The Dynamics of Education and Social Order

Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher and critic, argues that "education has become a tool for elites to maintain their power and control over the masses. This has led to a situation where people are obedient and docile, without any real critical thinking or creativity." Nietzsche believed that this was a dangerous situation because it meant that people were not able to question authority or challenge the status quo. Education should be about more than just conformity and obeying orders; it should be about developing critical thinking skills and encouraging creativity. There are two paradigms of education: the mastery model and the factory model. The mastery model is learner-centered. There are flexible assessments in the mastery model. In the mastery model, there is encouragement for creativity and innovation. Motivation arises from within. It promotes a mindset of personal growth and values individuality. Here, there is enjoyment, a sense of flow, and freedom. 

It is a cooperative environment where all students ultimately emerge as winners. In contrast, the factory model of education operates as an authoritarian system where students bear the weight of high-stakes testing and standardized expectations. The approach involves a system of rewards and punishments, fostering a fixed mindset and conformity. This model induces stress, fear, and compliance in students, emphasizing competition where, ultimately, some students emerge as winners while others become losers. 

In the past, the factory model was designed to prepare students for employment in factories during the Industrial Revolution, a period when the majority of students were educated to enter the workforce on farms or in factories. The belief was that "the back door of the school leads to the front door of the factory." They were taught in large groups, emphasizing rote memorization and repetition. The curriculum aimed to impart fundamental skills necessary for factory labor, including reading, writing, and arithmetic. This model, indicative of a bygone era, is considered outdated, but surprisingly, it persists into the 21st century. The factory model of education, as described earlier, not only prepared students for industrial work but also distinctly shaped their mindset and behavior and made them good at following orders. The emphasis on rote memorization and repetition fostered a culture of obedience among students. Consequently, even after leaving school and entering the workforce, these individuals tended to exhibit a high degree of obedience to their superiors. This obedience, however, had its drawbacks. 

The same students who excelled at following instructions within the structured school environment often lacked critical thinking and problem-solving skills in their professional lives. This deficiency meant they were less likely to question their bosses, regardless of the ethical or logical implications of their instructions. The enduring impact of the factory model persists, shaping not only the academic experiences of these individuals but also influencing their approach to authority and decision-making in the workplace. 

Likewise, our current education system, grounded in the factory model, tends to churn out individuals well-suited for clerical roles and routine tasks, particularly within government offices. It focuses a lot on memorizing facts and following the same way of learning for everyone, which doesn't encourage thinking outside the box. Instead of fostering the growth of philosophers, scientists, and innovative thinkers, the current educational paradigm tends to mold students into conformity, adept at following established procedures but lacking the curiosity and ingenuity needed for groundbreaking ideas. The rigid structure of the factory model leaves little room for the development of unconventional thought and the exploration of diverse perspectives. 

Consequently, the system seems to produce more clerks than visionaries, limiting the emergence of individuals who could potentially contribute to the advancement of knowledge, science, and societal progress. Even in our higher educational institutions, particularly within the confines of universities, the role of a professor holds an authoritative position that significantly influences the academic fate of students. The professor, often regarded as the ultimate authority, holds the power to determine the success or failure of students in a particular subject. The allocation of one hundred marks in a subject lies solely in their hands, giving them the discretion to either pass or fail students based on their assessment. It goes beyond the realm of academic performance, as the professor's subjective judgment can extend to the very tone and manner in which students interact with them. 

The dynamic between students and professors is not solely based on merit but can be influenced by interpersonal skills, further complicating the evaluation process. Adding to the challenges faced by students is the overwhelming burden of assignments that are often assigned without due consideration for the time required to complete them. This intense workload leaves students grappling with a perpetual sense of pressure and stress, compromising their ability to focus on self-improvement. 

In an environment where time is a precious commodity, the struggle to balance academic responsibilities with personal growth becomes increasingly daunting. Faced with the demanding expectations of both professors and the academic system itself, students find themselves resorting to shortcuts, such as copying and pasting, as a means of meeting deadlines. This coping mechanism, while providing a temporary reprieve, ultimately hinders genuine learning and personal development, perpetuating a cycle that prioritizes compliance over holistic education. 

Therefore, we need a more personalized and student-centered approach to education that considers the unique needs and interests of each student. This approach emphasizes critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills, all of which are essential for success in the 21st century. 

Ultimately, I leave you with a question: 

Does our education system unintentionally hinder our curiosity, discourage questioning of the status quo, and prevent us from becoming the innovative leaders we might need for the future?