Quality Control.

Companies practise quality control. Why don't schools do that? Or do they? They use meritocracy as a system to control. But it's that the correct system they should use? They pick students based on results. Maybe that produce students who can only produce nothing but quality academic results (which every school wants). But do they hire lecturers using the same system as well? I am wondering if all the huge amount of school fees have went into the pocket of these lecturers who have excellent results but can't teach. Good grades = CAN teach??? I seriously doubt so. They know their work and have the knowledge but they can't impart their knowledge effectively. So? We are throwing money for a lousy service? Teachers are providing services and education is a service industry now. So, shouldn't we the "customers", get better quality service by having lecturers who can teach, or the bear minimum - be understood. With the strong "Jepalang" accents, we just went into a state of confusion, especially when the module is already so tough. You just tend to get real fed up during lectures and soon doze off... I think they should go into a round of more stringent interview and not (If it is) just look at their results... "OH SO MANY A!" or "Wah! SUPER PHD" and hence hire them. So superficial. At times, I really think some of the tutors who are currently undergoing master programme are better than these PHD holders, in terms of teaching. Yes, I must say they may not be as knowlegeable as the lecturers, but at least it's a service which we value. I was thinking, perhaps they could have an oral exam before the interview! That's a way of QC too... At least, spare our ears. Of course, there are excellent lecturers with excellent grades and excellent teaching skills around... but one in a hundred???