Entering the conference room, I was slightly disappointed to see that I was the only undergraduate student attending the seminar.
Carol Evans was presenting her meta analytical paper on how different cognitive styles adopted by students affect their learning when Trevor Penny asked, "What do you think the goal of the education system should be?" He asked because the point of Evans' paper was to examine if there is a cognitive style adaptive for life and if such styles can be taught to improve examination results at the standard examinations in the UK.
His point was this. Society will always need people to do crappy and menial jobs even if we help everyone pass the standard examinations.
In her response to the question, Evans questioned the very premise of a meritocratic education system. She believed that the goal of education should be to help the student be comfortable in his or her own skin. Why should the education system attempt to stretch everyone to his limits? Should we expect everyone to be driven for academic success? Why are we so uncomfortable with the individual who has the potential to achieve, but chooses to be content with his current station in life? By pushing everyone to the limits of their potentials, are we setting people up for disappointments and dissatisfaction?
Essentially, she was asking this. Why does the educational system penalize the underachiever who is happy to underachieve?
Her point was that the underachiever is happy. Why should we set up a system to cause unhappiness in people? Does stretching people to their limits really benefit society in general?
Clearly, her argument was an existential one. Her response betrayed a belief that happiness should be the supreme value to be sought after in life. Should it?
Although I don't quite agree with the underlying premise of her argument, I was totally swept off my feet by her point. May the Author of life teach us to teach according to His ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment