In the status quo....

In the status quo, Korean Minjok Leadership Academy(KMLA) is one of the most brilliant, famous, and innovative high school in Korea. Not only in qualities of educations held in KMLA but also the other external factors like club activities prove the fame of KMLA. But, there are no doubt that KMLA always has some sloppy and nasty problems inside, which sounds ridiculous and minor to others, but crucial enough to students in the campus. Today, this house reveals the hidden problems of KMLA one by one.

<other students>

The first incident happened last year. The news was wild about president Park. Most of the people in Seoul held the endless protest for impeaching the president. KMLA should participate the protest since KMLA's main purpose is to grow true leader. However, our school headmaster had a different viewpoint. Despite the continuous request of students, he continuously refused to permit students to join the protest. He argued that the school must be politically neutral; students argued that such dogma wasn't political neutrality. Matters became greater when the questioning against school authority propped the challenging of an others case, seemingly irrelevant-school policies and decisions. Soon, the discussion shifted towards evaluating the capacity of the incumbent headmaster. As the discussion heated up, numerous accounts on the headmaster's unfit qualities were made. One of the most significant was the issue of misogyny. The president of the student legislative council at the time spoke up on a post-incident about the headmaster's use of sexist profanity against her. This sparked a series of outrages entailing much more relevant accounts. Hypocratic views were also problematic. Always insisted on the refusal of social hierarchy that universities posses. However, he himself didn't stop. But that's not the only problem...even now after he's left.....

Paper was ended incompletely.

Biological perspective toward philanthropy

Philanthropy to university became an issue in Gladwell's podcast. Simple as beautiful, Gladwell's topic can be concluded in one sentence, I believe. 'Should philanthropists donate their money to prestigious universities like Harvard and Standford, or to less prestigious universities like Glassboro state university?' It is quite controversy debate topic, with some ironic dilemmas, which make hard to answer. But, according to my opinion, allocating philanthropy to the prestigious college is much beneficial than another choice. Through this post, I'll explain why based on 'biological perspective'. 

Before I start, I want to stress out that society itself is a fluid model, just like organic structure. Since society is run by with humans and their activities, we can't analyze and estimate society is purely run by economic principles, like cause and effect or supply and demand. So I believe only insisting 'social equalities' doesn't work at all. We should concede some inequalities, especially in the status of each university. Gladwell should concede Stanford or Harvard is much successful and potential than colleges like Glassboro or Vassar(But I don't mean such universities are more inferior than others).That is why we should vision society with a fluid model, and focus our topic through biological perspective. Anyway, what I wrote on this blog is purely my 'own' opinion, so it is your choice to accept or not. 

Many animals, especially mammals, tends to pursuit benefits but avoid risks. Maximizing merits but minimizing de-merits is one of the most frequent strategies in the ecosystem. Term 'optimal foraging model' can be a good example for this phenomenon. Optimal foraging model means that natural selection would prefer species that maximize benefits but minimize the costs, and animals will evolve to satisfy this status. Whenever animals face certain situations, they naturally choose choice with 'higher success rate' than others. WHY? Simple. There are no creatures on Earth wants to work more and earn less. If there is, it will perish. This can be a selfishness, but anyway, it is a principle in nature. The reason why I'm mentioning biological principle in this post is, public, sponsors, or philanthropists are mankind. They can't free from this principle at all, I believe.

For philanthropists, donating fees for universities is one kind of selection. I don't believe it purely derived from altruism. Most of the philanthropists wish their philanthropy effectively aid students. In other words, they are investing in student's potential. So it is natural that philanthropists are focusing more toward famous universities like Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. As I mentioned before, this is purely based on their biological choices. It can't be criticized, it can't be blamed. It is 'natural'. Without a doubt, prestigious universities graduate more potential students than other universities. Compare the influence between Stanford and Glassboro in society. Even though Stanford already have the tremendous of money, but Stanford will not disappoint philanthropists in results. It is trust. It is obvious that prestigious universities have trust to public. Philanthropists will not regret their donations since they know they money were used for well. No one regrets when their choices are stable and potential enough.

I'm not blaming Glassboro. I'm not criticizing 'un'-prestigious universities are not compatible for philanthropies. It's just a choice, but I'm just disagreeing Gladwell. 

Korean Carlos doesn't remember

'Carlos doesn't remember' is about educational inequality due to the economic gap. Though in this podcast, Gladwell depicts the same problem in the current educational system in the U.S.A. The capitalization. Providing some chances of higher education to brilliant students despite their economical status. It sounds fair and equal, but Gladwell rebutted this by statistical evidence. Numbers of Carlos, means students who don't have enough money but are smarter than usual, in prestigious universities like Harvard, are much lower than expected. And this means capitalization doesn't really work in the current educational system. Another point that Gladwell used is 'unequal chances of education' according to my opinion. In his podcast, Gladwell insisted the gap between Carlos and other wealthy students. According to Gladwell, students like Carlos already have lots of burdens to consider before they start education. For instance, householding, securing own and family's safety, and some should even consider the distance between home to school. Moreover, for Carlos, it is tough enough to find a counseling teacher in order to prepare for college and the future career.

'Students like Carlos in Korea' similar to 'Carlos in U.S.A' overall, but I believe there are some differences between this two cases. In fact, I believe Korean students usually have less burden until they graduate middle school. Different with U.S.A, Korea shows balanced distributions of school all over the country(except some 'Korean Carlos' who live in the countryside). Also, education until 9th grade is mandatory, and tuitions for high school are not that expensive. There can be some differences between each student, but normally, Korean students suffer less from external hindrances of educations. However, I don't believe the current Korean education systems take care 'Carlos in Korea' well. Instead, 'Carlos in Korea' have to face other types of hardships after they enter the high school.

First, the economical gap becomes a crucial factor. In Korea, without any external assistant, it is hard to follow school's education curriculums by students own efforts. Even if that student haves brilliant brain just like Carlos, Korean education is tough and complex enough to make student miserable. Normally, Korean students get some assistances from Academy(what we called '학원'). It provides students great care, like preparing standard tests or managing student's GPA and extracurricular activities. I believe it is not difficult to catch up the schools' original educations with academies efforts(plus student's own effort, of course). However, things are different for 'Carlos in Korea'. They don't have enough time and money to get assistances from academies. And most of those Carlos failed to achieve chances of higher education in school. Moreover, some teachers in high school teach students based on 'what students previously learned frim academies before the class'. This is a vicious circle, that larger the gap between 'gifted(economically gifted)' students and 'Carlos in Korea'.  

The other problem is, unlike middle or high school, colleges and universities are not balance distributed in Korea. Most of the prestigious universities in Korea like 'SKY' are clumped near capital state. And they usually require expensive tuitions to students. Those factors became one of the biggest reason why 'Carlos in Korea' hesitates to enter universities. Despite their desires or visions, students have to deal with realities. Things are not changed even those students abandoned universities but purchase jobs right after graduating high school. Korean use the term 'In-Seoul(the capital of Korea)', which means entering to the universities located 'in' Seoul would determine the student's future. Even though the college entering is already unequal enough, society doesn't care about it. After graduation, Korean students are usually evaluated by their universities level, not by students talents and passions.

I believe the situations of 'Carlos in Korea' are not really different to 'Carlos in U.S.A'. I often believe Korea could be worse in some cases. Determining student's educations, careers, and even futures by students' 'gifted' wealth, is now in Korea. As Korean students, this is quite bitter to say, but Korea is no country for Carlos.