Author: Arsh Kabra

Golf is known as a game for big business executives to make deals while they play? What are the things that make it a perfect game for such things? Navin Kabra identified these for all the other GenWise instructors and myself at the Clover Greens Golf Course last Tuesday.

First of all, it is a slow sport. You hit a ball hundreds of metres away and then walk to it. All this walking is enough time to negotiate a deal. Secondly, it has no requirements of athleticism. A player of any level of fitness can play. Thirdly, it costs a lot. This means you are guaranteed successful people, so interaction with people of a lower economic class will be limited. Fourth, and most importantly, you are scored, not on how you did that game, but how you did, compared to all your other games. The handicap rule makes it so that you are playing based on your average score.

However interesting this is, it is not the most important thing about this observation. For me, the way this observation has been gleaned is the important thing. This is something I like to call “But Why?” analysis. The answer is found by asking the question “But Why?”

Golf is a great sport for executive networking. But why? There are multiple answers. For each answer, you ask the question “but why?” until you cannot. In this way, you reach the most fundamental rules of the workings of the world.

The best example of this analysis, again pointed out by instructor Navin Kabra, was in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. In it, Diamond attempts to find the reasons of European colonialism. European countries had the most colonies. But why? Because there was a European presence in a lot of different countries. But why? Because they went to more countries for trading. But why? Because they had better ships. But why? And so on. Diamond came to the conclusion that the shape of the continent contributed to the rise of colonialism there. The reason for that is very complicated, so I will not go into it. What I want to discuss is how vital this is in children.

No school is teaching this kind of analysis. They simply give the children books, and tell them that the book holds the truth. Instead, this kind of questioning should be taught in schools. They should be taught, not who discovered the Gene, and what the formula for finding the area of a cylinder is, but to ask the correct questions.

Students my age simply do not ask questions for fear of being wrong. They would rather not learn than make a mistake. They need to be taught that mistakes are okay. The only way this happens is by not punishing mistakes.

But if you can’t punish mistakes, what do you punish? What do you test your students on?

Test the students on what they do with information given to them. Teach them to find their own information. Test the students on how they use the information they get by having them write pieces about their own opinions. Do not check whether or not the opinion is correct, but whether it is clear, and uses all the information at their disposal. If you punish mistakes, the children would rather not learn than make the mistakes, and that is absolutely unacceptable. But Why? Analysis is a perfect method of learning. This can be tested by seeing how deep a student has gone.

Rather than seeing what a student knows, test what they do with the things they know. That is what the world does, and is that not what schools are? Aren’t schools a place where children are taught about the real world?

Last year, I took my tenth standard ICSE Board Examinations. I did fine, but my ninth and tenth grade were the two most stressful years of my life. This isn’t because of the pressure of school life (which is a whole other story altogether), or any pressure put on me by my parents. My parents were supportive of me throughout, and had no set expectations, as the parents of most of my peers did. The cause of the stress was the ICSE curriculum itself.

After my tenth, I switched boards. I began studying in the IB course. IB stands for International Baccalaureate. This was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, and I’m really enjoying studying with the IB.

The difference between the IB and other Indian Boards is that IB does not place its focus on content that can be learnt by rote. The students are tested on their ability to apply the knowledge they have gained to the real world, and analyse problems to provide meaningful solutions. The IB focuses on analysis and application rather than memorizing and regurgitating. So, what are the skills that an IB student gains, that a student studying in other 11th grade boards misses out on?

First off, the IB prepares the student for the world. I know that sounds like an exaggerated, over-optimistic marketing ploy, but I’m not being paid by the IB. In fact, I’m paying the IB.

Look, I don’t know what the world is like. I’m seventeen years old. But I can say that I have a vague understanding, and that is all thanks to the IB. Indian Boards don’t do any of that.

The IB taught me that there are sources of information out there that you simply cannot trust. The IB taught me how to differentiate from a source that is credible and a source that is contentious. This becomes all the important in today’s times of multiple secondary sources of information.

The IB taught me to learn who and what to trust. That skill is not learnt from the other boards. They simply give you the information, telling you not to question where the information came from. They prescribed me books, saying that these are the only credible sources of information, whereas in the IB, I have the freedom to pick and choose where my information comes from, because the information is not the important thing in this curriculum. It’s how I use the information, and what I understand from it that counts.

The prescription of textbooks limits the understanding of a student, and the freedom to choose the information opens them up to a variety of opinions from around the world, and isn’t that the preparation you need in the real world?

An important aspect of IB that teaches its students to verify all information is the Theory of Knowledge programme. The entire point of that programme is to get to the roots of knowledge and question the sources. As far as I know, none of the Indian boards have a similar programme.

The IB also demands that you look at differing opinions of a single aspect of the subject. Taking the example of History, the IB papers do not give you marks unless you explore multiple perspectives. If you simply write the answer from one perspective, you get a much lower score. This sensitizes students to all kinds of perspectives. With other boards, there is only one perspective. Bhagat Singh was a hero. Hitler was a monster. With the IB, you get to see perspectives that say that Bhagat Singh was a radical terrorist who blew up a building and killed multiple police officers. You get to notice that Hitler was not a mentally unhinged maniac, but an even-minded, genius military general, who had his own beliefs and acted upon them, as any self-respecting human being would do. It’s not that I agree with these statements, my opinions do not come into the picture at all. The point here is that the IB, by presenting all the options to the students, gives them the opportunity to know the facts before making a decision.

Most importantly, it also teaches students that it is okay to have differing opinions. It teaches students how the behave when met with a differing opinion. With a non-IB background, there is only one narrative, and looking at other perspectives makes you not only wrong, but an enemy of a country.

This, to me, is the most important part. The assurance that all opinions are valid, and that more important than having an opinion is having the facts, and then creating an opinion for yourself. A way to cultivate your own opinion is to learn what sources are the most credible. With curriculums that feed students one narrative without focusing on others, we are exposing ourselves to government actions the likes of which have been documented in stories such as George Orwell’s 1984, where the government controls the history, and the people have been brainwashed.