From: jgl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew T. Kim)
Subject: Re: education system
Reply-To: jgl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew T. Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:00:33 GMT

In article <1jpph4INN9p0@menudo.uh.edu> wjin@cs.uh.edu (W. Woody Jin) writes:
>
>In fact, your comments are very enlightening.  I wish Korea had various
>schools, each of which uses its own specific method.
>My kid is going to a kinder garden which uses "Montesori Method".
>I am very happy with it (excep $$$ 8-( ).  
>It does not give any pressure to kids to do something.

What is "Montesori Method"?  As a soon-to-be-a-father myself, I am
interested in these things.

>>By definition, any talk about culture is bound to be a generalization.  
>
>But what is important is "granularity" of the generalization.
>Should we generalize it to all Koreans ? Or only to drinkers,
>Or only to smokers ?  Or only to wife-beater ?, Or  only to young
>generations ? ...etc.

Generalization is OK as long as it is not used.

It is only useful when you use it as a piece of information to make a
better judgement for *you*.

>>Forcing highschool students to such fields by eliminating other possiblity
>>is a lousy way of build an industry.  
>
>I don't think that other possibilities are totally eliminated.
>As you wrote in your original post, it is just more difficult than in USA.
>Yes. It is not so flexible as USA, but you can still do that.
>So, if you MUST go to some field since there is a strong reason for it,
>I think that most such students can change.  I have seen many such students.

I know the possibilities are still there and there are many individuals who
overcame the obstacles.  My point is, however, that it is a lot tougher
than it should be.  

Making mistake is a God-given right of youths.  They are already having a
hard time growing up, and the last thing they need is some system to make
it harder.  No system has any right to influence somebody's future just
because it has decided it is better for the country.  If it should, the


>>How effective can it be, with bunch of malcontent workers?
>
>Yes. Right.  In fact, this is a problem.
>BTW, Korea has a tendency, which cannot be found in USA.  
>So called, "Departmentship".
>Even though some students are not happy when they they entere a department,
>it seems to me that they (but not all) eventually become "The Department Man".
>And they are proudly wearing their own department T-shirts.
>And they seem to like their fields.

It is another example of system's victim, albeit a milder one.

People adjust to their environment.  If you try enough, you will find
something good about it everywhere you go.  

Suppose you are left alone in the deserted island.  Realizing that you have
no way out, you start to adjust, and decide to like your quiet lifestyle
away from the civilization.  He might eventually become happy, but is it
really best for him?   Why not try to provide him with a boat to get out of
the island and explore other possibilities?
>1) >Unless it is not good for me, it is not good for the whole country.  I
>   >think more satisfield people make a better country.
>
>2) You may also think of this way : If it is good for the whole country, its
>   benefit will be eventually coming to you.
>
>2) is the one which has been requested by Korea, who has been in 
>      under-development country.
>I think that it is time for Korea to adopt the way 1) which is the concept of 
>   'developed country'.  Or is it not yet ?

I have a problem with the above statement.  Way #1 is not something that
needs to be "adopted" by a country.  Then it wouldn't be too different from
Way #2.

Individualism is a lifestyle, not an ideology.  I don't give a damn whether
Korea is ready for it or what other people do, unless it affects me.  

>Anyway, my wife is a Rooster Lover.  My family is a DongMool NongJang ( 8-) ).

I guess '93 is her year.

Andy Kim {from Goddam City}
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean