Value Oriented Education

There is a profound Indian view about teaching which declares that the first principle of teaching is that nothing can be taught. This paradoxical statement may seem at first sight incomprehensible. But when we look closely into it, we find that it contains a significant guideline regarding the methodology of teaching. It does not prohibit teaching, since it is stated to be the first principle of teaching. It does, however, suggest that the methods of teaching should be such that the learner is enabled to discover by means by his own growth and development all that is intended to be learnt. It points out, in other words, that the role of the teacher should be more of a helper and a guide rather than that of an instructor. This would also mean that the teacher should not impose his views on the learner, but he should evoke within the learner the aspiration to learn and to find -out the truth by his own free exercise of faculties.

The truth behind this role of the teacher is brought out by the contention that nothing can be taught to the mind which is not already concealed as potential knowledge in the inmost being of the learner. One is reminded of the Socratic view that knowledge is innate in our being but it is hidden. Socrates demonstrates in the Platonic dialogue, ‘Meno’, how a good teacher can, without teaching, but by asking suitable questions, bring out to the surface the true knowledge which is already unconsciously present in the learner. As we know, Socrates and Plato distinguished between opinions, on the one hand, and knowledge, on the other. They point out that whereas opinions can be formed on the basis of questionable sense-experiences, knowledge which consists of pure ideas is independent of sense-experience and can be gained by some kind of experience which is akin to remembrance. In other words, according to Socrates and Plato, knowledge is”remembered” by a process of uncovering.

» Read more: Value Oriented Education

Related posts

Does monetary policy have asymmetric effects on stock returns

IT HAS BEEN OF GREAT interest to both macroeconomists and financial economists of whether monetary policy affects stock returns. A number of studies have empirically investigated the effects of monetary policy on stock returns. Using money aggregate data as a measure of money supply, some empirical studies agree that stock returns lag behind changes in monetary policy; for instance, see Keran (1971), Homa and Jaffee (1971), and Hamburner and Kochin (1972). In contrast, Cooper (1974), Pesando (1974), Rozeff (1974), and Rogalski and Vinso (1977) show that there is no significant forecasting power of past changes in money. Ever since the seminal paper by Bernanke and Blinder (1992), the Federal funds rate has been the most widely used measure of monetary policy. As such, the relationship between monetary policy and stock returns has been reexamined by using the interest rate instrument in the financial literature. Thorbecke (1997) and Patelis (1997) demonstrate that shifts in monetary policy help to explain U.S. stock returns. Conover, Jensen, and Johnson (1999) show that foreign stock returns generally react both to local and U.S. monetary policy.

Two important contributions to the literature on the effects of monetary policy on the stock market have been made. The first one emphasizes the roles of financial markets’ expectations about the future course of monetary policy. Bernanke and Kuttner (2003) extract unanticipated monetary policy from Federal funds futures and find that monetary policy surprises appear to have a significant effect on equity prices through changes in the equity premium. The second focus is on the prospect of endogeneity. Rigobon and Sack (2003) show that the causality between interest rates and stock prices may run in both directions. After accounting for this endogeneity, they find a significant monetary policy response to the stock market.

» Read more: Does monetary policy have asymmetric effects on stock returns

Related posts

The real effects of monetary policy in the European Union: what are the differences?

The advent of European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) scheduled for the beginning of 1999 has sparked off a debate about the best way of conducting monetary policy in the euro area. One dimension of this discussion concerns the preferred framework for conducting monetary policy-that is, about whether the European Central Bank (ECB) ought to target inflation, monetary aggregates, or the exchange rate. A second is about differences in the effects of changes in monetary policy on activity in different EU countries, related to differences in the transmission mechanism.

Opinions have tended to be divided on the question of the preferred monetary policy framework for the euro area, although recently, there appears to be a consensus emerging in favor of informal inflation targeting, accompanied by monitoring of monetary aggregates and other indicators. In any event, policy discussions have in general tended to focus less on questions relating to the real effects of monetary policy in the EU than on the issue of the appropriate framework for conducting monetary policy in the euro area. This may be partly due to the fact that many of the issues pertaining to identification of the monetary transmission mechanism tend to be econometric rather than economic. Nevertheless, a proper understanding of possible differences in the effects of changes in monetary policy on activity among the EU countries is crucial for an appreciation of the difficulties that may arise from the implementation of a unified monetary policy throughout the euro area. And this issue is the main focus of the paper.

» Read more: The real effects of monetary policy in the European Union: what are the differences?

Related posts