Why I hate school but love education

A few months ago, I watched a video of a young adult, Suli Breaks, titled "Why I Hate School But Love Education" in which he was performing an act of Spoken Word; which is an art that is word-based, often including collaborations or experimentation with other forms of art such as dance. The video was explaining that Suli had come to the realisation that education and school are not necessarily the same thing, despite having completed a University degree himself.

Suli quotes:

"Education is about inspiring ones mind not just filling their head” and take this from me, because I’m a educated man myself, who only came to this realisation after countless nights in the library with a can of Red Bull keeping me awake 'til dawn , another can in the morn, falling asleep in between paws of books which probably equates the same amount I’ve spent on my rent, memorise equations, facts and dates, write it down to the letter, half of which I’d never remember, and half of which I forget straight after the exam, and before the start of the next semester, asking anyone if they had notes for the last lecture? I often found myself running to class, just so I could find the spot on which I could rest my head and fall asleep without making a scene, ironic because that’s the only time I ever spent in university of chasing my dreams.
And then after nights with a dead-mind; identifying myself in the queue of half awake student zombies waiting to hand in an assignment, maybe that’s why they call it a dead line. And then after three years of mental suppression and frustration, my proud mother didn’t even turn up to my graduation."

 I found this extract of the video to be particularly powerful as I came to the realisation myself, that education and school are not the same.

 Education is learning what is valuable to you as an individual depending on your personality, your interests, your dreams and goals. School is being taught to memorise irrelevant pieces of information, putting yourself under extreme pressure whilst juggling the struggles of meeting a coursework deadline, getting enough sleep in order to function adequately, ensuring that your own physical and mental health is okay, attempting to have some form of a social life in order to feel human and making time to making time to be with your family and loved ones.

 As humans, our level of intellect is decided for us in the exact same manner that animals are - by how well we follow orders.

We are taught that we will only be successful in life if we pass the exams that are thrown at us. Who are taught by? Society. Including teachers, members of authority, parents, family, MP's, Prime Ministers, Politicians and many more. Why? Because they were taught the exact same thing and know no different. Ask David Cameron when the last time he used the pythagorean theorem in Parliament and I'll rest my case.
David Cameron did not wish to quality in the field of mathametics, for David Cameron's goal and fate was within Politics. So if a students personal goal and strength is within the field of retail management or owning their own clothes stall in a hippie market somewhere far away from their hometown, why are they made to feel like they will amount to nothing if they don't pass their Geography exam?

"Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's whole life believing that it is stupid." - Albert Einstein, one of the world's most intellectually renown individuals, who was in fact, dyslexic.

 Examiners are given a checklist of what is right and wrong; if a student is to think outside of the box and provide examiners with an answer that requires thought beyond the approved print of their checklist, the student fails. Teaching a generation that expanding their mind and thinking beyond the usual horizon is wrong is completely unhealthy. 

What do you think? Share your thoughts and comments below.

Should Baroness Thatcher's funeral have really been at the expense of tax payers?

Yesterday was the funeral of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain's "iron lady", first female prime minister and an incredibly strong-minded politician.

Thatcher's solid and unwavering political choices, also known as "Thatcherism" earned her nicknames such as "Thatcher Thatcher The Milk Snatcher"- supporting the fact that it is of great awareness that her policies were majorly contraversial, leading to extreme unpopularity; especially amongst the working class of Britain.

Although some may argue that Thatcher saved Britain economically and had a sense of control that today's politicians lack, many people were not in favour of her "balls of steel" based choices such as closure of many mines and factories resulting in unemployment and poverty, the discontinuation of milk for children in primary schools and nurseries which had helped families on a lower income, privatising companies, selling council houses (resulting in a shortage) and many more.

However, should the cost of the funeral really have been funded by the tax payer? At a steep amount of around £10m, surely Britain is in need of other essentials rather than the funeral of a Politician who surely had enough savings to pay for it herself?

