The object of education should be to teach skills, not values.
Describe a specific situation in which the object of education might be teaching values rather than skills. Discuss what you think determines when the object of education is to teach skills and when it is to teach values.
* * * *
Education, if narrowly defined as the systematic training and teaching of students, can be seen as the tool to equip the younger generation of work force with the skill and knowledge necessary to carry on the vital functions of our society. As such, the education system has to be professional and impersonal to be efficient. Moral education or the teaching of values do not have a place in the education system designed to transfer practical knowledge and skills, because they are inherently biased. For this reason, the nurses teaching sexual education focus on safe practices, STI prevention, and other professional advise, and they avoid making moral judgments about contraception and abortion for their students. This is because the discussion of values in these programs may be offensive to some audience, or at least they are disrespectful of the audience's right of personal choice.
But values must be learned. If education is more broadly defined as the sharing of experiences and ideas between people, then the discussion of values certainly has an important place in the development of the younger generation. If the children do not learn about the morality behind different sexual practices from the public nurses, they should learn about it from their parents, because they not only need the skills to protect themselves, they also need to know what they must protect themselves from. Knowing how to put on a condom is not enough; somewhere in the broadly defined "education" we must also teach children how to choose between "Yes" and "No".
It has been repeatedly pointed out that our doctors are well-trained medicine practitioners, but some of them lack the appreciation of the value of patient care. Their medical education has been too narrowly focused on the teaching of skills, and too little emphasis was paid to the discussion of values. Note that I use "discussion" instead of "teaching", because I believe that values cannot be taught. It is through experience, conversation, and discussion that values can be incorporated into education.
Education, then, can be thought to have two different flavors. One is the formal, systematic teaching of skills and knowledge, which is essential for training our students into skillful practitioners of knowledge. The other is the informal, individualized nourishment of morality and values, which is indispensable for building a healthy, compassionate, and moral generation.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
[MCAT] Certainty vs. Uncertainty
It is no wise man that will quit a certainty for an uncertainty.
In Johnson's statement, "certainty" may mean that which we know or understand, and it is argued that a logical person will not abandon the safety and comfort of certainty for a risky, possibly dangerous uncertainty. The word "wise" used in the statement suggests that Johnson makes a judgment with his statement, and he believes that anyone who would sacrifice certainty for an uncertainty is unwise or foolish.
Johnson's statement may be applicable to certain situations, but not universally. For example, if I find my apartment on fire, should I stay in my room where I know for certain that is free of fire, or should I run downstairs, which is possibly engulfed in flames? I am well adapted to my room; I know where the sink is if I need water, and I know where the phone is if I need to call for help. Outside in the mist of smoke, I might not be able to find my way around the building and I don't know where the fire is.
However, it is not necessarily wise for me to stay in my room in a burning building for the sake of preserving certainty and avoiding uncertainty. At the onset of the fire, it would be much more prudent to escape the building when the fire is still localized, because the fire might spread and I would be trapped in my room when it is too late to escape. If the fire has already spread and the smoke was too thick outside my room, on the other hand, it would be more wise if I stay close to the window and call for help.
As demonstrated in the scenario, whether or not one should give up certainty for uncertainty would depend on how the cost, benefit, and the risk of each option. When the risk of uncertainty is low and the benefit is high, then it may very well be more wise to give up the relatively costly certainty.
Samuel Johnson
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a wise person would quit a certainty for an uncertainty. Discuss the circumstances that you think determine whether or not one should or should not give up certainty for uncertainty.
Barron's MCAT 2008
In Johnson's statement, "certainty" may mean that which we know or understand, and it is argued that a logical person will not abandon the safety and comfort of certainty for a risky, possibly dangerous uncertainty. The word "wise" used in the statement suggests that Johnson makes a judgment with his statement, and he believes that anyone who would sacrifice certainty for an uncertainty is unwise or foolish.
Johnson's statement may be applicable to certain situations, but not universally. For example, if I find my apartment on fire, should I stay in my room where I know for certain that is free of fire, or should I run downstairs, which is possibly engulfed in flames? I am well adapted to my room; I know where the sink is if I need water, and I know where the phone is if I need to call for help. Outside in the mist of smoke, I might not be able to find my way around the building and I don't know where the fire is.
