Amongst the many traits of mankind, the one attribute he posseses which I find a bit distasteful (I know that is an understatement in itself) is his nag to test. Man are creatures of measure, and they use whatsoever yardstick avaliable to do a gauge on whatsoever field that can be (at least by human terms) improved at. Of course, in terms of the fundementals of the different skills and the basics of the several academics, testing would be needed to ensure that the former is learnt. Afterall, one needs to use them for them are qutie necessary platforms to surpass first before approaching bigger hurdles that the world has to offer.

And it is about these hurdles that I associate my distaste towards. I do have nothing much against the general act of the academcial assesment, although the education system and ways of defining a student's ability have been condemned and complained about many, many times. Yeah, I do share similar sentiments with those who exaggerate the system's flaws and have circular arguements over how things can be improved. There are the loopholes in a written paper supposed to be the pathway one has tread carefully upon, in order to reach a more respectable position on the prestige ladder with respect to that field of study. Perhaps my distaste does preceed from this idea's essence.

However, it is more about the relation of testing a person something and having him interested in it at the same time. Being passionate at subjects, say like chemistry would probaly result in you doing well in the subject by scholary terms. Yet, the points on the script would not show the love, enjoyment and pride you take whilst exploring chemistry's finer points and perhaps a faculty within the subject that you prefer to indulge in. When you partake of this knowledge in a manner of interest and passion, the test would restrict where your interest wishes to go. The test will tear at your desire to absorb the knowledge as a knowledge. With competition coming into the picture as well (for tests will defintely beget this element), one's interest in something is distorted into an unhealthy struggle to determine his capability in the field. It becomes a mere clashing of blades to prove your superiority in the arena where all intruders look upon you, unsure of whether to provide alliance, survivour-style. Its almost as if, you love someone. Yet because of the position of the positon, because of the needed official reality that one needs to experience to affirm his love for that person - one has to love fiercely. To love while kicking at whatever means it takes to stride up and force out a style that potrays and concretely nods your love is an authentic love.

And such is how my distaste originates. The attachement tests has with the subjects of interest. The association of a degree of bettering someone in a field which someone has a passion in. How is one better in something than another person anyway? What sort of yardstick can define the capability of somebody in something he likes is more 'good' than a someone else also with a liking of the same something. Yes, the world wants practicality because it needs it to survive. Yes, we do need the better skills to establish a more runnable society. But before that distant effect, is it really necessary for this cause to interfere with someone's liking? What is the fun in having a passion in something and suddenly realising you have to sit a test for it? Perhaps the process is. But I think being told that you are not as capable as someone else in that something and then rejected because of that premise, is not fun at all.

And then again, that sort of feeling that this whole testing system creates irritate my sentiments of distaste once again. Although I know I will sincerely acknowledge this results from the whole matter. But still, when tests define boundaries of elites and averages, even claiming the wisdom to label the weak - a arrogance of prestige meddles with the whole band of students who are either willingly or unwillingly classed into 'the better' and 'the worst'. The competition remains in the field of outdo-ance instead of a spur to one's own search of wisdom. (I do realise, wisdom and knowledge are very different)

Perhaps what this prestige has done is not so obvious in a mankind's distress. Thats probaly why it'll only remain as a distaste of mine. Afterall, the academics require much more rigor, reasons, arguement and persuation to essay such an objection.

And someone will probaly want to outdo me in something like that.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---