Reorienting our education system as had been sought by Albert Einstein

It is pitiable that we teach the students only what has been sanctified by the scientists, the mathematicians, the economists and the physicists, etcetera as if there is nothing beyond what they should have sanctified.

Had it not been so, the geniuses like Albert Einstein would not have felt as disparaged as they had to have felt in their life.

That he should have been so uncomfortable and so much distressed due to the pattern of education system we follow, is really disgusting.

We should certainly take a lesson from what Einstein had commented on the lopsidedness of our education system.

The education system should be fine-tuned to the actual needs of our life and our career instead of taking to running a rat-race.

Don’t you think we should be made to learn in our schools and colleges only such things that may be beneficial to us in our life?

Just think of the things you had been made to learn and how much of it you have used in your life.

Supposing you have been able to use only twenty per cent of it, does it not imply that the throughput of your education is only twenty per cent?

Agreed during the school-age, they could not have made out who shall require to have known what. So, they teach us all sort of things.

But if we may call this percentage as the productivity of the education system, the educationists should have attempted to let us have a high productivity as possible by ensuring that we did not have to learn too many of such things as we may never have to use in our life.

For instance, look at the following diagram.

At the first place – how does it help us to know whether the square of the hypotenuse of a triangle equals the sum of the squares of its other two sides if it happens to be a right-angled triangle?

So, why should we be made to learn about the Pythagoras Theorem at all?

Should it not be struck off from the syllabi?

Taking this very case, instead of striking off it from the syllabi or teaching just, what is Pythagoras Theorem – we should teach the students in how many different ways different people have been able to prove this theorem so that it may inspire creativity in their mind.

It is more important for them to be creative rather than knowing what is “Pythagoras Theorem”.

Should it not be surprising that people have discovered more than 365 different ways of proving it?   

The same way – they should be taught to be thorough with whatever little they learn instead of just knowing “a bit of everything”.

It is thoroughness that pays us in life – not knowing a bit of everything.  

Look at the size of the books the children, who aspire to become a doctor or an engineer, have to take into their head these days in Intermediate.

We never had this size of books, during our days.

Is it not just like punishing them for why they should aspire to become a doctor or an engineer? Why should it be made so difficult for them to contest for becoming a doctor or an engineer?

Has it not become necessary only because the authorities have to select only a few of the whole lot of students who seek to become a doctor or an engineer?

We have made the system on purpose so burdensome that we pick up only those of them who are able to carry so much of burden.

Sounds so funny, that we should want them to carry so much of it in their mind of which they would find no use later on, in their life.

We should take a pity on them and dress down the size and the contents of the books they are supposed to read to stand out as an eligible candidate to get the entry in a medical college or an engineering college.

But tell me, do intelligence, imaginativeness and consciousness not exist?

Much the same way as the existence of magnetic fields has been sanctified because movement of a magnetic needle confirms existence of such fields and the existence of gravitational forces has been sanctified because things having lesser mass getting attracted by the things having massive mass confirms its existence, the same way should the existence of intelligence, imaginativeness and consciousness have also not been sanctified since the generation of emotions such as fear, happiness and intuitions in our mind due to them confirms their existence?

Maybe, it calls for a different vein of science that may be named as “Cognitive Science” to sanctify them.

The science, we are taught, tells us to believe in the existence of only such organs of our body that can be identified by dissecting the body.

That is a limit.

Who does not know that we can see everything in a 3D form in our dreams even though our both biological eyes remain shut when we see dreams?

We are not only able to see things when we are in deep sleep, but we are also able to see the things we imagine with our both eyes completely closed, even though we are wide awake.    

Naturally, it proves that we should have some sort of eyes besides our biological eyes also, do you doubt?

It is okay if they don’t want to mess up themselves with spiritualism but is it not true that we don’t assume any air of spiritualism about the existence of non-anatomic eyes?  

What is true of non-anatomical eyes is also true of what is known as a soul, in general parlance.

Just think of what should have happened the night when the Opera Singer celebrity Emma Calvé got traumatised so as to discontinue her performance due to an aspersion that something very perilous was happening in her house in the Opera organised by the Metropolitan Opera Company, in Chicago in 1894?

Nobody could have known the reason till she did not come to know that her beloved daughter, the only child she had, had been caught in a kitchen-fire and had died due to burns exactly when she had declined to proceed further with her performance.

If the present-day scientists can’t explain any other way what had happened that night tell me – why should they hesitate to acknowledge the existence of the souls as well?

Why not believe that only the soul of her daughter should have relayed the distress-signals released by her brain which the soul of her mother should have captured to get so traumatic.

Do you doubt, it would be better if we named the science that is being presently taught in the schools and colleges, “Physical Science” and introduced yet one more branch of science known as “Cognitive Science” in their curricula, henceforth to get over their resistance to acknowledge the existence of the things we fully well know – exist but they so sternly deny their existence?

Nicky Sutton asserts in her article “The Human Electromagnetic Field: Proven Energetic Communication” at www.spiritual-awakening.net, that our heart emits electromagnetic waves and when our electromagnetic fields intersect – we subconsciously communicate with each other since the human body can act as an aerial with the capability to send and receive energy to and from its environment and such energy-exchange has been found to influence our thoughts and emotions, supports this view.