
only be abidding but also be rigid and fixed. However closer re-examination
of issue reveals that although strictness in implementation of laws are
necessary,but rigidity in law for long time is not acceptable in society.
Law must be flexible enough to be adapted suitably to changing needs, times
and places.
First and foremost,historically most of the laws set by the peoples or
governing body has not been absolute forever. For instance, lets take the
example of polygamy. It is known that our earliest ancestors(male) used to
mate with several females. It was acceptable at that point of the time and
once completely legal. If it is judged in current prespective it will be
unaccptable to most of the people rest aside darn feminist. Thus law changes
with changing prespective of the people. As the menality of people changes
(develops) the law need to acclimitaize according to it.Untill recently the
law doesnot provide the enfranchising right to the female. The females were
never given equal status to the male counterpart, even in the monarchies
where the queens were axis of rule. This was not illegal though according to
rules defined at those time. As the circumstance change and mentality of the
people became more rational toward female. The situtation of female started
to improve, this encouraged the proponent of female rights to raise voice
against the prevalent laws.The females were given the right to electthe
government and many other antifeminist laws was changed. Thus laws are
reflection of mentality of people at that time. As the mentality change the
reflection changes.
Mentality changes with the places. The boundry of such change can be more or
less attirbuted to culture. Thus most of nations having different cultures
have different laws and different rules and regulations. For instance the
lets take examples of Gay marriage. The European countries are more rational
toward it. While the Arabian countries are completely against this. This is
culpable crime for them and sin against the almighty GOD. The reason is
European cultures is more open to such disgressions. While Arabian are more
rigid towards this. This difference is not the transgression but it is
progeny of relativism of law. Thus every rational society have always denied
the absolutness of the laws.
While it may be clear that the laws must not be rigid and fixed, it should
be flexible enough to taken into account the account the various
circumstance, times and places.The effiectiveness of the law is defined by
its proper implementation and more importantly to its flexiblity. The bottom
line issue is laws are defined for the people and not that people is defined
for the laws.
only be abidding but also be rigid and fixed. However closer re-examination
of issue reveals that although strictness in implementation of laws are
necessary,but rigidity in law for long time is not acceptable in society.
Law must be flexible enough to be adapted suitably to changing needs, times
and places.
First and foremost,historically most of the laws set by the peoples or
governing body has not been absolute forever. For instance, lets take the
example of polygamy. It is known that our earliest ancestors(male) used to
mate with several females. It was acceptable at that point of the time and
once completely legal. If it is judged in current prespective it will be
unaccptable to most of the people rest aside darn feminist. Thus law changes
with changing prespective of the people. As the menality of people changes
(develops) the law need to acclimitaize according to it.Untill recently the
law doesnot provide the enfranchising right to the female. The females were
never given equal status to the male counterpart, even in the monarchies
where the queens were axis of rule. This was not illegal though according to
rules defined at those time. As the circumstance change and mentality of the
people became more rational toward female. The situtation of female started
to improve, this encouraged the proponent of female rights to raise voice
against the prevalent laws.The females were given the right to electthe
government and many other antifeminist laws was changed. Thus laws are
reflection of mentality of people at that time. As the mentality change the
reflection changes.
Mentality changes with the places. The boundry of such change can be more or
less attirbuted to culture. Thus most of nations having different cultures
have different laws and different rules and regulations. For instance the
lets take examples of Gay marriage. The European countries are more rational
toward it. While the Arabian countries are completely against this. This is
culpable crime for them and sin against the almighty GOD. The reason is
European cultures is more open to such disgressions. While Arabian are more
rigid towards this. This difference is not the transgression but it is
progeny of relativism of law. Thus every rational society have always denied
the absolutness of the laws.
While it may be clear that the laws must not be rigid and fixed, it should
be flexible enough to taken into account the account the various
circumstance, times and places.The effiectiveness of the law is defined by
its proper implementation and more importantly to its flexiblity. The bottom
line issue is laws are defined for the people and not that people is defined
for the laws.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Media
The advocate of the media have always supported that the media "creates" the values for the society rather than "relect" it. However, close examination reveals that the media is just a mere reflection of the society. It does not invent and certainly not create values.All it does is to "discover" the old values and blend it to create a new better value.
First and foremost media is progeny of the society. All its element like authors, editors, musicians, reporters etc comes from the society. Thus it is effected by the society it is part of. There views are the one reflected from the society. The difference they create is that they give a common platform to the all kind of the views. Its maturity of depends upon the maturity of the society. For instance, lets take the media of developing countries, the content of the media there are not as variegated as the developed countries. Their issues are limited to the religion, culture and internal issues. Thus they reflects the society they live in.
Any cataclysmic thought that may appear can only come from the elements of the society. If it comes then it can be assumed that such thoughts already exists in the society and media is giving the platform.
Further, media cannot afford to digress from the society. Remember the media is business and like all the business the its centrality lies in the money and self sustaining. Money drives the media to get support from the majority. This essentially leads to compliance to the issue which the majority supports. Thus media have hardly any room to digress from the democracy. But it do well to utilize the room offered. It give enough representation to the minorities of the societies to express it views, which finally percolates to individual's view. Thus the media have representation to the individual level. It can be vey well said that media is paradigm of the society , tough not Utopian.
But beyond the media creation or reflection of the values of the society, the bottom line issue is Media is proving helpful to society and helpful to the democracy to overall. By creating conducive environment in society, easing tension between the nations and better communication between culture. Thus it worth has been proved in creating a common unified society what we call modern society, which is far more rational and flexible than the antiquated ones. The media has done it part of discoverer(not inventor) very well, making world far better place to live in. While it may now be clear that the media acts as mirror for the society rather than a painter of new picture, its positive influence to the society is really laudable.
