The purpose of education is to make the student
an expert in his subject. This must be clearly understood, and mere mudding
through lessons and lectures and books and passing examinations are relegated
to secondary importance as means to the end-which is excellence in the field
chosen.
But there are so many fields, and no man can
become an expert in all the fields it is necessary to decide which fields are
important ones that a man should know well.
It is clear that one’s own work is the most
important. This has been realized and modern civilization has accordingly
provided vocational education. It is now possible to acquire high professional
skill in the various fields, medicine, engineering production, commerce and so
on-but with good and bad mixed together, and no standard for guidance.
According to the passage, can a man become an
expert in all fields?
Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs
of the entire population of all age group. While the traditional structure of
education as a three layer hierarchy from the primary stage to the university
represents the core, we should not overlook the periphery which is equally
important. Under modern conditions, workers need to rewind, or renew their
enthusiasm, or strike out in a new direction, or improve their skills as much
as any university professor. The retired and the age have their needs as well.
Educational planning, in their words, should take care of the needs of
everyone.
Our structures of education have been built up on the
assumption that there is a terminal point to education. This basic defect has
become all the more harmful today. A UNESCO report entitled ‘learning to Be’
prepared by Edgar Faure and others in 1973 asserts that the education of
children must prepare the future adult for various forms of self – learning. A
viable education system of the future should consist of modules with different
kinds of functions serving a diversity of constituents. And performance, not
the period of study, should be the basis for credentials. The writing is
already on the wall.
In view of the fact that the significance of a commitment of
lifelong learning and lifetime education is being discussed only in recent years
even in educationally advanced countries, the possibility of the idea becoming
an integral part of educational thinking seems to be a far cry. For, to move in
that direction means such more than some simple rearrangement of the present
organization of education. But a good beginning can be made by developing Open
University programs for older learners of different categories and introducing
extension services in the conventional colleges and schools. Also these
institutions should learn to cooperate with the numerous community
organizations such as libraries. Museums, municipal recreational programs,
health services etc.
What should be the major
characteristic of the futureeducational system?
On January 3, 1961, nine days after
Christmas, Richard Legg, John Byrnes, and Richard McKinley were killed in a
remote desert in eastern Idaho. Their deaths occurred when a nuclear reactor
exploded at a top-secret base in the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS).
Official reports state that the explosion and subsequent reactor meltdown
resulted from the improper retraction of the control rod. When questioned about
the events that occurred there, officials were very reticent. The whole affair,
in fact, was discussed much, and seemed to disappear with time.
In order to grasp the mysterious
nature of the NRTS catastrophe, it help to know a bit about how nuclear
reactors work. After all, the generation of nuclear energy may strike many as
an esoteric process. However, given its relative simplicity, the way in which
the NRTS reactor functions is widely comprehensible. In this particular kind of
reactor, a cluster of nine-ton uranium fuel rods are positioned lengthwise
around a central control rod. The reaction begins with the slow removal of the
control ro, which starts a controlled nuclear reaction and begins to heat the
water in the reactor. This heat generates steam, which builds pressure inside
the tank. As pressure builds, the steam looks for a place to escape. The only
place this steam is able to escape is through the turbine. As it passes through
the turbine on its way out of the tank, it turns the giant fan blades and
produces energy.
On the morning of January 3, after
the machine had been shut down for the holidays, the three men arrived at the
station to restart the reactor. The control rod needed to be pulled out only
four inches to be reconnected to the automated driver. However, records
indicate that Byrnes yanked it out 23 inches, over five times the distance
necessary. In milliseconds the reactor exploded. Legg was impaled on the
ceiling; he would be discovered last. It took one week and a lead-shielded
crane to remove his body. Even in full protective gear, workers were only able
to work a minute at a time. The three men are buried in lead-lined coffins
under concrete in New York, Michigan, and Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.
The investigation took nearly two
years to complete. Did Byrnes have a dark motive? Or was it simply an accident?
Did he know how precarious the procedure was? Other operators were questioned
as to whether they knew the consequences of pulling the control rod out so far.
They responded “Of course! We often talked about what we would do if we were at
a radar station and the Russians came.
“We’d yank it out.”
Official reports are oddly
ambiguous, but what they do not explain, gossip does. Rumors had it that there
was tension between the men because Byrnes suspected the other two of being
involved with his young wife. There is little doubt than he, like the other
operators, knew exactly what would happen when he yanked the control rod.
According to the paragraph 2,
which of the following is directly responsible for energy production?
The public distribution system, which provides food at low
prices, is a subject of vital concern. There is a growing realization that
thought Pakistan has enough food to feed its masses three square meals a day,
the monster of starvation and food insecurity continues to haunt the poor in
our country.
