Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn While I agree that conceptually, history and geography are relevant, my point was that the history that was taught to me was more or less irrelevant (please read my original post) and the geography was taught in far too much depth and breadth. Civics was touched upon barely, and economics was not taught at all. Regardless, I am not debating 10th standard education (despite my personal views), we are talking about Higher education |
I do not think any board in India teaches history and geography, or economics to any classes higher than 10th, unless the Humanities group is chosen. May be a single paper for humanities in all of 50 papers for engineering, say -- thats it. When you pointed out problems about history, geography and regional languages, it had to be of education until 10th.
Regarding the content of history, depth of geography etc. of course, you may have an opinion. But we have methods to choose that in this country and they are mostly based on democracy. If you do not agree with the content, or if you have an issue with the depth, that does not mean you say no to the subject as a whole and state that teaching the subject is useless.
Quote:
I am not sure how teaching obscure literary works to someone who has a very clear grasp of the language and grammar helps. As for your example, I consider myself pretty well read in english, and found out only during my MBA that the word consideration in a legal contract has significantly different meaning that english, and trust me, no amount of Teaching, reading, and CAT VA courses had given me that knowledge. So i doubt plain old school english would qualify you to grasp the full implications of legal wordings!
|
First of all, your very clear grasp of language and grammar comes from the elementary literature you were taught. The idea of teaching literature and grammar till 10th is based on past experience of teaching children for many many years. If you grasped it when you were in 5th class, you may be brilliant !
I have not seen anybody who has read and understood original Shakespeare or Chaucer, but had a problem with legal documents. Of course the terminology or the words used may be different, but that is what dictionaries are for. Its like this -- if you have played football for years, of course you have an advantage while playing rugby, compared to people who have not played any sport. If your child grows up to be an IFS diplomat, or a CEO, the boring Shakespeare experience will come to use when he has to decipher a legal document with another diplomat or when dissecting a government deal. The idea is, you do not have to depend on anybody else's faculty if your language skills are good.
Quote:
That is fine, but Higher education, especially in a country like ours should help bridge the gap between things such as views and understanding, and things such as practical applications and day to day life. When I joined a school, I was told by everybody that employment was the primary purpose of education. heck, the only reason I endured so many years of school and college was because i was told that this would be useful for a job once i grew up. History and certain subjects are increasingly becoming world views of certain parties - I have no interest in learning those , nor my children, but lets not go into that. If you tell me (or the parents of the average schoolgoing kid) that this is the purpose of education, I'm sure they would be positively discouraged!
|
One of the most important practical application of one's self in a country like ours is "how" to vote. I mean the thought process. We cannot be a country of engineers/doctors alone. If you were told by everyone that employment is the primary purpose of education, you were told wrong. At least from your experience, you can understand that now --right ? Till the children are 15 years old, they must be introduced to all aspects of the world, all subjects; arts and humanities included. They can of course choose what they want to do after that. By suggesting that "this is how I turned out, so the rest of the things, that were taught to me did not matter at all", you are also choosing a path for your children, without really introducing them to all paths.
In a poor country where literacy rate was less than 50%, of course the primary purpose of education must be skill development. But the requirement has changed now. Kerala is close to 100% in literacy for decades now. Education would upgrade itself over time if the society runs its democracy properly.
I have no comments on the political side of it. I would agree that a lot of the content has to change. A lot more of citizenry has to be introduced and a clear picture of how the democracy, electorate, judiciary and the bureaucracy works must be taught to children. And of course there is a lot of junk being taught as literature too. We need the right people to choose the content. We do not need to strike off subjects.