If teaching, learning and subject material are not evaluated it will be harmful for the teacher, the taught and the society as a whole.

We need to confess that our methods of evaluation have not been ideal whether it is examinations or practical, and yet we tend to measure the level of education of a student by the marks or grades he or she obtains. We claim as educationists that school and home are both institutions of education but our final result never reflect the students' performance at home. There are no such methods of evaluation except that home work and assignment that do not really reflect the progress of student, at home instead it reflects degree of isolation from home for the sake of institution.

Like fundamentalism and fanatic atmosphere in religion, education also suffers from that we may call educational fundamentalism.

For example a student must study Chemistry, even if he or she does not find it interesting and when he or she gets bad results, we tend to evaluate him or her as a dull or weak student even though he or she might have obtained good marks in Physics. It is like saying that Sir Don Bradman is a very good cricketer but he is not a very good player of boxing. If we train a sportsperson only in one game why should we impose so many subjects (or games) on him or her, perhaps to make him or her dependent on those who become great in some respect.

It may bring a burning argument that subjects are related with each other. Yes, they are related with each other and another rather they are more isolated from one another if the learner is not given a choice to select subjects according to his or her educational needs. The system can produce common and balanced people not the great, genius and wise because they are not really balanced in this context.

A great mathematician may know nothing about Chemistry, so he or she is not a balanced and yet he or she is a great personality on the above grounds.