Education vs. The Individual

“Much learning deadens or perverts poetic sensibility” – T.S. Eliot

T.S. Eliot was correct in pointing out that when it comes to education there is a lot to be desired. Examinations fail to judge one’s ability or intelligence in an area, as they merely require the right answers to the right questions. Without a doubt examination boards provide boxes for our thinking, limits to our potential knowledge and as many have argued education creates individuals fit for society rather than a society fit for the individuals. Many a times have I been deprived of intriguing or useful general knowledge, that being biology, physics, history or literature, simply because it is not likely to benefit my examination or “improve my grade”. And surely, exams do test useful skills such as time management, conciseness, organisation and analytical skills yet it seems those come as no more than a bonus to learning how to satisfy an artificial marking scheme in the hands of a dull, tired and apathetic examiner.

It mustn’t be overlooked, however, how many difficulties one faces when trying to provide any kind of education to such a mass of people. Considering the population size and demand for knowledge, the current system is as adequate as is possible in creating some sort of semi-universal criteria for intelligence. Adequacy is not perfection. When exploring the education ladder one faces more and more freedom. In certain A level courses, in history for example, you are given the freedom to choose any event or individual to research and literature can provide the freedom of choosing not only both texts but also the question in mind. These, however, are both coursework materials, which is why students achieve more in their coursework than their exams, simply because they are offered education which is a lot more focused on the individuals. The one on one contact allows for material accustomed to each person specifically, together with feedback or criticism that is both more appropriate and less contrived. Examination still remains as an issue, despite the many claims that exams are the only test to true ability. A time limit and pressure, however, are certainly not the conditions that act as a catalyst to great ides. Surely, Shakespeare did not follow AQAs criteria for creative writing when writing Hamlet or Othello, both of which would probably not strike the examiners as remarkable work when compared to the mark scheme. “Description lacks depth” one can see it saying.

Furthermore, in a philosophy exam, in the art of thinking, you get awarded no marks for original ideas. One could be the next Plato, Descartes or Kant, but if one fails to outline the strengths and weaknesses of the “theory of empiricism” he is not “intelligent” by the standards of an exam board. One can but wonder whether our modern society could even produce such minds. If funds could be provided, education should return to its roots where students became qualified when asking their teacher a question they could not answer. Well, of course, that probably creates just as many problems as our current system, but it allows freedom for those who need it and opens the marking scheme’s otherwise sealed box.

We mustn't forget, however, that education has a purpose and that purpose is not to encourage the flourish of the exceptional individual, but rather to provide a basic awareness to the masses. That is one purpose it fulfils.

Mirela Ivanova

Hamlet @ The Globe

Director Dominic Dromgoole presents us with a travelling production of Hamlet. This raw and traditional representation of the play offers us some excellent performances. Simon Armstrong’s Claudius is vicious, cunning and powerful, and despite his, at times, loose anger, he holds an incredible sense of authority which makes it impossible to avoid him. He even offers some humour, Rosencrantz and Googlestrub?

John Bett’s Polonius balances his character’s vices brilliantly and maintains the audience’s sympathy through laughter. Both Horatio and Laertes (Ian Midlane and Alex Warren) are a joy to watch, managing to break away from the usual stereotypes their characters hold, and showing a satirical Horatio and an unusually honest and respectful Laertes. What this play lacks, however, is Hamlet and Ophelia. Young Joshua McGuire offers us an energetic, innocent and, more often than not, a rushed Hamlet. Though he manages to bear the weight of mad Hamlet respectably, McGuire offers no depth to the character and even the most famous and symbolic lines in the play ‘To be or not to be’ come out as merely “words, words, words”. The same applies to Jade Anouka’s Ophelia. Tonight, her otherwise heart-breaking soliloquy is overshadowed by a pigeon trapped in the ceiling of the Globe. Both would be much better suited to the roles of Romeo and Juliet as their youth is honed by their rushed and at times shallow acting.

There are some slight modifications to the script, supposedly in an attempt to make it more accessible. Yet, the only difference between “the lady doth protest too much me thinks” and “The lady protests too much” is the lack of sentiment the ‘modern’ version holds. Some of the best parts of the play are also spared to the audience tonight, notably, the heavily shortened speech by Hamlet to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern where he urges Guildenstern to play upon a pipe.

The last few scenes of the play seem more comical than tragic. The struggles and deaths seem overdone and the, at times, inadequate acting of McGuire leaves us more sympathetic towards Horatio than to the eponymous protagonist. Sadly, the exceptional performances of the majority of the cast seem overshadowed by McGuire’s Romeo who happened to be in the wrong play tonight.

Mirela Ivanova