------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's Goanet operations sponsored by Mrs. Daisy Faleiro
If you would like to sponsor Goanet's operations contact:
Herman Carneiro - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Cornel
Your post below was surprising. Because, many of the responses you are
seeking, have already been provided in the many posts on this topic by your
protege - Sunith. There will be a few gray hair added to my head due to your
post and my reply. Yet both will keep me sharp and likely forestall Alzheimer.
So perspiration triumphs inspiration. Hope you appreciate the humor.
You are again trying to make controversies when none exists. As you will see,
your comments and mine are not mutually exclusive. My specific replies (GL)
follow your paragraphs (CD).
CD: Hi Gilbert, I'd like to confine myself to your quote saying "Secret of
Success: Inspiration 1%; Perspiration 99%." This quote has been doing the
rounds for a pretty long time and I want to suggest that, it is a bit like
the familiar lightweight, homespun, commonsense presentations on this site.
If you have any research evidence what so ever to support the quote, I would
be delighted to hear of it please.
GL: My quote, or to that effect, was alluded by many others including Albert
Einstein. So while my quote is not profound, the "familiar, lightweight,
homespun, commonsense" axiom has withstood the test of time, and will be again
proven below.
CD: Instead, I should like to suggest that what is indeed known, through much
systematic study / research, about differentials in school / college
achievement across all societies, depends on, whether there is an even playing
field or not for those engaged in the educational enterprise. I will focus
largely on those socially and economically disadvantaged in a moment, but want
to stress that not all get an equal chance as is assumed by your quote with the
onus on individual effort.
GL: The "differentials" contribute to the end result. Yet, everything being
equal, EFFORT will definitely contribute more to success than lack of it and
merely waiting for a spark of inspiration, an archangel, a godfather, or within
the British context, hoping for a leprechaun encounter.
CD: If for a moment, we confine ourselves to gender, the world over, girls /
women have been disadvantaged largely by patriarchal views that girls get
married, raise families, run a home primarily and therefore do not need much of
an education. The supposed Indian expression of this view to this day is that,
to educate girls is to water somebody else's garden and this encapsulates the
key point I am making here. Many a girl has not had an opportunity to have "1%
inspiration and 99% perspiration" educationally. They have had 0% educational
opportunity especially in traditional societies while the males have tended to
receive the educational investment instead. Thankfully, there is growing
awareness, especially among enlightened leaders, in some developing countries
that it is the education of girls / women that is the key to enhancing family
and economic development.
GL: People who had no access to formal education, perspiration outweighs
inspiration as a cause of success. The best example is the case of Abraham
Lincoln. Similar results are reproduced today by the many Indian women and men
who are very successful in Britain in spite of active discrimination and many
other socio-economic disadvantages. Even in the girls / women context, hard
working women will definitely do better, in the long run, than those waiting
for a "knight in a shining armor."
Your targeted concern for female education is antiquated to say the least.
Those societies with little or no female education also have pathetically low
levels of male education. So the problem (and solution) is not to drive a
wedge in these communities but rather to offer solutions for the entire
society. Yet those who have little to contribute (other than an academic
paper) will continue to harp on some antiquated practice patterns and other
"wedge issues" related to sex, class, caste, religion.
CD: The sociological evidence questioning your quote indicates that scholastic
achievement is strongly linked to one's socio-economic class / status. Those
who are better off socio-economically, are able to help their offspring in many
ways and particularly, materially, aspirationally, in terms of accrued
knowledge, and through many networks.
GL: The parents' scholastic achievement is linked to access to a scholastic
environment, though less so in the era of free education and scholarships. I
would submit to you that after the access to the same scholastic environment, a
higher socio-economic class / status is not linked to success. Often those in
higher strata think that "it is all coming to them" and hence make less effort
than those in the lower strata. Children of Nobel laureates receiving the prize
is a rarity. While in UK being King or Queen is hereditary, in America we
have, in 225+ years, only two sons or grandsons of former Presidents become
President. And neither of them are / will be remembered for anything
spectacularly good. Likely the same applies to the PM in UK.
CD: Those in lower socio-economic groups, even with free state provided
education, (at least at the primary level), do not have the advantages as above
and this is exacerbated further by barriers like caste in India where many
millions are illiterate. But of course, illiteracy is also to be found in the
USA, the richest nation on earth and also, among other countries, like the
relatively well-off European Union countries.
GL: This latter statement of yours support and validate my claims.
