Human, After All

It was not obligated. But I might write a few words for it. I didn't even care in the slightest, but the fact that many of us took it for granted without knowing what's would that imply concerned me a lot.

This problem is rather difficult to tackle if anything was taken into consideration. It is again a near-impossible balance striking thing that shall cause debates lasting for decades. But the root cause might just boils down into a simple statement:

If you fail me, then you are a fucking bastard.

Rather harsh, isn't it? But it is common among ... let's be honest, my classmates. And, as expected, this statement is more pronounced in the negative margin than the positive margin.

It is the third year. Three-quarters of the course has now passed. And many of them still hold to the thought tight. No one cared if they have eventually learned anything. They just want to not fail the test. And if they fail, especially because the professor set a higher standard than they can meet, they will directly blame on the professor who "is taking a toll on their career", rather than try to do better. Most of them have already failed a couple of times.

The bar was indeed set rather too high and too demanding. For most of the students, it is the first time they even saw such problem thrown at them, some of them can't even comprehend what the text was saying, let alone solving them. Yet the professor said one has to solve at least one question to even get a pass. However, it is allowed to use anything including the internet to grab anything to solve the problem provided you have already gork the idea behind the code.

I thought, well, you can use the internet, and all of these questions are one of those "standard interviewing questions that you have to know to even land a job" which has spoonfeeding answers readily made. It shall be just a piece of cake, right?

And it turned out half of the class don't even know how to read C programs as it was a course from a year now and they have already forgotten what they have learnt so they couldn't even understand a single line of the code. It turned out to be, not quite well.

The spark of all the hates is that at the beginning, the professor guaranteed not failing anyone (because he thought there is no need to as the questions are already answered). But after an hour or so, seeing nobody even typing a thing, with a bit of disappointment, changed that one has to solve at least one question to get a pass. This change propelled the dismay among the class and hence the harsh statement. Subsequent actions, including offering for ones who didn't pass another recap session to help them get a pass, was seen negatively as the loop of hate has already started.

This leads us to the question: Should we pay attention and resources to the well-performing students and boost them into a higher level, or should we pay attention and resources to as many as possible and make sure all of them could meet a baseline? This question is context-sensitive. In elementary education, the answer is the latter without a doubt. But what about in higher education? Should higher education be more selective?

This is where the thing gets messy almost instantly because it's deeply tied to education systems and culture which is a whole new can of worm that I was advised not to open. While to be honest, from what I have collected, everyone thought their education system is flawed at best, busted at worst, regardless of region or pattern. Everyone complains that schools kill creativity and standardized tests ignore student diversity. I am not against them, to be clear. I just would like to point out that everyone has said that to their education system, while little was done to "fix the system". Why is it?

There are two answers to the problem of not fixing the system. The first being "the system is not broken". The second being "the system was run by who was selected by the system itself thus asking them for a change is virtually impossible and my power alone cannot build a thing from scratch". Pick one you like and carry on.

I think some of you might have a resonance with me. Paint a picture: It was a group project. You looked at everyone else in your group, knowing that you, once again, will be the selected doing all the work. Others in the group may provide other types of assistance such as your food or stuff, but the actual learning part? Not even the slightest. Before presenting, you have to teach them all the key points and usually, they either didn't care or tried but cannot grasp it. When the presentation started, you tried to answer all the questions but the professor hold you back and asked another so you cannot do anything but pray that they can recite your word in a correct manner only to be met with dead silence and incoherent words trying to piece your work together leaving you screaming in your mind: How the fuck did you made it to here? Shouldn't you still be like taking freshmen courses? Or even just dropped out already?

Sorry for being insensitive and judging person based on a single value. But I spent my years being the one doing the work. More than once have I wondered how did they made this far. And after this incident, the answer went clear. We took not failing as granted, not knowing it shall be earned. Once we are asked to earn for a pass, we panicked and angered.

Anger is fear in disguise. It might not always be true, but for most conditions, it is bang on. The fear of failing a course. The fear of someone else can disrupt your life. The fear of not knowing. The fear of not being a part of everyone else. Anger rises from the fear, finding excuses for us to attack, calling names, to insult the personality of the professor, feeling "unjustified".

But all I could do is write another rant. I am not even writing it in Chinese concerning that it might backfire at me. But, who do I think I am? Just a random guy smashing keyboard on the internet.