When I first stumbled across a post about learning English, I was truly pleased with the possibility that I would finally be able to acquire useful information on the language learning methodology. The author of the post expounded how he had studied English for the first two years in high school in the United States. Very impressive! He emphasized the importance of rigid discipline and painful rote-memorization that many other language instructors and learners would not agree with. To be honest, I furrowed my brow when he went on with the perspective and exclaimed "Suck it up! You soft shack of shit".
Having said that, I did not have any negative opinions of him in general until I continued to read through all his threads below the post, where he spoke against other readers' comments. Preposterous! I was disappointed in him. He may have tried to sound logical to debate against them, but to my eyes, using my reasoning, it did not work that way, and the worst of all he committed was an ad hominem attack. Before encountering his illogical and absurd threads, I believe I would have had a fairly good opinion of him, because he achieved native-like fluency and accuracy with massive efforts. Some have pointed out that, perhaps because of no proper training on critical thinking growing up, he must have difficulty sorting through foregoing issues and effectively refuting arguments.
I would go so far as to say that they are right about him in general. From the heated debate, if I may quote one of the commenter's, "I have noticed that high scoring by learning with rote masquerades as critical thinking when examination is a benchmark." It applies to his case. He insisted on an over-hyped importance of rote-memorization. However, it is worthwhile to note that he is currently a lawyer by profession in the United States, which requires logical thinking skills as well as oral fluency. Provided that the he might have improved a lot on his critical thinking and debate skills since the posts from five years ago, his achievement of a quality occupation makes sense. He is obviously not a slacker nor an unintelligent person, but a persistent hard-worker like any other Asians, being good enough to succeed at such an occupation. He must have put as much, if not a lot more, effort into passing a bar examination to be qualified for practicing law.
The epitome of success in the eyes of Korean culture, where hard work and accomplishment are not always equal to meaning or reasoning; his example, which I did not expect to come across, solidified my firm dedication to achieving excellent critical thinking, debate, and problem solving skills. My self-training for those skills is currently in the pipeline and there is till a long way to go, but it is definitely happening, albeit at glacial speed. SpeakingAddressing from my experience, many Korean students learn and study for the most part for the sake of tests, not for truly honing skills which could be applicable somewhere down the road. I dare say that there is a valid correlation - although there are a great number of other factors too - between the lack of those skills and the fact that we have not received a single Fields Medal - a prize awarded to mathematicians below 40 who have developed a brilliant theorem - despite the fact considering that every year promising Korean high-schoolers rock International Mathematical or Physical Olympiads. As you know, many Westerners have a tendency to perceive Koreans as having the edge over them in Maths. (I hate this comment personally.)
Even a Vietnamese mathematician whose country is barren of any mathematical foundation has had the honor of receiving had the honor to receive a Fields Medal. Of course, I have no intention of disparaging to disparage the fact that no single scholar has ever received any kind of major prizes; Fields Medal, Nobel Prizes, and so on. I admire many Korean scholars and professors who are working diligently, sacrificing their personal time and even their health. However, in general, many who were promising and brilliant students back in high school later end up being ordinary people because of their lack of essential skills, which are required when confronted with an unusual task.
It would be a bit off-topic, but we can readily observe a phenomena from the English field. I should admit that it is somewhat different to that of Maths and Science, because most Koreans have low expectations and confidence in English. What is far, far, far worse is that English is considered awfully boring and even a giant hurdle in the way of for hisa prospective life. The majority of Koreans assume they are terrible underdogs in English learning, not to mention the more impressive achievement of Itaewon-level fluency. (Itaewon is a unique multicultural district of Seoul where the US Armed Forces establishment once existed. Some residents and businessmen therefore managed to achieve a certain level of fluency, being able to have a small talk with soldiers in English.)
Then from the Westerners' point of view, which appreciates practicality and efficiency, "What the hell do Koreans study English for? Are they some sort of idiots embedded with zombie mindsets?"
No-brainer! We know the answers, there actually are many. One of them is that English skills or the mere scores of English tests function as the indication of how well they can work, and even how good they are in nature. Again, preposterous! In the 90's when there were very few fluent - if not mediocre-level relative to today's Koreans - English speakers in Korea, they were like God. A degree from the US top university worked as a radiant free pass ticket for professorship at any Korean university. Furthermore, a person who scored over 900 in that period could pick and choose where to work at. However, the baseless unconditional favor is tapering off because people have learned from hands-on experience that their prejudice is wrong, and hilariously the lucky generation knows what they are.
Of all other reasons for studying English, the one I want to put forward is that many Koreans do not have their own solid philosophy, or in a plain term, an understanding of what they truly want in their life. They have been raised to resemble a very standard form considered to be the exemplar of satisfying life, instead of thinking about themselves using the aforementioned essential skills; studying hard and achieving perfect scores, entering into medical school (or, if their scores are not high enough at the college entrance exam, the top 3 departments are: mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, and electrical engineering), getting married, and buying a decent house as well as a luxurious car. They just follow what others do without their own thoughts.
I am not saying the fact route they are willing to walk is something bad. If that is what they want after in-depth consideration, it is definitely fine. My long-term life plan also for many parts (for the most part)in many ways overlaps with it. If they are really determined to live a satisfying life - not live a lie- they would find a way to make it happen whatsoever. If a job they are looking forward to requires a minimum score in an English proficiency test, they would go for it. However, there are still a lot of jobs that do not need scores in any sort of examination; in that case, it would be much easier. They are free from the treat of dreadful English devils. They can pour all their energy into something they truly adore.
Nevertheless, I cannot confidently say that I know what I want in my life. I have recently learned a priceless lesson: that my life deserves more than following through a standard model set up by others. To raise the chance, three skills - critical thinking, debate, and problem solving skills - are the key to living in this dynamic, fluctuating, unpredictable, complex world.