However, it is not necessarily wise for me to stay in my room in a burning building for the sake of preserving certainty and avoiding uncertainty. At the onset of the fire, it would be much more prudent to escape the building when the fire is still localized, because the fire might spread and I would be trapped in my room when it is too late to escape. If the fire has already spread and the smoke was too thick outside my room, on the other hand, it would be more wise if I stay close to the window and call for help.
As demonstrated in the scenario, whether or not one should give up certainty for uncertainty would depend on how the cost, benefit, and the risk of each option. When the risk of uncertainty is low and the benefit is high, then it may very well be more wise to give up the relatively costly certainty.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
[MCAT] Voluntary death
The voluntary death by which a man puts an end to intolerable suffering is really an act of redemption.
Haekel believes that a man enduring intolerable suffering can be salvaged or rescued by voluntary death. Here, the term "redemption" may even carry the meaning of fulfilling what's obligated of the suffering man, as if the right to end his life is his to redeem.
Whether or not a person has the right to end his own life is a dilemma faced by policy makers and medical professionals world wide. If a terminally ill patient suffering from metastatic cancer, who understandably suffers from intolerable pain, wishes to discontinue the life-supporting treatments, it may seem cruel and unreasonable to deny his request. In this case, his loved ones may agree that the suffering man should be salvaged from his needless pain.
However, if a patient suffering from an intolerable pain, say an amputation of a limb, is expected to recover from it, then the voluntary death is not an act of redemption, but of escape. Although his life would be compromised by his injury, he can still lead a productive and fulfilling life. Choosing to end his life to avoid the suffering and struggle is not only cruel to his loved ones, but also irresponsible to himself, because, although the suffering may be intolerable, it is not meaningless in this case.
Ran out of time here... but what the heck
Ernst Heinrich Haeckel
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the voluntary death by which a person put an end to intolerable suffering would not be an act of redemption. Discuss what you think determines the choices of voluntary death in the face of human suffering.
From Barron's MCAT 2008
Haekel believes that a man enduring intolerable suffering can be salvaged or rescued by voluntary death. Here, the term "redemption" may even carry the meaning of fulfilling what's obligated of the suffering man, as if the right to end his life is his to redeem.
Whether or not a person has the right to end his own life is a dilemma faced by policy makers and medical professionals world wide. If a terminally ill patient suffering from metastatic cancer, who understandably suffers from intolerable pain, wishes to discontinue the life-supporting treatments, it may seem cruel and unreasonable to deny his request. In this case, his loved ones may agree that the suffering man should be salvaged from his needless pain.
However, if a patient suffering from an intolerable pain, say an amputation of a limb, is expected to recover from it, then the voluntary death is not an act of redemption, but of escape. Although his life would be compromised by his injury, he can still lead a productive and fulfilling life. Choosing to end his life to avoid the suffering and struggle is not only cruel to his loved ones, but also irresponsible to himself, because, although the suffering may be intolerable, it is not meaningless in this case.
Ran out of time here... but what the heck
[MCAT] Circumstances vs. men
This marks a start of a boring series that is the practice of MCAT essay writing. Each essay is allowed 30 minutes of writing time, so I will try to stick to this time for these writing pieces. I suspect that they will be exceedingly boring, because you know how essays for these exams work: no errors, no problem. So I will not take offense if you simply ignore this series of essays.
Men are dependent on circumstances, not circumstances on men
Herodotus
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain the meaning of the above statement. Describe a specific situation where circumstances might be dependent on individuals. Discuss what you think determines whether or not individuals are dependent on circumstances or vice versa.
Barron's MCAT Prep Book 2008
We live in an inextricably interconnected web of events, people, and circumstances. What we see, whom we meet, and what happens next in our lives may well be beyond our control. And these circumstances shape us into who we are. We, in other words, are dependent on the circumstances of life that we cannot dictate or decide.
However, this deterministic world view may not always apply. Take a family immigrated to Canada for example. They've made the decision to leave their home country in search of a new life, and this decision surely affects their subsequent life journey. They will endure a different climate, learn a different language, and be submerged into a different culture. Their decision to come to Canada changes their circumstances significantly.
Of course one may argue that their decision of immigrating to Canada was determined by other circumstances, be it political pressure, educational outlook, or economical considerations. This argument overlooks the importance of free will: people set goals in their lives, and they make decisions to realize those goals. Whenever decisions are made by free-thinking individuals, they are no longer completely dependent on circumstance; rather, they begin to take charge of their lives, and their circumstances will be dependent on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)