Thursday, July 13, 2006
::
WhY NoT ?
::
This is it I guess. Not much strength in this talk but I'll say it anyway.
I came from schools both requiring strict school rules and, well, flimsy rules(this could be considered as NO rules hah). I've seen the pros and cons. I've tasted the differences so I'll write down my deductions here( to applause those sickass and sweet picks).
#
"Rules are made to be bent," sounds familiar? Of course! Even psychologists have to agree here. There's no way ALL school rules could be obeyed without causing at least a minimum destruction to one's life. It is no doubt that without school rules school life would be hell. Just take a look at bullies who dared not attack due to restrictions; They'll attack if not for rules. What about showoffs? They attract potential unwanted crimes, don't they? And, yes, most importantly, acedemic achievements; Without rules there won't be descipline, and without descipline there won't be success. Going to school is majorly base on to achieve good acedemic results and so why bother to attend school if they're not going achieve anything? Better stay home and sleep.
Sure some rules made are kind of silly. No ankle socks, handphones, religious bands and so on allowed. Why not? Handphones, they're for convenience use and only for convenience use. The only few reasons they're not allowed in schools are because it's a distraction when used during lesson and for fear of theft when showed off. But don't you think this particular rule makes no difference? Even now, when no handphones are allowed, students are hiding handphones in their bags and pockets and only using it if needed. There's minimum or no distractions, right?
So why not change the "No handphones allowed" rule to "No handphones to be switched on during classes" rule.
Religious bands and ankle socks bans are totally laughable. Why these rules? Do they think by students wearing religious bands they're actually preaching? In schools that allow religious bands, there's no preaching happening there is there? In fact, some teachers are wearing them. The reason for socks is purely to protect the feet. There's no differences between knee length socks and ankle socks. As a matter of fact; Singapore is a hot tropicle country. Therefore, ankle socks are more comfortable to be worn. If the students are comfortable, they'll be able to concentrate more on what's being taught, right?
Thefts, unwanted crimes and so on usually occur due to showoffs. No showoffs means little or no crime. That's why the "No branded items allowed" is a majorly agreeable rule that should be strictly obeyed. This, itself, ensures the safety of the students.
Whatever it is, they all boil down to the students' own self descipline. All depends on the students themselves. I hereby deduce that some rules are indeed needed to be obeyed while, others, need to be done away with. Some rules are important whereas others are silly.
#
Oke tired already lah.....
Chinese drama going to start soon better get going....toddles...
I came from schools both requiring strict school rules and, well, flimsy rules(this could be considered as NO rules hah). I've seen the pros and cons. I've tasted the differences so I'll write down my deductions here( to applause those sickass and sweet picks).
#
"Rules are made to be bent," sounds familiar? Of course! Even psychologists have to agree here. There's no way ALL school rules could be obeyed without causing at least a minimum destruction to one's life. It is no doubt that without school rules school life would be hell. Just take a look at bullies who dared not attack due to restrictions; They'll attack if not for rules. What about showoffs? They attract potential unwanted crimes, don't they? And, yes, most importantly, acedemic achievements; Without rules there won't be descipline, and without descipline there won't be success. Going to school is majorly base on to achieve good acedemic results and so why bother to attend school if they're not going achieve anything? Better stay home and sleep.
Sure some rules made are kind of silly. No ankle socks, handphones, religious bands and so on allowed. Why not? Handphones, they're for convenience use and only for convenience use. The only few reasons they're not allowed in schools are because it's a distraction when used during lesson and for fear of theft when showed off. But don't you think this particular rule makes no difference? Even now, when no handphones are allowed, students are hiding handphones in their bags and pockets and only using it if needed. There's minimum or no distractions, right?
So why not change the "No handphones allowed" rule to "No handphones to be switched on during classes" rule.
Religious bands and ankle socks bans are totally laughable. Why these rules? Do they think by students wearing religious bands they're actually preaching? In schools that allow religious bands, there's no preaching happening there is there? In fact, some teachers are wearing them. The reason for socks is purely to protect the feet. There's no differences between knee length socks and ankle socks. As a matter of fact; Singapore is a hot tropicle country. Therefore, ankle socks are more comfortable to be worn. If the students are comfortable, they'll be able to concentrate more on what's being taught, right?
Thefts, unwanted crimes and so on usually occur due to showoffs. No showoffs means little or no crime. That's why the "No branded items allowed" is a majorly agreeable rule that should be strictly obeyed. This, itself, ensures the safety of the students.
Whatever it is, they all boil down to the students' own self descipline. All depends on the students themselves. I hereby deduce that some rules are indeed needed to be obeyed while, others, need to be done away with. Some rules are important whereas others are silly.
#
Oke tired already lah.....
Chinese drama going to start soon better get going....toddles...
More than anything,
Thursday, July 13, 2006.
Thursday, July 13, 2006.
