First of all, the author is not sniping at some book friends!

In the previous chapters, some book friends put forward different views on my educational philosophy, arguing that educational resources themselves cannot be equal, after all, ordinary people can't learn too advanced knowledge, and it is a waste of educational resources to let professors teach ordinary students.

The above view is indeed an objective and practical thing, and from the perspective of resource utilization, this is not wrong, after all, the country needs a large number of high-end talents to build and rejuvenate.

However, the perspective of this part of the book is different from mine, they do not look at the problem from the perspective of students, but from the perspective of official and social critics, and the two perspectives will of course be different.

To be honest, most of the readers who read my book are students, and there are very few people who come from society and have workers.

But there is no one who has never been a student, so the author would like to ask you:

When you are studying in school, do you want to be treated the same as a genius, or do you want teachers to give good resources to geniuses to maximize the utilization of resources, and ignore you as an ordinary student?

Anyway, if you give you all the good things, you won't be able to get into a good university, so why not sacrifice yourself for others and dedicate all the good things to geniuses to let them build the motherland?

If anyone holds this view, then I can only seriously criticize you for being willing to degenerate!

Even you, as a student, admit that you should be inferior to a genius, so why worry about the lack of class differentiation in the country? In the future, geniuses will be in charge of all major national affairs, so what do ordinary people do?

Do it cumbersome? Waste? Born to be a foil to geniuses, right?

If this idea becomes mainstream in society, I dare not imagine the future outcome......

Maybe my rhetoric is a bit excessive, but the truth is still this truth, absolute elite education is absolutely not good!

This principle is also common in ancient times, for example, in the last years of the dynasty, the common people were poor and had no food to eat, and the people of the world were not able to make a living, but the emperor still had to collect taxes, because he wanted money to resist the invasion of foreign enemies, to quell the peasant uprising, and to maintain the stability of the country.

Is there something wrong with the emperor's approach?

From the perspective of court officials and the royal family, of course he has no problem, he is still very righteous, he is fighting for the peace of the world!

Didn't the emperor know that the common people were not living well, but could he not collect taxes?

From the perspective of the emperor and officials, what is the matter with the people being a little more bitter? I have done what is right, and what right do the people have against me? What qualifications do people have for not paying taxes?

Why did the people revolt in the peasants? There is a poem that says it well:

"Don't be an An'an starvation, follow the praying mantis!"

Why didn't the common people think about the imperial court? Why can't they starve to death with peace of mind, but want the peasants to revolt and kill officials and rebel?

The author of this poem obviously did not see himself as a common man, because he was an official, and from the perspective of an official, of course the common people could not rebel.

Anyway, the common people are of little use to national affairs, so why should I use the money from the imperial court to fight the war for disaster relief? Isn't it good to starve to death on the spot!

In short, this official did not put his perspective on the common people, and some book friends did not put their own perspective on students, but the difference is that most of the book friends are not social workers, they are students themselves.

However, the students put themselves in the shoes of social critics, pointing out the country, exalting the text, criticizing the teacher for why he treats students equally, and why he does not give up his or her own self as an ordinary student......

Anyway, it's quite confusing.

As a teacher, although I have to admit that geniuses have different innate qualifications from ordinary people, I have always equated my perspective with my students and thought about them.

Anyone in the world can treat students as three, six, nine, etc., but the teacher cannot, this is the teacher's morality, this is the conscience!

That's all there is to it.

……

Then there is the question of the disciples of the Bishop of Tongtian, some people say that having a religion without class does not mean that everyone is treated equally.

Regardless of this, let's first bring the Tongtian Sect Master into the current teacher:

If the Tongtian Sect Master is a tutor in an interest class, he promises to teach without class, and only charges a very low price, and he can admit students into the class.

Is this good? Of course!

However, he only taught the best qualified students for all-round development, teaching both morality and knowledge, while for some students with poor qualifications, he only taught knowledge, not morality.

Then one day disaster struck, and some students who had only learned knowledge used the knowledge they had learned from him to build a bomb and use it to carry out a terrorist attack, killing people.

Do you think the Tongtian Sect Master has a crime problem? From a legal point of view, the Tongtian Sect Master did not commit a crime, after all, it was the student who blew up and killed someone, and he didn't blow it up.

But from a social impact perspective, does he have a problem?

Yes, and the impact will be significant!

If he didn't teach those bad students, those bad students would have stabbed one or two people to death with a knife, but he taught those bad students knowledge, but he didn't use morality to educate them to be good, and the bad students used his knowledge to make bombs and kill more people.

Morally, he must be guilty of himself!

And this incident will also cause no one to dare to apply for his interest class, because everyone will say:

This is the teacher who taught the bomb murderer, so don't report to his class!

If you are a parent, under this reputation, do you dare to give your children to him?

After a long time, the Tongtian Sect Master couldn't accept students, and his original students either graduated and found jobs, or they were all sentenced to prison......

This is the reason why the sect in my understanding declined after being canonized as a god, because the apprentices were either taken away by the West (looking for a job), or died (death penalty), or they were put on the god list (serving a prison sentence), and the rest were two or three big cats and kittens.

After that, his reputation was too bad, and he couldn't accept apprentices, and the good students all went to expound and teach and teach in the West, and the bad students didn't dare to worship him as a teacher after seeing what happened to their predecessors.

After coming and going, won't the sect decay......

……