CD: Historically, those in the higher echelons of society have been
'threatened' by those in lower positions aspiring for an education for many
reasons including fear that an educated class of people will be less manageable
and also less available for unskilled labor needs.
GL: The upper-class' fear of an educated under-class is likely related to "the
threat" to their own job security. The experience of the South (of USA) has
proven that Blacks (are capable and) have taken White jobs like driving busses,
teaching, holding managerial and political office, competing in sports, arts
etc. The same is the experience in Goa, where the upper caste are "economically
and politically threatened" by the lower caste and now the bhaile.
CD: Another point is that, the better-off socio-economically, do not quite face
the urgency of getting their children to go out and earn money as soon as
possible to contribute to family income. The better-off families can envisage
delayed gratification and a long term horizon towards advanced
occupations/professions. For them, a college/university education is a
perfectly realistic aspiration while the poor child might at best ask "what
does college mean?"
GL: Here and in prior paragraphs, you are discouraging the poor and
disadvantaged by repeating the mantra of the rich and upper class. Perhaps your
British upper crust is showing through. Work is part of an education process
and often encouraged as hands-on training and learning rather than sterile
theoretical knowledge. Many more successful people have made it "up the
ranks", than dropped from above, because of their socio-economic pedigree.
CD: In general, intellect is to be found equally distributed across all groups
in any society. There are bright and not so bright people in terms of gaining
access to education. However, those in better-off families get a 'leg-up' and
invariably take up educational places in say higher education,
disproportionately greater than they would fairly deserve because of their grey
matter. This is true in all countries.
GL: There is some truth to this statement. Yet it is also true that those who
did not have a "leg-up" are forced to compete the hard way; and in the long-run
are more successful because they already have the vast experience of facing
challenges. A good example of this are the millions of immigrants in the USA.
CD: Your quote is suggestive of a level playing field that, in truth is simply
not available to all across the world including Goa. Also, by projecting your
line, you are misleading people, perhaps unintentionally and unwittingly that,
the fault lies primarily or wholly in individuals, not working hard enough,
rather than in structural inequalities in most societies.
GL: There is some iota of truth to what you have written here. Yet taken to its
logical conclusion, the communist tried a solution to the above with abysmal
results. The above does not apply in the main in Goa today. lf they do, what
are the Catholic Goans in UK doing, beyond writing academic posts?
If your concern for Goa's schools is real and practical, I suggest you send a
private e-mail to Gllenda requesting a LIST of her school's SPECIFIC needs.
That list could be a wonderful project for you and your college students in
London. Gllenda and you would then be able to write a joint post entitled
"Doing Something - Where all win". Thus Gllenda and you could be our heroes.
And something useful could come of this thread. Or else your concerns like
Gllenda's (and mine) may be a lot of wasted bandwidth.
CD: Of course, one will always find examples of poor people who have made it
educationally and professionally to advanced levels but the hard evidence is
that these are exceptions to the rule even in the most democratic of societies.
GL: Poor kids being successful are not "exceptions to the rule." Millions and
millions of poor and uneducated American immigrants have and continue to prove
themselves within one generation. Upper class kids are likely to be drug
addicts and squander their family's name and wealth than one who is forced to
pull himself / herself by their boot straps. Effort has not killed anyone that
I know. If you find that diagnosis on a death certificate, I would be keen in
studying that case. So your "hard evidence" is pretty soft.
CD: These are just some quick thoughts and reflections arising from your post.
In turn, your observations to this response would be very welcome.
GL: Despite your assumptions, I am not making the case for individuals to be
denied state of the art education and technology. Yet in their absence or
presence, efforts need to be spent to achieve progress beyond just being
critical and cynical of one's plight. You are right the above were "just some
quick thoughts and reflections" or more likely knee-jerk reactions. I hope my
responses will give you another perspective. The former mayor of New York (now
running for President) would likely classify you, based on some of your
theories and desire for "research evidence" to be an "educatocrat". Hope you
and others enjoy the interspersed tongue-in-cheek comments. And I am sure you
will pick them up without the smileys, which you dislike.
On a serious note, many may think it is audacious for me to discuss education
with you. Yet, delivery of education to students has many parallels to delivery
of healthcare to patients. This even includes the impact of the individual,
family and society support on the delivery process and outcomes. With a new
Governor in New York State, we are seeing a transition in healthcare; from an
"Institution-First System" to a "Patient-Centered System". Like educators and
education, the healthcare system has a lot of political clout and vested
interests; and a top-heavy bureaucracy. So stay tuned.
Regards
Gilbert
