TaN: In modern conventional formal education, the dilemma is whether preventing a student from “graduating” from tertiary or collegiate education is moral or not — just because s/he has a failing grade. In fact, is it moral to disallow a student from advancing to the next higher year level for the same reason. Can the formal educational system pre-determine what or which of the course — or topics within a course, for that matter — the student will need when s/he goes into the working world therefore s/he should (have) learned and “mastered” it prior to “graduation” or promotion to the next higher year level?
Would it not be “better” if the student is the one who decides whether s/he would repeat a certain (collegiate) course or subject instead of the educational system? It is quite understandable for the educational institution to want to ensure that their graduates are employable — because their reputation is on the line — but this “concern” is more of self-interest than a desire to benefit the student. By producing employable graduates, the school can boast and be assured of more enrollees — and more enrollees mean more profit.
However, if profit is the motive behind such a policy, it means the “bottom line” is all that matters. If so, it would not matter whether the what quality of students enrol or what quality students graduate. For as long as enough students enrol and stay enrolled, the profit level is maintained. So, the profit motive cannot be behind the policy, unless we consider that enrollment may and most probably will drop because (prospective) students will shun a school with a low job-employment rate for its graduates.
Moreover, if a good reputation of turning out competent graduates is the “primary” concern, for as long as the student (with the failing grade) repeats the course/subject enough times as to “master” it, the student will evetually “become competent”. And, to keep the student (as s/he repeats the course/subject) means a continuous income for the school, in contrast to removal or dismissal which is obviously and definitely bad for revenues.
TaN: The only true universal human phenomenon or characteristic is laughing. It is interesting to know and note that although different ethnic groups vary according to language, culture, customs and traditions, values, and social behavior and system of governance, they have one thing in common — we all express our joy and amusement in the same manner: laughter. We all laugh in the same way — ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho, and its limited variations.
Isn’t it both curious and intriguing that despite the disparity between and among peoples of the world, we all laugh (more or less) the same way. Even the villainous laugh is identical. I wonder why.
TaN: If someone has been teaching a certain subject or course for several years, would the absence of a post-graduate degree (like Masters and Doctorates) matter and become grounds for separation from service (like termination or early retirement)? Does it mean that, just because of that absence or deficiency, what a faculty member has been handling for several years despite the lack of a post-graduate degree and granting that the content has not changed significantly…would that suddenly and miraculously constitute incompetency in teaching the particular course or subject?
It would be different if, say, the contents have been significantly changed. But not all courses and subjects change in a significant way over time, especially those that deal with history, language (unless the language is entirely changed to another language), literature, taxation, and ethics. Moreover, it does not make sense whatsoever — unless you are considering economic sense (because the academic profile of the school will be improved and may gain an “alibi” to increase matriculation, in which case it will be a greater benefit to the scholl than to the faculty member) — to pursue post-graduate studies but none of the additional expertise or knowledge (gained in post-graduate studies) are relevant or applicable (i.e., will be taught to the students).
Add to this the case where a fresh graduate of post-graduate studies is given preference over someone who has been practicing in the industry for decades but possess no post-graduate degree. A classical dilemma is: If you are being sued and you are faced with a choice between a fresh Doctor of Philosophy in Law graduate or a practicing lawyer with decades of experience as counsel, which would you choose? Extend this to the situation in school where you, as a school owner or administrator, are faced with a choice of which to hire. If the fresh graduate is chosen, it is clear that the interest of the school is a prioritym whereas if the industry “veteran” is chosen, it is the interest of the students that is given importance.
Furthermore, another case in point is where there are no available post-graduate degrees for certain subjects or courses. What happens now?
This is a clear case where the literal application or letter of the law (or policy) is implemented without any room for the uniqueness of certain situations.
(This is a response to a recent incident where a government policy is (mis-)implemented; where many are negatively affected due to ineptitude just to comply with regulations.)
TaN: All living organisms have souls. The soul can be said to be the sum of all “experiences” undergone. It is this “soul” that sets an individual apart or unique from all others.
The soul is to be differentiated from the spirit, the latter of which is the life force, the “breath of life” given by the Life-Giver to all living things. Upon death, it is this spirit or “breath of life” that returns to the Life-Giver, whereas the soul remains in an “eternal” slumber, waiting for Judgment Day where it will be “awaken” to receive justice.
It is absurd to think that the elements and minerals that made up your body are “patented” for your use only — that, after your demise, your body will remain intact, not losing a single molecule or atom. Moreover, we do not even have the same body we were born with. It is estimated that, considering the lifespan of the longest-lived cell in the body is ten years or more but not “immortal”, every cell in the body (probably except for neurons and a few specialized cells) will have been broken down and replaced ever so many years. Therefore, how can you argue that the body must be preserved because you will need it when resurrection time arrives.
TaN: [a short opinion:] The changes in the traditional comic book characters — like a female Thor, a black Captain America, a bi-racial Spider-man, etc — is just plain pathetic and so “sucking-up-to-be-politically-correct”. If you want (even demand) that there be more “representations” from the different ethnic and races then just create new characters. Leave the traditional characters alone. It is not as if new characters cannot be created anymore.