her main complaint, it seems, is the rigidness and inflexibility of the education system. to her, asking 'why' is taboo, and students do not need to understand the cold hard facts forced into their minds, all they have to do, it seems, is to memorise them.

The way of studying is no longer understanding and doing, it is about memory-work now. people are no longer concerned about how these nuggets of knowledge will affect them in their real life, and how these will be useful, but instead, they focus on how to use these knowledge to pass tests with flying colours.

thus, this creates a person who only focuses on the short term obstacles and are not looking at the big picture. they are in a certain way of speaking, short-sighted. these are studying for the wrong reasons. they are not trained to ask questions, but t give answers.

'You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.'

said Naguib Mahfouz, thus no matter how many answers and facts someone knows, he is only clever, till he can break from this education scheme and start asking, then he will be truly wise.

Now, the question lies, is ideal education possible?

this is a question that requires one to think deeper. there are a few things to think about. subjects themselves are rigid, but in the real world, people will not ask you for the sum of numbers. the open world is flexible and different from school.

thus, you cant have the best of both worlds. to be clever, you have to rigidly learn. To be wise on the other hand, you have to flexible and eager.

So, to make people wise and clever takes very long. Education is a lifelong process. thus with this much time to make the best of people is very difficult a process. thus to make a flawless education system in the time dedicated to education, is not enough

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a co

Firstly, what is a commodity, and what defines the term 'human rights'. Firstly, the term commodity refers to a useful or valuable thing (water is an example ). the term human rights on the other hand refers to a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

Thus from the definitions, it is right to say that it is different to treat water as a commodity and as a human right. If all referred to water as a human right, which all should have, then should they not be giving out gallons by now, but instead there is PUB bills, charging people for their water consumption. Yes, it may be a measure so that they do not use water senselessly, but at the end of the day, they reap the profits of it. they are thus treating it as a commodity, giving to those who can afford it, and cutting those who cannot afford it away from it.

In my opinion water should be treated as a human right for people all walks of life. Water, whether you like it or not, is not just a vital factor for economic development, but a neccesity for survival. yes, though 75% of the Earth is water, people do not have the ability to filter it. Rich people thus treat water a commodity for profit purposes.

but we do have to consider the people who treat it as a commodity and their reasons. Some have no choice but to use water as their income. In poorer counties, the only thing in demand is the water itself, but of course, they have to charge the buyers for the water out of the need for cash.

in this case, it is acceptable to charge.

As mentioned before, to control the usage of water. if water was given to everyone for free would people come to treasure it. the obvious answer is no. People would use it anyhow they wanted to and eventually, despite Earth's water abundance, it would deplete. then, it would be too late to regret it.

So in a nutshell, water has always been a commodity, and should remain that way. only with a price tag attached on the water they use, will the people be careful about how they use it. Water trade is also one of the things that is keeping the economy moving.