Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs of the entire population of all age groups. While the traditional structure of education as a three layer hierarchy from the primary stage to the university represents the core, we should not overlook the periphery which is equally important. Under modern conditions, workers need to rewind, or renew their professor. The retired and the aged have their needs as well. Educational planning, in their words, should take care of the needs of everyone.
Our structures of education have been built up on the assumption that there is a terminal point to education. This basic defect has become all the more harmful today. A UNESCO report, titled “Learning to be” prepared by Edgar Faure and others in 1973 asserts that the education of children must prepare the future adult for various forms of self-learning. A viable education system of the future should consist of modules with different kinds of functions serving a diversity of constituents. And performance, not the period of study, should be the basis for credentials. The writing is already on the wall.
In view of the fact that the significance of a commitment of lifelong learning and lifetime education is being discussed only in recent years even in educationally advanced countries, the possibility of the idea becoming an integral part of educational thinking seems to be a far cry. For, to move in that direction means much more than some simple rearrangement of the present organization of education. But a good beginning can be made by developing Open University programs for older learners of different categories and introducing extension services in the conventional colleges and schools. Also, these institutions should learn to cooperate with numerous community organizations such as libraries, museums, municipal recreational programs, health services etc.
Q: Which of the following in not true in context of the given passage?
Recent advances in science and technology have made it possible for geneticists to find out abnormalities in the unborn foetus and take remedial action to rectify some defects which would otherwise prove to be fatal to the child. Though genetic engineering is still at tis infancy, scientists can now predict with greater accuracy, a genetic disorder. It is not yet an exact science since they are not in a position to predict when exactly a genetic disorder will set in. While they have not yet been able to change the genetic order of the gene in germs, they are optimistic and are holding about that in the near future they might be successful in achieving this feat. They have, however, acquired the ability to manipulate tissue cells. However, genetic mis-information can sometimes be damaging for it may adversely affect people psychologically. Genetic information may lead to a tendency to brand some people as inferiors. Genetic information can therefore be abused and its application in deciding the sex of the foetus and its subsequent abortion is now hotly debated on ethical lines. But on this issue geneticists cannot be squarely blamed though this charge has often been leveled at them. It is mainly a societal problem. At present genetic engineering is a costly process of detecting disorders but scientists hope to reduce the costs when technology becomes more advanced. This why much progress in this area has been possible in scientifically advanced and rich countries like the U.S.A., U.K., and Japan. It remains to be seen if in the future this science will lead to the development of a race of supermen or will be able to obliterate illness from this world.
Q: why, according to the author, is genetic misinformation severely damaging?
