Discerning UN: Waste of time?

So, it's almost April again. That means it's the time of the year when students are busily preparing for their national examination. I'm writing particularly for Indonesian students, such as myself. Indonesia has a centralized examination system, where students are obliged to take a SAT-like examination, as the main measurement of their 12-year-education. Its difference from SAT is, while SAT is only taken for Americans who want to continue to university, UN (Ujian Nasional) has to be taken by every student. Those who don't - or God forbid, fail - are already dropping out of their social standings.

Source: gurusragi.blogspot.com

The previous year's UN (2013) has been steadily gaining critics and mockeries, especially from its implementation and internal affairs. From what I've gathered, there were so much at fault during the distribution of the materials, resulting in postponed dates of tests. Furthermore, a lot of the budget prepared especially for UN has been untraceable, prompting suspicion of graft. It doesn't help that the country is still in the process of getting rid of corrupt politicians, getting more desperate as the days past. Indonesian active users in the Net have obviously taken notice of this matter. As you can probably see if you type in related keywords in your search engine, many have something to say.

I have something to say too. I spent 5 years of my education (Junior High 'till the second year of Senior High) in an international curriculum. I am now finishing the third and last year of Senior High in a regular or national curriculum. I can see the differences as clear as the day and night. This is a piece of my thought.

The international curriculum here applies to the Australian curriculum, which in my opinion is able to act as the representative for Western education system. This is what I know of the process: learn something new, then apply, learn again, then apply. It goes on. I took 6 subjects during the time, which are English Speaking and Listening; English Reading and Writing; Business; Mathematics (Basic and Advanced); Computing; and Science. There are not many theories since applications are what's important.

On the other hand, the national curriculum is probably 80% theory and 20% application. Perhaps, the application is even less than 20%. Since UN (a written test) is hanging like a death sentence over like 3 years of education, teachers are pressured to teach according to the materials dictated in the UN, including the exact questions which are probable to be included in the test. This, of course, prompts this kind of thinking: "I don't need to learn deeper because it is not included in UN."

I've always been a rebellious kind, like to do things on my own terms. That itself can either be a good and a bad trait. However, I found that I surprisingly excelled at the international curriculum materials. I was learning things bit by bit, but I was free to explore everything I learned to the bottom. There were oral presentations which have really brought out my confidence in public speaking. Better yet, a lot of writing assignments - no problem at all for a literature fan like me. It doesn't help that the courses were conducted in English. I really felt like I had this connection so that I was eager to learn everything no matter how difficult they were - just because they were in English.

Nearing the end of the 5-year-tenure, I didn't know how good I had it all because I started to complain about how lacking in theoretical science the international curriculum is. Especially because I had an ambition to enter a medical course. Thus, when there was a choice to add one year of national curriculum to my education, I eagerly took it.

Thus, that's the story of how I woke up to a bitter reality - that the international curriculum is a bit behind in terms of exact sciences and theoretical calculations. I had to catch up with my peers. That was not a pleasant experience.

Tricky... Go left for a diploma or go right for knowledge. Source: kusdiyono.wordpress.com

From what I can see, there are two sides. The good thing about UN is that you know so much about one subject. The downside is you don't know where or when that knowledge applies. In most cases, they just end up being forgotten after the UN chaos is over. So, whether UN is a waste of time or not, you decide yourself. As for me, I prefer to be an optimist and look for the benefits that UN has provided: increased knowledge, lots of theoretical case solving, discipline, and standardized measurement system, for examples. And, using the attitude that I learned in the international curriculum to counteract all the drawbacks: resourcefulness, research skills, oral presentation skills, or even assertiveness!