As stated in an article in the Guardian, the funeral cost could have funded the wages of 322 nurses for a year, 272 secondary school teachers for a year, 320 fire officers for a year, 269 paramedics for a year, 177,777 jobseekers' allowance claimants and 44 libraries.

What are your thoughts? comment below!

Boston Marathon

Firstly, I'd like to send my prayers out to all of those affected by the horrible, sickening crisis that is the explosion of the Boston Marathon.

There are many issues that have come to my attention this evening; firstly starting with how anybody could be so alarmingly cruel minded to the extent of violently sabotaging a charity marathon for a previous mass shooting in a school in Newtown. Although there is currently no confirmed source of proof leading to the explanation that the explosions were the deliberate actions of a terrorist organisation, ball bearings have been found which leads researchers to believe that they are shrapnel, a type of bomb, which adds to the suspicion that the explosion was deliberate.

We should be looking out for each other in unity, comforting each other through natural disasters such as earthquakes or the inevitable natural death of those we love and so on - not inflicting yet more pain upon each other.

What has also particularly grinded my gears tonight is that, as aforementioned, there is yet no confirmed source of the culprits, if any, of the explosion however I have seen many ignorant opinions claiming that Arabs and Muslims are behind the entire "attack". Is this what we have come to, as a society? We have been successfully fed by the syringe of the media, who conveniently only cover the cases of Muslim supremacy and not the unknowingly common supremacists of Christianity, Judaism and many more.

Also, how come it is the case that nobody is ever interested in world affairs until they become widely recognised and discussed? Half of the oblivious Tweeters and Facebook-ers have most probably never even read an entire newspaper before however they're extremely fast to jump on the band wagon as soon as it is a trending topic.

What are your thoughts? Share your comments below!

Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?

It's a widely renown topic of debate: Do curfews keep teens out of trouble and off of the streets? Or does it backfire and result in even more rebellion?

Some believe that by giving teens a fixed curfew of what time they must be home by, whether law enforced such as in many US cities, or simply decided mandatory by their parents or guardians, that it will help to keep teens off of the street and out of trouble as they will be in the safety of their homes where they can be supervised. 

Due to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour being a result of boredom, perhaps reducing the amount of spare time teenagers possess to hang around on street corners could help to prevent crime and trouble.

However, does trouble really have a time frame? Surely if teenagers wish to do something, they'll go right ahead and do it anyway regardless of what time of day it is?

In fact, some argue that creating a curfew will make teenagers angrier and increase their determination to rebel, as due to a lack of trust from parents and society, they feel that they may as well do something wrong anyway - which is proven in the following statement, as quoted by a teenager:

"As  a teen, I know that if I am going to do something illegal already, then a curfew law will not stop me from doing so. In fact, a curfew makes me upset and actually makes me want to break the law. I do become craftier in my illegal ways to conduct my activities. This law completely back fires on itself."

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and the US Department of Justice all agree that a curfew, in fact, does not lower youth crime rates and interestingly, the number of youth arrests made for breaking curfew laws are greater than the number of youth arrests for any other crime; therefore proving that curfews do not have an effect.

So is it the responsibility of parents to teach teenagers the difference between right and wrong and make sure that they are authoritative enough with their child in order for them to be home on time without having a curfew? Perhaps teaching teenagers elaboration of morals would be more effective than telling them what they can and can't do.

Personally, I believe that setting a law enforced curfew to teenagers is a rather fascist movement to make. The Government already control almost every other aspect of our lives; but the freedom of teenagers? Too far. If a parent wishes to set their child a curfew, that is entirely up to them. However, I for one, would be absolutely livid if a curfew law was enforced in my city. How are teenagers ever meant to prove society wrong when all we are given are motives to prove them right and rebel anyway, seeing as we are already perceived as juvenile delinquents and "ASBO's"? 

What do you think? Are curfews an adequate method of decreasing youth crime and trouble or is it pointless? All comments are welcome!