First and foremost media is progeny of the society. All its element like authors, editors, musicians, reporters etc comes from the society. Thus it is effected by the society it is part of. There views are the one reflected from the society. The difference they create is that they give a common platform to the all kind of the views. Its maturity of depends upon the maturity of the society. For instance, lets take the media of developing countries, the content of the media there are not as variegated as the developed countries. Their issues are limited to the religion, culture and internal issues. Thus they reflects the society they live in.
Any cataclysmic thought that may appear can only come from the elements of the society. If it comes then it can be assumed that such thoughts already exists in the society and media is giving the platform.
Further, media cannot afford to digress from the society. Remember the media is business and like all the business the its centrality lies in the money and self sustaining. Money drives the media to get support from the majority. This essentially leads to compliance to the issue which the majority supports. Thus media have hardly any room to digress from the democracy. But it do well to utilize the room offered. It give enough representation to the minorities of the societies to express it views, which finally percolates to individual's view. Thus the media have representation to the individual level. It can be vey well said that media is paradigm of the society , tough not Utopian.
But beyond the media creation or reflection of the values of the society, the bottom line issue is Media is proving helpful to society and helpful to the democracy to overall. By creating conducive environment in society, easing tension between the nations and better communication between culture. Thus it worth has been proved in creating a common unified society what we call modern society, which is far more rational and flexible than the antiquated ones. The media has done it part of discoverer(not inventor) very well, making world far better place to live in. While it may now be clear that the media acts as mirror for the society rather than a painter of new picture, its positive influence to the society is really laudable.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Contention is bound to increase
Environmentalist have always argued as "declining environment" is "global in scope" it has
potential to bring the Nations together. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals
that we are trying to predict the future only by looking at one side of the coin.The degrading
Environment is not going to the bring world the together, rather it will increase the
hostility between the nations.
Fist and foremost, with development of the underdeveloped countries their consumption of the
fuel will increase. There will greater contention among nations for limited fossil fuels. When
a nation develops, it have to ignore the long term issue and concentrate on issues which is
exigent at hand. As the nation will try to increase their industrial productivity they will
seek more energy. These nations will only care for the increasing the productivity and in turn
overall profitability. This will in turn effect the environment, as the energy efficient
techniques are capital and investment intensive. The situation has started to appear with the
emergence of the BRIc(Brazil. Russia, India and China). They are the power hungry. They have
just started to develop and started to show there tooth of cub. They are ignorant of the
declining environment as their priority is the sole development.
The Developed nations are not also solving the problem. In fact they form the other group of
the contention. The Developed nations have much higher per capita consumption of fuel or term
more relevant to us per captia emission, which represent the percentage share of envirnoment
decline by each individual. In such a scenario, it gravely unfair to ask the developing
countries to cut back emission. Only when the developing country can come in par with
developed country, contention can be resolved the author conclusion can be said to be valid.
For instance, the recent failure of the kyoto protocol is the glaring example. The difference
,well its economics, between developed and developing nation is progeny of the prevalent
contentions.
The problem relies in the essential mentality of the people. They try to overlook the long
term loss in advent of the short term gain. Going with the same logic each of the player will
think of their short term gain than that of the long term loss which is envirnoment decline.
This is compliance with the game theory in which the future condition will not only depend on
the one player decision and market decision but also with decisions made by the other player.
While it is clear that the decline in the environment will essentially leads to more
contention amongst the nations. The problem can be resolved by each nation looks their long
term loss and abide the responsibilities they indebted to the world. The invention of the more
cleaner alternatives of the fuel is also big bet although a distant one.
potential to bring the Nations together. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals
that we are trying to predict the future only by looking at one side of the coin.The degrading
Environment is not going to the bring world the together, rather it will increase the
hostility between the nations.
Fist and foremost, with development of the underdeveloped countries their consumption of the
fuel will increase. There will greater contention among nations for limited fossil fuels. When
a nation develops, it have to ignore the long term issue and concentrate on issues which is
exigent at hand. As the nation will try to increase their industrial productivity they will
seek more energy. These nations will only care for the increasing the productivity and in turn
overall profitability. This will in turn effect the environment, as the energy efficient
techniques are capital and investment intensive. The situation has started to appear with the
emergence of the BRIc(Brazil. Russia, India and China). They are the power hungry. They have
just started to develop and started to show there tooth of cub. They are ignorant of the
declining environment as their priority is the sole development.
The Developed nations are not also solving the problem. In fact they form the other group of
the contention. The Developed nations have much higher per capita consumption of fuel or term
more relevant to us per captia emission, which represent the percentage share of envirnoment
decline by each individual. In such a scenario, it gravely unfair to ask the developing
countries to cut back emission. Only when the developing country can come in par with
developed country, contention can be resolved the author conclusion can be said to be valid.
For instance, the recent failure of the kyoto protocol is the glaring example. The difference
,well its economics, between developed and developing nation is progeny of the prevalent
contentions.
The problem relies in the essential mentality of the people. They try to overlook the long
term loss in advent of the short term gain. Going with the same logic each of the player will
think of their short term gain than that of the long term loss which is envirnoment decline.
This is compliance with the game theory in which the future condition will not only depend on
the one player decision and market decision but also with decisions made by the other player.
While it is clear that the decline in the environment will essentially leads to more
contention amongst the nations. The problem can be resolved by each nation looks their long
term loss and abide the responsibilities they indebted to the world. The invention of the more
cleaner alternatives of the fuel is also big bet although a distant one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)