There is no denying the saying of the author about the same national curriculum in a nation untill college has started. only after students enter college , should they choose different subjects and different curriculum. Every student from any part of a nation should have the same knowledge and mindset beforehand and only college should determine the future prospects of a student.
A same curriculum until college gives the students, from different parts of a nation with maybe different linguistic characteristics or different backgrounds and cultures, a chance to mingle with each other given the same curriculum they have studied. Taking the example of the world's largest democracy, india, the same national curriculum referred to as CBSE provides the support for the 'unity in diversity' advantage. as many as there are states in india, there are equal number of cultures and languages with each state having its own set of linguistics, religion and cultures. in such a predicament, the only binding force for the younger generation of students from all across the country is the same national curriculum. Given the standard language of teaching as english in most states, the students from different states and backgrounds can interact with each other easily once they enter college. Had this not been the case, the different curriculum would have created abeyance and hiatus in between the students and would have certainly resulted in regionalism in colleges.
An aberrant curriculum in every other state of a nation would certainly be a reason of chaos and quandary. A national curriculum gives importance to nationalism and imbibes in the students a sense of patriotism. No matter where from a student belongs to within a nation, he is ever ready to prioritize his nation rather than his state , thanks to the same national curriculum he followed as a school attendant. Had this not been the case, it would have required a colossal effort to bring together the different students from different backgrounds in college. At last, i certainly agree with the author on his stand.
A same curriculum until college gives the students, from different parts of a nation with maybe different linguistic characteristics or different backgrounds and cultures, a chance to mingle with each other given the same curriculum they have studied. Taking the example of the world's largest democracy, india, the same national curriculum referred to as CBSE provides the support for the 'unity in diversity' advantage. as many as there are states in india, there are equal number of cultures and languages with each state having its own set of linguistics, religion and cultures. in such a predicament, the only binding force for the younger generation of students from all across the country is the same national curriculum. Given the standard language of teaching as english in most states, the students from different states and backgrounds can interact with each other easily once they enter college. Had this not been the case, the different curriculum would have created abeyance and hiatus in between the students and would have certainly resulted in regionalism in colleges.
An aberrant curriculum in every other state of a nation would certainly be a reason of chaos and quandary. A national curriculum gives importance to nationalism and imbibes in the students a sense of patriotism. No matter where from a student belongs to within a nation, he is ever ready to prioritize his nation rather than his state , thanks to the same national curriculum he followed as a school attendant. Had this not been the case, it would have required a colossal effort to bring together the different students from different backgrounds in college. At last, i certainly agree with the author on his stand.
