Streams available around us are plethoric so students at this contemporary world are interested in choosing any of those streams during there collage. Before entering the collage students should know answers from some following basic questions. the questions are
what the stream is about?
Do they like the subjects?
Does this stream can offer the job they are dreaming about?
Nation should teach basics of all the streams before entering their collage. But it cannot do for all the streams that are available because there are plenty of streams available to study. So the nation's higher educational curriculum should be pliable and should have plenty of options which should provide them basics for their further studies so that students will not be in a situation where they feel that they have't entered a stream they thought.
What good does it do to have all of a nation on one level when that level may not be up to par to compete on a global standard? The lowest literacy rate of a country can also be the highest failure. What this hypothetical nation needs to do IS standardize curriculum but it needs to hold its standards to the curriculum of the worlds top scoring nations instead of standardizing by different states, regions, or colonies.
I would like to take a moment to thank the challenger for beginning a very pertinent debate.
In a big nation like India we cannot expect every state with equal development. As development varies literacy also varies. We cannot expect much efficient schools in places like Bihar, Orissa, and etc where in places like Tamil Nadu we have plenty of schools, even now a days government schools are competing with the private schools and convent schools in all aspects. In this situation how can we expect schools from under developed states to compete with schools in developing states if same curriculum is followed all over the nation?. students will feel that the subjects are obfuscating and they abhor the subjects in small schools.
so i conclude that a crew should be framed in a nation with a representative for all teachers from each states and should review the levels of schools, students, teachers and opportunities given in each school and then a curriculum should be framed so that the students are tractable with the subjects, schools and teachers.
All very good points but, if the above stated developing countries used the money from the non necessities, they would be more likely to come up closer to an international standard of education. We can expect schools from under developed states to compete with average schools because in all reality they will be doing so in their post-educational lives. We can expect them to do so because that is the point of this debate, a national standard.
There are some underdeveloped nations where they are still in enigma to spend their money on their basic needs. In this situation how can we expect them to wax their money on education? In these conditions nation can not leave people as such with no knowledge in education. Only solution is developed countries can rise funds on those small countries. But this cannot happen pragmatically in all countries. So as of now these underdeveloped countries should examine their capacity and can just frame a curriculum till they strengthen their basic needs.
It all comes down to simply this. Education can still be taught equally without all the newest technology just as it was before the technology existed. For instance, how would a student from a "third world country" know three languages when an American student with all the technology can barely speak one? No one ever set in stone that technology is the only way to learn therefore while a standardized education may seem impossible, it is not. It is very possible to learn the same curriculum across a nation, even if it has to be taught with different tools.