The Limitations of Ideals

     Similar to the response to the last week, to Moore's sensational call-to-action project to stir up students, my basic response is the same: love the ideals, admire the intention, but please-give me a break-let's not get too radical!
     I mean, frankly, I'm tired of listening to all the idealistic, revolutionary speakers all around the world criticizing many of the problems, which is perfectly fine and desirable, but do not have their own resolutions! It's easy to say something sucks, something's bad and something's wrong-I mean, there are thousands and millions of people around the world who are more than capable of doing fantastic jobs at criticizing. However, it's really frustrating to see all of them-no offense-to talk about of the problems, but not present ANY ALTERNATIVES! Why? Because often, it's impossible, and likely, detrimental! The reason we cannot eradicate the status quo of human civilization and start everything from zero? Because this is the system that has been created, established, modified, innovated, and adjusted throughout the thousands of years of antropological history by numerous thinkers, many of them passionate and brilliant, with all their effort! You can't deny that the current system, which has been formed by the historical geniuses of the past eras, have clear benefits and objectives, many of them essential for the welfare of our societies. The system of education-I'm sorry Sir Ken Robinson-is certainly one of them.
I'm extremely sorry that if I look like as if I'm lingering in the gray area on the debates or controversies presented every week:), but I would rather be a prudent thinker than a rash revolutionist. As I emphasize in every writing I post these days, when we want to talk about change we have to be extra-careful. Sure, I recognize the uncountable flaws and defects that exist in the education system that prevails nowadays, and I agree to some modifications that need to be made-such as in the meaninglessness of standardized tests or the prioritization of mathematics and languages over other subjects as Sir Robinson had pointed out-, but I also understand why the system has to be that way-the inevitability, the certain benefits and the neccesity of it, and the opposite view against many of the producers of extreme skepticism and prejudiced anger. (Which includes Sir Robinson, by the way, not as much as Moore, but still.) I believe there are essentially two things that just has to be pointed out for the sake of fair presentation of the controversy and a healthy debate.
So what's the biggie? I see clearly two big, fat, and significant problems that this thougtless criticism contains. The first one is impracticality. The most critical flaw of Sir Robinson's proposal, or at least some kind of vague agenda for improvement, was "an education system that promotes diversity, creativity, and individuality" And he went on with all the classical criticisms that are usually raised against education, such as how we "manufacture" and "junction" them to be uniform and "drug" them to be academic. I do understand the point he's trying to make here-the academic education got overheated, it went too far-we all admit. However, does he really think, from the heart of his mind, that truly, "individual, creativity-based education is possible"? The beauty of creativity is that it is diverse and it is based on the unique individuality of everyone. And also the most critical problem is also its diversity. We cannot systematically educate "creativity" to children, our beloved pupils, because we simply do not know how, and it is impossible to respect every single one's "diversity". It's a great thing if a kid has a unique idea or thought, and has a special way of thinking, such as if why can't we turn the school into a swimming pool or let everybody take turns becoming the president, sure, it's good and they would all have their reasons for it, but it is simply impossible to respect each and every one of them and let it be that way. That would be an attitude of an irresponsible educator, letting the kids flow away without common sense. We know that we can't turn schools into swimming pools. We understand we can't all be presidents. Why? Because we were taught reality and rationality. It's great that children can think of such interesting ideas, and it would be great if we had all the time, money, and resources to special-treat each and one of the children, to hire and train all the educators, to let one child who likes to play the piano play it all day long without basic education, to allow the other who's interested in video games be addicted to it without boundaries, but that is impossible and undesirable. In the video, Sir Robinson introduced the natural-born dancer who couldn't pay attention to class lectures, and used this case to support his argument on how standardized education destroys creativity. Do you know why we can't teach dancing in the ordinary curriculum? Do you know why we can't teach specialized internet programming to children? I bet some would definitely be interested, some might excel in such classes like Gillian did in dance school? Why not special squadron-agent-training? Don't you think some children are meant to be police officers or agents in the FBI? Curious, why not hand-drumming, ball juggling, or ways to have sex? Certainly you're not disregarding the hand drummers who perform in various stages, or clowns who take the main role in the circus, or-possibly, all the people who have sex? Somebody might even grow up to be an AV star, a sex theraphist, or action-artists, who knows? Well, I think we obviously know the answer-hello! We can't teach EVERY SINGLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT that might be suitable for EVERY SINGLE STUDENTS- that's why we sort out the most fundamental, basic, and necessary subjects that are often required in many aspects of life, such as math, literature, social studies, and so on- because that is the most common knowledge! There needs to be general standards, common curriculums, and evaluations for the betterment of the people-the greater good of the greater people. BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO COMMONLY, THE MOST PEOPLE! People say "Do you think you are going to use algebra much in your life?"; huh, do you think you'll utilize the information you learned from the "Tap Dance Manual-How to be a Brilliant Dancer" will help you any better? And even if it were to, just how are you going to teach it? Are there enough dancers, especially who can teach and are willing to sacrifice their careers to enroll in an occupation that has to deal with a bunch of kids? Where is the enough money to compensate the reluctant employees? Dream-talks are easy, give me an actual plan, and a specific one, on how we can make it happen.
