| Hom Raj |
Posted
on 01-May-01 02:04 PM
I am coming to this page after some days of writing papers, checking references, etc, and right here I see this discussion about plagiarism. Then I also see this interesting comment about mathematics instruction being the most important in education.
Actually I think this whole discussion, looking at the several threads, shows that mathematics is NOT the most important thing for development of Nepal. It's my impression that South Asians in general have better math training than many Americans, in the high schools, at any rate. Maybe precisely because memorization is so much a part of our educations.
Math education may be lousy in villages, but so is every other education, basically. When it comes to critical thinking, all of Nepal--Kathmandu as well as villages--is desparately underdeveloped.
From a very early age people are encouraged to recite things without creativity, without analyzing, but just taking things and saying them verbatim or putting them verbatim on the page. How do we differentiate between this rote memorization education and plagiarism? How can a teacher even tell? Although the SLC exam notes that answering creatively is better than reciting from the book, or something or that sort (I don't remember exactly), that's not the reality of grading in the schools. People have not been trained to take things and put that thing in their own context and analyze it. That is called real critical thinking, and critical thinking does not exist in Nepal in general.
Maybe there are some schools that are trying to promote that tradition, which is a good sign, but even at the best boarding schools so many students are just taking everything from the book, copying notes from other people, and so on. Teachers can't even tell the difference. They don't even read the answers. The more it sounds like the book, the better. Especially if there's good handwriting. Handwriting counts more than content.
There was talk about Lamichhane, who had plagiarized stuff from other works; then there was talk about the American-educated AP reporter doing the same thing. Have we changed from then to now? Even the Dictionary of Nepali Literature published by the Academy has so much information, but no citations at all, even when one definition lasts for 10 pages. So-and-so did this-and-that, but where is the citation? Where is the reference? A standard literature dictionary in America always gives references.
Certainly it could be argued that the Brahmanical Sanskrit tradition emphasizes rote memorization and reproduction over analytical thinking. But that does not mean our tradition does not have analytical character as well; it just has not been emphasized. A very good example would be Acharya Adishankar, around 800 C.E., who interpreted Vaidic literature emphasizing non-dualistic characteristics (unity between soul and universe), and then Madhava around 1200 C.E. who comes and totally reinterprets the tradition as dualism (difference between soul and universe).
The thing is, it's easy to just debunk our tradition, but there are positive parts of our tradition that have not been emphasized. What now we need to look into is to debunk the negatives and rediscover the positives. Find solutions WITHIN OUR OWN RESOURCES. We do have resources, within our own culture and system; but we have to be able to discriminate good from bad. That's what we are lacking.
Writing is a crucial part of critical thinking and learning and reflecting. But that's the LEAST EMPHASIZED THING in Nepali education. You write a couple of essays about a cow and that's it.
Take a sample of Nepali writing around the country and kids everywhere are starting, "Gai char khutte janawar ho. Gaika duita kaan hunchhan. Gaiko dudh mitho hunchha. Gai hamro rastriya janawar ho." Blah blah blah. They might as well have plagiarized, even if they didn't.
Then look at tradition of letter writing. When I receive letter from my different friends and family members, basically it begins with the same paragraph every time from every person, no matter where they are. You know what it is. Perhaps you've gotten the same letter.
So basically it's my view that we need to figure out how to promote critical thinking in the schools. Math education may be important, so is agriculture, so it whatever. But the ONE THING that is MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL is educating ourselves to be critical, creative, and reflective. Otherwise we'll be plagiarizing until the cows come home. Or rather, till our rastriya janawar come home. With their duita kaan and mitho dudh, etc etc.
Hom Raj.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 01-May-01 04:55 PM
Dear Homraj:
I basically agree with your comment about our tradition, and our
lack of critical thinking. It was also interesting to note your
wry comment about the oneness in letter writing of different
people in Nepal.
However, what do you think is mathematics? I neither agree that
South Asian people are better in mathematics, nor do I agree that
mathematics is of same importance as that of literature or
economics. Mathematics is basically a discipline of creativity,
(not roting. I don't know if anybody can rote and graduate in
mathematics.One need to UNDERSTAND how to solve the problem.)
and analytical ability is mainly a gift of this discipline.Most
of the South Asians flunk in mathematics in their highschool.
Americans have problem in math, but they have done quite well
in comparison to others.Not only are they doing great in math,
but also they are attracting a lot of mathematics talent.
Another truth is : most of the successful persons in different
disciplines of engineering,and basic sciences are very good in
their mathematics ability. The most reknown scientists in even
agriculture are mathematician.With due respect to all fields of
education,I think wealth is mostly created by enginering and basic
sciences people.For a poor society ,creation of wealth is the most
important initial step.Mathematics is a field that facilitates
fast computation and logical analysis. And we need mathematics
education in Nepal. Rightnow, we all know that majority of the
students taking SLC exams flunk in mathematics.
This is why I think mathematics should be the focus of our
instruction system.
|
| Hom Raj |
Posted
on 01-May-01 11:36 PM
Biswo, good points as usual, but I disagree!
