Write a dabate for the motion on the topic" Brain drain is beneficial for India"
Answers
Answered by
0
Yes, because, We are mortal: we are all going to die: does that mean we should all kill ourselves and never attempt to prolong and improve our lives? no, it does not
The system of testing exists for a purpose, which it may not serve 'perfectly' but serves to an extent. Tests can be improved and cheating can be reduced.
Tests with certain test-takers cheating, are better than no tests at all. You might as well not sell anything because some people steal. It is unfair that students who do not cheat and for a fair assessment of their abilities and standing on a subject should be deprived of being tested because of a few bad eggs.
There is a difference between 'improvement' and replacement. Testing/exams cannot be replaced the conditions in which they proceed are different for different exam centers and different students as you point out that doesn't mean testing should be chucked altogether. It is not tests themselves that allow cheating it is the conditions in which they are conducted. tNo, because, Even though exams are closely monitored and there are severe penalties if they are found cheating, students can still sneak information into exams. Exam papers can even be stolen or forged on their way to and from examination centers. Computers that contain the grades before they are formally released can be hacked into or go wrong on their own. It is more difficult to monitor students who don't take their exams in the main examination room or at the same date and time as the regular exams, because of disability adjustments or resits, and we can't do away with these. If exams are supposed to be a way to prevent cheating, they aren't infallible by any means.Yes because I never said the method had to be perfect, I said a system that is being replaced because it is vulnerable to cheating shouldn't be replaced by another system that is vulnerable to cheating. You wouldn't replace a faulty computer with another faulty computer.Discussions and debates are useless as a measure of your academic performance if you just can't speak confidently in real time. What do you do in cases where your favorite subject isn't the subject you perform best in? it might seem obvious that people will perform best in subjects they are enthusiastic in and try the hardest in because they like it, but my grades were almost universally best in subjects I hated - because I tried my hardest to 'get them over and done with' soi didn't have to think about them anymore, which people mistook for efficiency, and I would write completely mechanically and impartially about them, which made me look more disciplined, especially when the subject was maths and it mostly was mechanical. the subjects I liked were the ones I was more relaxed in and quite often would assume beforehand that I would do well in, causing me to make less effort.No, because, Examinations are, at times, good and necessary ways of testing a student's ability to commit information to memory, to work under pressure and to find out what they know. However, examinations must not become regular. Regular examinations result in students working toward exams and exams only. They do not work in order to learn. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is rid of in a system where examinations reign supreme. It becomes known for the sake of passing the class, receiving an "A" etc. Whilst coursework may easily be cheated on, it is ridiculous to suggest that the only other way of testing a student's abilities and knowledge is through examination. Class discussions and debates are, with active class participation, one of the most effective ways of learning and retaining information. Through being forced to better one's own views and opinions, theories and answers, the student gains a deeper insight into their own arguments, becomes better at discussing their views, and the class benefits from listening to these views and thinking about how the views of their peers compare to those of their own. Through this, they can alter their own opinions or form new ones
The system of testing exists for a purpose, which it may not serve 'perfectly' but serves to an extent. Tests can be improved and cheating can be reduced.
Tests with certain test-takers cheating, are better than no tests at all. You might as well not sell anything because some people steal. It is unfair that students who do not cheat and for a fair assessment of their abilities and standing on a subject should be deprived of being tested because of a few bad eggs.
There is a difference between 'improvement' and replacement. Testing/exams cannot be replaced the conditions in which they proceed are different for different exam centers and different students as you point out that doesn't mean testing should be chucked altogether. It is not tests themselves that allow cheating it is the conditions in which they are conducted. tNo, because, Even though exams are closely monitored and there are severe penalties if they are found cheating, students can still sneak information into exams. Exam papers can even be stolen or forged on their way to and from examination centers. Computers that contain the grades before they are formally released can be hacked into or go wrong on their own. It is more difficult to monitor students who don't take their exams in the main examination room or at the same date and time as the regular exams, because of disability adjustments or resits, and we can't do away with these. If exams are supposed to be a way to prevent cheating, they aren't infallible by any means.Yes because I never said the method had to be perfect, I said a system that is being replaced because it is vulnerable to cheating shouldn't be replaced by another system that is vulnerable to cheating. You wouldn't replace a faulty computer with another faulty computer.Discussions and debates are useless as a measure of your academic performance if you just can't speak confidently in real time. What do you do in cases where your favorite subject isn't the subject you perform best in? it might seem obvious that people will perform best in subjects they are enthusiastic in and try the hardest in because they like it, but my grades were almost universally best in subjects I hated - because I tried my hardest to 'get them over and done with' soi didn't have to think about them anymore, which people mistook for efficiency, and I would write completely mechanically and impartially about them, which made me look more disciplined, especially when the subject was maths and it mostly was mechanical. the subjects I liked were the ones I was more relaxed in and quite often would assume beforehand that I would do well in, causing me to make less effort.No, because, Examinations are, at times, good and necessary ways of testing a student's ability to commit information to memory, to work under pressure and to find out what they know. However, examinations must not become regular. Regular examinations result in students working toward exams and exams only. They do not work in order to learn. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is rid of in a system where examinations reign supreme. It becomes known for the sake of passing the class, receiving an "A" etc. Whilst coursework may easily be cheated on, it is ridiculous to suggest that the only other way of testing a student's abilities and knowledge is through examination. Class discussions and debates are, with active class participation, one of the most effective ways of learning and retaining information. Through being forced to better one's own views and opinions, theories and answers, the student gains a deeper insight into their own arguments, becomes better at discussing their views, and the class benefits from listening to these views and thinking about how the views of their peers compare to those of their own. Through this, they can alter their own opinions or form new ones
Answered by
1
The good news is that Indian migrants have generally fared better. In Western Europe and the United States, migrants from India experience 1 to 2 percentage points lower unemployment than native-born workers, while migrants from many other developing countries face up to 10 percentage points higher unemployment
Similar questions