However, the even more dire problem is this: the HARMS. Remember me mentioning "children flow with their thoughts without common sense"? That's another serious problem we'll have to consider-the benefits of the standardized education system and the detrimental harms that will be inflicted on students when we exterminate it. The reason we have rules and regulations in school is because we have them everywhere- in every parts of our society. There are certain manners and courtesies that people need to acquire if they are to function as a social being in their lives. That's why we apply the same system in school-to teach the students how to comply and respect the legislations of the society. What happens if the teenagers-if we don't adapt them? We get disciplined and punished just like we do in the real society. If we don't obey the rules in the workplace, you get fired. If you commit blasphemy in a sacred temple in Palestein, you're likely to get shot. Same thing-you can't simply disregard the laws of the society and say F--- rules like many rebellious lyrics of popular songs do. That's a common value we learn as a member of this society called "endurance" and "temperance". I know I sound all grumpy, conservative, and lame, but it's the truth. Without rules,  the civilization will turn into chaos and there would be no room for an intelligent, civil human being anymore. WORLD=CHAOS. That's why we teach certain rules in school: because the objective of an educational institution is not only to fuel in all the academic stuff but also the social requirements. Similarly, in Gillian's case, if a student doesn't pay attention in class, the teacher is obligated to assist and guide them to do so. As I said, the important, valuable quality that we MUST LEARN is "endurance"-that means enduring and withstanding the difficulties, the dislikes, and the boring, to earn and achieve something you desire. Even if you want to drop out of school, even if you have the bloodlust to slaugther your cursed, loathsome enemy, you shouldn't and you can't-because you know the consequences are severe. It's not because your parents tell you so, it's because you can't earn anything without bearing the hardships. Sadly and unfortunately, that's the way the world works. Do you think the "Dancing schools", which was brought up on the video clip, are any different! Blah! They're just the same competetive, difficult, and "boring" steps you'll experience- often much more severe in degrees-compared to ordinary schools. Little sleep, unimaginable amount of practice, lots of physical pain, whole lots of depression and frustration, and tiny success-that's the realistic conditions that dancers have to face- a lot different from the rosy, delicate images of successful dancers you knew, huh? I say, the students who can't even bear the hardships of school can never withstand the realistic difficulties of life, and such people can never achieve anything. BE ASHAMED! Moreover,-the last thing-practical situations are also things you have to consider. I once did a debate on the motion "THW not teach professional sports to young children" And the one of the argument I brought up is that the future opportunities for them are so narrow and limited. Dozens and packages of children are fascinated by the unbelievable success of the "Figure Skate Queen" 김연아 and "The Swimming Prince" 박태환 and urge their parents to let them be allowed the chance. But there is a reason why the parents don't let you jump in. Because what a lot of the people don't realize, is that, the tens of thousands of skaters and swimmers who worked as just as hard, who were just as talented like the two national stars, but were just a little out of luck. Despite their huge amount of practice and devotion, nobody recognizes their effort which is hidden behind the shadows of 김연아 and 박태환. What do they do then? They barely make any money if they aren't successful in competitions, their athletic life ends in the 30s, and they hadn't received basic education in school due to the early enrollment in professional sports, and therefore, are hopeless. I won't say that their life is a failure, but it'll sure be tough, without proper recognition and a guaranteed quality of life including food, water, clothing, and housing, life's going to be pretty hard; dramatic. And many of the children who make the same decision have a much more high chance of following the path than following 연아's or 태환's. Same goes for Gillian's case. I understand that she is a successful case, but I don't understand why Sir Robinson forgot to mention that she was an especially exceptional, rare and unlikely case for most of the dancers. There must have been thousands of cases just like Gillian, who couldn't pay attention in class, were brought to dance school, discovered their talent in talking in their body language, blady blady blah. I'm sure, I can say with confidence, that there were all the "friends" at the dance school who could have worked harder or had greater potentials compared to Gillian-what happened to them, Sir Robinson? Why, would you out of the thousands of cases of these magnificent dancers, most of them who would have a story, some of them much more impressive and extraordinary then Gillian, just handpick one of them? I think I do no the answer-Sir doesn't know what happened to them too. He knows Gillian because she was SUCCESSFUL. He interviewed her for his book because...? SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL. What about the others? HE DOESN'T KNOW. WE DON"T KNOW. What would have happened if they have received the basic, required amount of education in schools and have performed sufficiently that normally, jobs in the society favor and use it as standards to evaluate capabilities? We don't know for sure, but at least the chances of living a life with a better quality might have been much higher. There's an another reason why you can't afford to get kicked out of school-I know it's not like the idealistic stories and heart-moving lines that might appear in teenage comics-because it's much more safe and stable. Our parents aren't actually that boring. They're just smart and wise.
    So, I think I made this a bit long, so let me wrap up. Improvement in education? Needed! Revolution? Nuh-uh. It's impractical to get rid of standards, and it's also a very risky gamble. It's also a skill you have to learn in order to survive-to work and try hard to adjust yourself to the form what your goals want you to be-it's not uniformization, it's called putting-efforts-to-show-them-you-are-able-to-do-for-your-goals. Enduring boring lessons of Mr. Kim is just an easy case of the millions of hardships you will experience in life. If you want to give up, give a go at becoming a pro-gamer and try your best playing Starcraft, I won't stop you. I'll just sit back and watch if you're lucky enough to winthe lottery.