Development Fail 2

If the previous post were a movie synopsis, this must be the sequel. Someone pointed out to me that I'd probably fail at least one of the possible tests that could legitimately be set for me under the guidelines suggested at the end of that post.

Honestly, that's true. I'd probably fail a programming test in a modern computer language simply because I'm horrendously out of practice. If I were allowed to do it in pseudocode or using flowcharts, I'd probably pass. For chemistry, I confess my inadequacies in areas outside transition-metal, organic, and analytical chemistry. If I were confronted with some phase equilibrium physical chemistry practical test, I might not make it either.

For history, it's a toss-up. If the test required specific knowledge, then I would probably fail, since I don't think my knowledge base covers enough history to give me a fighting chance. On the other hand, I could probably pass a test with sources provided or which was open-book. Economics or literature would be the same, sole difference being that you can reason your way out of economic problems, while you might still be stuck with a specific literary conundrum.

I am quite confident I'd pass a Theory of Knowledge test or any other test not requiring specific factual knowledge. But I must say that this is because I have spent so much time developing professional authority by conscientiously lecturing, teaching, and tutoring students; analysing and evaluating their work; thinking through issues with them.

In fact, I suspect a lot of my supposedly self-directed learning required the stimulus that only dealing with good students (active, creative, startling, interesting) can provide. Good students need not have a lot of academic fervour or a huge knowledge base. But they must think about stuff and do stuff and be happy and enthusiastic about what they think and do.

And so, I am very very grateful to them; without them, I would be suffering from development fail too.