Feel free to laugh while I argue with myself.

The while back my Social Studies teacher said something interesting. We had a big assignment coming up, and it was supposed to be quite difficult.  He went through the assignment and gave a few pointers as to what to do just as any other teacher would.  Then he said, "you need to tie all three sources together with an overarching theme.  There is something special you are supposed to point out, but I'm not going to tell you.  You have to figure that out by yourself". 

Okay there are two ways this argument goes. 

It may be a good thing that he makes it difficult to tell what the trick to the assignment is.  It makes us learn our mistakes and how to avoid them later.  Toughens our minds, and makes us think critically.  Preparing us for the upcoming courses in post secondary, or wherever else we may need critical thinking skills. 

On the flip side, this a 30 level course, the course level that matters the most in high school.  Our mark in this course will determine how easy it will be to get into university.  How can you leave us to suffer on such an important assignment?  For such an important course, it is too late to make us struggle and learn the answer that way.  That method of learning for either formative or summative assignments should have been used in the previous two grades of high school.  You can't just make a big risk factor and potentially have most of the class fail when it matters! 
Then again, would that not be survival of the fittest?  Wouldn't society improve because of the smartest minds coming out on top? 
But if the smartest minds that come out of the system are small in number, then what system is there to lead or improve? Wouldn't it be better if a larger number if people came out as the "smarter minds"?  Then everyone can push each other more in every aspect of life. 
Auurrgh I need to stop.  I'm just rambling now haha. 

You know you need to go to bed when you start writing like a schizophrenic...