I don't quite agree with CK Lal ('How about those who didn't pass?', #252) that we overdo the garlanding and vermilion. In fact, I think we don't recognise the achievements enough. Lal's distaste of recognising people stems from the fact that we don't do anything for those who did not achieve the same feat as those who did. While I understand his concerns for those who did not succeed, it does not justify giving less or no recognition to those who did. I don't think the examiners failed a majority of the students just for the heck of it. There has to be a certain standard everyone must meet in order to pass. I am not saying that the present standard is good. If the students do not meet certain expectations, then I don't think there is anything morally wrong in 'failing' those students. Let's face it: passing and failing are facts of life, it starts from the day you are born until you die. Lal has proposed an alternate system but I don't see how it would favour the 'unsuccessful' ones. In this competitive era, over time, I don't see how 'need to improve' in maths would be any different from 'failed' in maths. I am not sure if such semantics will make any difference in the long-term. Rehabilitating 'SLC-failed' school dropouts is indeed much more challenging. As Lal says, SLC-failed does not mean that they are incapable of doing anything in life. Rather, we need to set a standard that is competitive with the standards of neighbouring countries like India. We may need to focus more on vocational training so students get skills that they can cash in in the marketplace.

Name withheld,
email