Are you finished yet?

Should AP teachers continue teaching after the exam?  Rather than one of rules or practicality, the answer is one of principle.

Teachers who say yes:
Why should AP classes stop when others continue?  They are not smaller commitments.  Learning should not end just because the test is over, because learning is a lifelong endeavor.  Ending lessons after the AP would mean that the entire purpose of the class was to pass a test, not to gain knowledge for personal satisfaction and later use.  Of course, the test is important, but only as a measure and proof of mastery, not as a capstone to intellectual accomplishment.  As long as classes meet, it would be a waste of time and opportunity not to continue learning.  This point of view embraces both individualist and collectivist ideals; it values productivity and using time efficiently, but it also stresses learning for its own sake and moving beyond the "end result" to lessons learned.

Teachers who say no:
AP classes are wonderful opportunities to delve more deeply into chosen subjects and to experience college level curricula, culminating in a college level exam.  Through these rigorous courses, students must exert substantial effort to meet demanding expectations; after all their hard work, they deserve to relax when their task has been accomplished.  This does not mean that any further exploration is pointless, just that the curricula has been mastered and the goal reached.  Further exploration should be student motivated, not externally forced by virtue of the student being in the building.  The argument for learning as a lifelong endeavor is valid, but if practiced earnestly would require unending school, and fails to recognize that learning comes in many forms, and rigid academic dictation to an audience whose mind is already out the door holds no benefits.  This view also embodies both individualist and collectivist ideals; it stresses the result as the expressed purpose of the class, but it allows relaxation and enjoyment, and also recognizes that continuous work is neither the only way, nor always the best one.

How can one behavior be both individualist and collectivist?  How can two opposing views be supported by the same philosophy?  Individualism and collectivism are both perspectives on life, each containing a variety of principles which are not at the heart of the worldview, and so do not all need to be embraced in order for the person or culture to follow the philosophy.  Principles are the reason, but people can apply them to their lives in different and sometimes opposite ways, making the same argument support both practices.  If I were a teacher, I would want my students to leave with an understanding of the subject but also with a desire to learn more about it.  Trying to cram as much "extra" information into their brains as possible just breeds resentment.  Instead, I would show movies that relate to the topic, allowing the students to relax but also showing them some of the fascinating ways that the subject can function in the real world.