I value mathematics as I value any other subject. It's just another subject for me.
However, in regards to South Asians and mathematics, it's indesputable that in America, South Asians are considered a "model minority" because they are allegedly so good in mathematics. I don't think South Asians are necessarily "better" than American counterparts in some intrinsic ways--there are lots of reasons for this "betterness," including sheer number of population and who gets to come--but there are also sociological reasons. They (we) are being pushed by parents and society to do what they (we) often don't want to do, actually--namely, math--because it is highly valued in South Asian society.
This is not my own ranting. If you look at sociological studies done on South Asians in the US you will see this phenomenon. Even your perception right here is reflecting the South Asian perception that math is the most important subject! American parents, on the other hand, tend to teach their children, "do what you love" or "do what you're best in." South Asian parents never say that. They say, "be doctor." That's all. I'm doing my best to mentor a very unhappy Nepali boy right now whose parents keep pushing him to be a doctor, and he is good in mathematics, but he hates it. He wants to be an artist. It's very typical and unhappy situation.
Yes, if a person is interested in math for personal intellectual reasons, or in making money through engineering, or scientific advances, great. Go for it. But go to a school and ask any kid in Nepal what do you want to be, the first answer will be "doctor" or "engineer." Why? Do you think because they love math or even, for instance, know what an engineer even does? No, it's because math is touted in our country.
Some of this is practical reason. If you do better in mathematics, it makes you take your first division, because either you do it right or wrong in SLC; on the SLC level there is no creativity--and no room for teachers to grade you down for various reasons. There are set formulas and set methods.
I'm not saying that math is not creative. Certainly it is creative, if you go beyond that early level. But I think one reason math is so desirable in Nepal is that it's easier to get first division just by being good in math. The same throughout South Asia. Even in higher studies, most people in the US come here doing math. So naturally, isn't it something parents would push for? People realize that the "ticket to success" is math.
But ... is it really?
In Nepali context, the reality is all the people I know who are unemployed or who are just getting by, teaching in schools, were either math or science majors. I'm talking about people who don't have the money for a US education, or the luck or knowledge of how to compete for scholarships. (Which is most people.) One BSc from Amrit Science Campus told me, "in NEpal it's worthless to go into science unless you have money and can go somewhere else. Either you become teacher, or go to sarkari jagir, which anyone can go to, too. You don't need science for it." Yes, science would work for Nepalis if we had lot of private research labs, but we don't.
My cousin is a case in point. He got MSc in Physics from TU, with distinction, but what do you do with MSc in Physics from Nepal? Teach in a boarding school. So that's what he did. After many years he's now in the US, doing PhD in Physics, and he'll probably be part of the brain drain. Certainly math helped him--it helped him get of Nepal. But TU spends 1 lakh rupees per student, I think, to create one science graduate. Then US reaps the benefit. Either that, or the science grads DON'T get out of Nepal, and all they do is teach, be unhappy, and look for some kurchima basne jagir.
So is there some great crying need in Nepal for more math majors? Are all these boarding school teachers creating wealth? OK, maybe when they go the US and get a job in some company they create wealth by sending remittances back to Nepal, but I don't think that's "wealth creation" for Nepal.
Another point. You said, "The most reknown scientists in even
agriculture are mathematician." Does Nepal need renowned scientists in agriculture? Or does it need WELL-INFORMED FARMERS? Nepal's agriculture study is interested in creating policy makers, not well-informed farmers. Most people are actually discouraged from going into agriculture college because you have to secure first division. That's why Nepal is not doing very well in agriculture either. In America land-grant schools (examples: Colorado State, Michigan State) were established many years ago to educate people to be better farmers. They were made MORE accessable, not LESS. People did not need straight A's or even B's to get in. But without First Division you can't even think of it in Nepal. And then in the end, which agricultural scientist has gone to village and worked on the family farm? They have sat and made policy. I have raised this issue quite a few times elsewhere.
Is the solution to make people better in math so they all get first division and can go to ag college? Or so they can all be doing IT? Realistically, a LOT of changes have to happen, but the underlying factor is more creative thinking all around. Agriculture development comes from thinking creatively, not solving mathematical problems. That's something, also, everyone can learn to do--whether they love math or hate it, whether they're brilliant or just ordinary folks or whatever. That's what we need. Changes in the educational system that are USABLE and applicable to EVERYONE.
You also said, "Right now, we all know that majority of the
students taking SLC exams flunk in mathematics." They also flunk in English. Surprisingly, a lot of people also flunk Nepali :(
A lot of people just plain flunk. Sure, math education should be better. EVERYTHING should be better. Right now education is designed to fail people. After all, where would the jobs be?
What Nepal needs is practical education that teaches creativity in a wide range of subjects.
I know that to be able to come to America, most people are good in mathematics, so naturally they value it. But we have to also look at the trees in the forest: the ordinary people comprising vast majority in Nepal, and what is most useful to them.
Hom Raj.
|
