Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free.
Formal education is a fundamental pillar for intellectual development, delivering a meticulously structured curriculum that enhances knowledge and skills across various domains. However, one must critically examine the shortcomings of this established framework, which can sometimes hamper creativity and restrain intellectual freedom. While formal education remains a non-negotiable element in our society, I believe its inflexible nature often deters adaptability and the flourishing of original thought.
Initially, formal education provides a highly effective platform for knowledge dissemination, especially in disciplines that require a hierarchical learning structure, such as mathematics and the sciences. This cumulative approach to knowledge serves as a foundation upon which students can grasp more intricate theories and concepts. Moreover, beyond mere academic pursuits, the formal education structure simulates real-world scenarios by instilling values such as discipline and time-management through deadlines and examinations. The system further contributes to societal well-being by fostering social cohesion and interpersonal skills, quintessential components for a harmonious civil society.
Nevertheless, the inherent rigidity of this system is fraught with limitations. I personally encountered this inflexibility when I experimented with unconventional essay formats to evoke a sense of suspense and curiosity in the reader. My endeavor was met with a lackluster grade, emblematic of an institutional inclination toward uniformity rather than innovation. This experience is not anomalous but rather indicative of broader issues that plague the academic realm. To elucidate, consider two case studies: Joon-Soo, a prodigy in metallurgical engineering, and MK, an instructor of literature acclaimed for her ingenuity. Joon-Soo's avant-garde approach to problem-solving often finds itself at odds with an education model that favors repetition and memorization. Similarly, MK's struggles with the GRE's monolithic evaluation metrics highlight the inherent flaws in an educational framework that marginalizes unique strengths and perspectives.
Interestingly, the rigidity in formal education is not an isolated phenomenon but rather a reflection of larger sociopolitical aspects that prioritize uniformity over individualism. The rigidity of formal education may have stemmed from the practical considerations of managing a large population; standardized benchmarks and a uniformly trained pool will serve to maintain the society. It's worth noting that the architecture of current educational institutions has roots in the Industrial Revolution, which was primarily geared toward creating specialized and homogeneous workforces. Even seemingly innocuous elements, such as class transition bells, hark back to factory assembly lines, emphasizing mechanical efficiency over intellectual agility.
This broader context is indicative of an insidious paradox: an educational system that aims to produce informed citizens and skilled workers but does so in a way that can significantly constrain the types of information and skills deemed valuable. Thus, students like Joon-Soo and MK find themselves confined within a framework that rewards conformity over creativity.
While critics may contend that structure inherently brings about stability, it is imperative to recognize that this stability should not be procured at the expense of crucial life skills such as adaptability and creativity. These traits are indispensable for tackling the multifaceted challenges presented by our rapidly shifting global landscape. With transformative technologies like artificial intelligence redefining conventional boundaries, there is an urgent need for an education system capable of generating minds proficient not only in mastering extant paradigms but also in initiating groundbreaking shifts in thought.
To conclude, I argue that though formal education is an invaluable asset in the journey toward intellectual maturation, it is not devoid of paradoxes. Its rigidity can simultaneously aid and hinder intellectual evolution, specifically the development of creativity and adaptability, which are vital for tackling modern challenges. Consequently, the onus lies upon us, the learners, to transcend these constraints by questioning norms and reinventing paradigms. Adherence to long-standing methods remains critical; however, it should coexist with the intellectual audacity to disrupt convention when needed. In an era of rapid innovation, our aspirations must extend beyond mastery of formal education to ensure the flourishing of versatile, creative minds.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-17 | jenas | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-20 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-19 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-18 | Omar Ibna Nazim | 50 | view |
| 2023-09-15 | TANVIR SIDDIKE MOIN | 50 | view |
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 10
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 344, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tricate theories and concepts. Moreover, beyond mere academic pursuits, the forma...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, similarly, so, still, thus, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 12.9106741573 256% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4034.0 2235.4752809 180% => OK
No of words: 639.0 442.535393258 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.31298904538 5.05705443957 125% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02776782673 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.4827292591 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 387.0 215.323595506 180% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605633802817 0.4932671777 123% => OK
syllable_count: 1280.7 704.065955056 182% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2522188766 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.071428571 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8214285714 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.10714285714 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 22.0 10.2758426966 214% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158355651473 0.243740707755 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398489457095 0.0831039109588 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395810458157 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0752409086512 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0323807244281 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 14.1392134831 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 15.31 48.8420337079 31% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.61 12.1639044944 161% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.6 8.38706741573 138% => OK
difficult_words: 278.0 100.480337079 277% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.7820224719 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 344, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tricate theories and concepts. Moreover, beyond mere academic pursuits, the forma...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, similarly, so, still, thus, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 12.9106741573 256% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4034.0 2235.4752809 180% => OK
No of words: 639.0 442.535393258 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.31298904538 5.05705443957 125% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02776782673 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.4827292591 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 387.0 215.323595506 180% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605633802817 0.4932671777 123% => OK
syllable_count: 1280.7 704.065955056 182% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2522188766 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.071428571 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8214285714 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.10714285714 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 22.0 10.2758426966 214% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158355651473 0.243740707755 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398489457095 0.0831039109588 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395810458157 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0752409086512 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0323807244281 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 14.1392134831 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 15.31 48.8420337079 31% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.61 12.1639044944 161% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.6 8.38706741573 138% => OK
difficult_words: 278.0 100.480337079 277% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.7820224719 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.