Increasing the purchasing power of the poor through
providing productive employment leading to rising income, and thus good standard
of living is the ultimate objective of public policy. However, till then, there
is a need to provide assured supply of food through a restructured more
efficient and decentralized public distribution system (PDS).
Although the PDS is extensive – it is one of the largest
such systems in the world – it has yet to reach the rural poor and the far off
places. It remains an urban phenomenon, with the majority of the rural poor
still out of its reach due to lack of economic and physical access. The poorest
in the cities and the migrants are left out, for they generally do not possess
ration cards. The allocation of PDS supplies in big cities is larger than in
rural areas. In view of such deficiencies in the system, the PDS urgently needs
to be streamlined. In addition, considering the large food grains production
combined with food subsidy on one hand and the continuing slow starvation and dismal
poverty of the rural population on the other, there is a strong case for making
PDS target group oriented.
The growing salaried class is provided job security, regular
income, and percent insulation against inflation. These gains of development
have not percolated down to the vast majority of our working population. If one
compares only dearness allowance to the employees in public and private sector
and looks at its growth in the past few years, the rising food subsidy is
insignificant to the point of inequity. The food subsidy is a kind of D.A. to
the poor, the self-employed and those in the unorganized sector of the economy.
However, what is most unfortunate is that out of the large budget of the so –
called food subsidy, the major part of it is administrative cost and wastages.
A small portion of the above budget goes to the real consumer and an even
lesser portion to the poor who are in real need.
It is true that subsidies should not become a permanent feature
except for the destitute, disabled widows and the old. It is also true that
subsidies often create a psychology of dependence and hence is habit – forming,
killing the general initiative of the people. By making PDS target group
oriented, not only the poorest and neediest would be reached without additional
cost, but it will actually cut overall costs incurred on large cities and for
better off localities. When the food and food subsidy are limited the rural and
urban poor should have the priority in the PDS supplies. The PDS should be
closely linked with programs of employment generation and nutrition
improvement.
Which of the following is true of public distribution
system?
Philadelphia is a city known for
many things. It is where the Declaration of independence was signed in 1776,
and it was also the first capital of the United States. But one fact about Philadelphia
is not so well-known: it is home to nearly 3,000 murals painted on the sides of
homes and buildings around the city. In fact, it is said that Philadelphia has
more murals than any other city in the world, with the exception of Rome. How
did this come to be?
More than 20 years ago, a New
Jersey artist named Jane Golden started a program pairing troubled youth with
artists to paint murals on a few buildings around the city. Form this small
project, something magical happened. The young people involved helped to create
magnificent pieces of art, but there were other, perhaps more important
benefits. The young people learned to collaborate and get along with many
different kinds of people during the various steps required to paint and design
a mural. They learned to be responsible, because they needed to follow a
schedule to make sure the murals were completed. They also learned to take pride
in their community. It is hard for any resident to see the spectacular designs
and not feel proud to be a part of Philadelphia.
Take a walk around some of the
poorest neighborhoods I Philadelphia, neighborhoods full of broken windows and
littered front steps, and you will find beautiful works of art on the sides and
fronts of buildings. Of course they murals are not just in poor neighborhoods,
but more affluent ones as well. Special buses take tourists to different parts
of the city to see the various murals, which range from huge portraits of
historical heroes, to cityscapes, to scenes depicting the diverse ethnic groups
that call Philadelphia home.
As a result of its success, the
mural program created by Jane Golden has now become the nation’s largest public
art program and a model for to troubled youth.
As used in paragraph 3, which is
the best definition of affluent
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
The primary purpose of the passage
is to
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
The passage supplies information for
answering which of the following questions?
Democratic societies from the earliest times have expected
their governments to protect the weak against the strong. No ‘era of good
feeling’ can justify discharging the police force or giving up the idea of
public control over concentrated private wealth. On the other hand, it is
obvious that a spirit of self – denial and moderation on the part of those who
hold economic power will greatly soften the demand for absolute equality. Men
are more interested in freedom and security than in an equal distribution of
wealth. The extent to which Government must interfere with business, therefore,
is not exactly measured by the extent to which economic power is concentrated
into a few hands. The required degree of government interference depends mainly
on whether economic powers are oppressively used, and on the necessity of
keeping economic factors in a tolerable state of balance.
However, with the necessity of meeting all these dangers and
threats to liberty, the powers of government are unavoidably increased,
whichever political party may be in office. The growth of government is a
necessary result of the growth of technology and of the problems that go with
the use of machines and science. Since the government in our nation, must take
on more powers to meet its problems, there is no way to preserve freedom except
by making democracy more powerful.
A spirit of moderation on the economically sound people
would make the less privileged
