Yet, despite this depressing unidimensional approach, one can't help but notice that the products of this flawed system generally do OK. Certainly, compared the products of other national systems, and better than the prevailing despair might suggest. Why?
Lord William Henry Beveridge, born in Rangpur, Bengal, to an ICS officer in 1879, quoted here here in the Times, may have a clue. In his report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, submitted to the Government of Winston Churchill in 1942, he notes that:
“Most men who have once gained the habit of work would rather work... than be idle... "
Extrapolating a bit, teenagers who have worked their tails off to get 97% in their board exams have surely gained the habit of hard work. Ditto for the brutally competitive entrance exams which serve as gatekeepers to most walks of Indian life. The same habit of hard work has been installed in ten times that number who slaved away for assorted entrance exams and didn't get accepted. They Indian educational system may be very good at giving kids a tough work ethic.
This may also provide a clue to another puzzle. Why do jocks, serious sportsmen, do much better than their CGPAs suggest? Maybe because they have developed a tough work ethic?
3 comments:
In a nutshell, the "habit of work" theory is why students in the US go to college. It's much less to pick up a specific practical skill (outside those who go one to specific professions such as medicine or law) and more to prove that the student has what it takes to work hard.
Interesting.
Also, the same "habit of work" could be acquired quite effectively in a non-academic context, like military service.
At what cost? Is the question.
Post a Comment