Free vs Fee: Doing the Same Work, Differently

In today's fast-paced digital world, having the right tools (paid or free) can make all the difference. However, it does not always have to come with hefty price tag, especially for those of us who lack access to premium features or the resources to afford them. While paid software often promises premium features and sleek interfaces, free (open source) tools offer comparable functionality, thereby enabling users like researchers and students alike to work seamlessly. 

A Common Misconception?  

There is a growing misconception among our budding researchers that only paid tools are valid or reliable, which I beleive is simply not true. 

For example, a friend of mine recently asked me about SPSS, a paid data analysis tool that is popularly used in research. I explained to him that the version I have could no longer be used because its license had expired. I told him further that, these days, I rather prefer using Microsoft Excel or R, which are free tools that can perform the same tasks in different, yet effective ways. 

However, he insisted that everyone at the research workshop he recently attended was excited to use SPSS, which their facilitator touted as having superior analytical abilities. While I agreed with the advancement of the software, I pointed out that there are some free tools that can perform the same tasks. I also emphasised that paid tools are not necessary, especially when they are hard to access due to our location and payment system (paid in foreign currency for subscription).  

Despite this, he remained adamant, reinforcing the misleading belief that paid tools are inherently superior and reliable. The misconception was further visible when he said that we need to mention the version of tools or software used for data analysis in our manuscript. This trend is becoming increasingly common in our growing research community, where many believe that it is crucial to specify the name or version of software in their work. I have recently encountered this with several manuscripts of college students referred to me by their Supervisors. 

In a quest to highlight the version of paid software we use – something that is of no real interest to the reviewers – we often forget the true purpose of data analysis: interpreting what the data reveals based on our research and not the software (paid or free) or its capabilities. 

Comparing Free and Paid Tools 

Now going back to the free and paid softwares, while paid versions usually excel with enhanced features they provide, each has its own benefits and cater to different user needs.  

For example, free software or tools are accessible to everyone, making them a cost-effective choice, especially for those like me, who cannot afford paid versions. These free tools offer basic features that cover essential functions, often capable of performing tasks similar to the advanced features found in paid versions. 

From my experience of using Zotero - a free citation management tool - I have also noticed a large, active community of users who offer support through forums and online resources. This network of users also contribute by providing updates, fixing bugs, and sharing code or links when the free tools seemed to be defunct. These regular updates ensure that the tool stays current with the latest advancements. The other merit of using free software is that they are often compatible across different operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac, and Linux). 

On the other hand, paid (or premium) software and tools require payment because they offer enhanced features with advanced capabilities, customisation options, and additional tools to improve efficiency and quality. Premium options generally have fewer bugs, better optimisation, and superior performance. Unlike free versions, paid services often include dedicated customer support, ensuring quicker resolution of issues. Premium versions are typically ad-free, unlike some free tools, which may only be available through websites or online links that contain distracting ads, unwanted links, or clickbait.

Doing the Same Work, Differently 

Ultimately, the decision to choose free and paid options depends on what one is willing to sacrifice saving money versus what one is prepared to invest for better services – additional features, better quality, and enhanced support. That is, picking open-source and paid tools often depends on our specific needs, budget, accessibility, and tool’s capacity to match our needs. It is about finding the right balance between what we need and what each version offers within our financial limits. 

For me, when premium services are out of reach (due to affordability or location), what matters most is getting my work done –efficiently, affordably, and with easy access. I prefer platforms that allow me to do the same work, perhaps in a more unique way.

Paid and Free Tools Doing the Same Work Differently 

I have always emphasised the importance of exploring and sharing free alternatives, especially for those without access to paid versions. While this is not an exhaustive list, I share it to inspire a spirit of curiosity and exploration for those genuinely interested. 

	Paid	Free
Literature Search	Scopus Web of Science	PubMed,  Google Scholar,  CORE,  Semantic Scholar DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) ResearchGate
Citation Management	EndNote	Zotero,  Mendeley,  BibTeX,  CiteULike JabRef
Data Analysis	SPSS,  SAS	R,  Python,  Excel,  JASP,  Jamovi KNIME (Konstanz Information Miner),  Google Sheets
Surveys	Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey	Google Forms,  LimeSurvey (basic plan),  Typeform (free tier) SoGoSurvey (basic plan)
Writing	Microsoft Word	Google Docs,  Hemingway Editor,  LibreOffice FocusWriter,  Reedsy Book Editor
Data Visualisation	Tableau	Datawrapper, Google Data Studio Chart.js,  Matplotlib (Python library),  Plotly
Transcription and Qualitative Research	NVivo, Quirkos	Otter.ai (free tier),  Taguette Sonix (basic plan), oTranscribe
Illustrations and Figures	BioRender	BioArt by NIH,  Canva (free version),  Inkscape GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program),  Krita
Image Editing	Adobe Photoshop	GIMP
Communication	Microsoft Teams,  Slake	Zoom  Skype  WhatsApp  WeChat  Telegram
Cloud Storage	Microsoft OneDrive	Google Drive (limited storage) Dropbox (limited storage)
Project Management	Monday.com  Jira	Trello Asana (basic features)

Filtering or Fostering? Rethinking Quality of Education in Bhutan

The Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD) has recently announcedthat they are going to reinstate cut-off point for Year 10 students which the previous government has removed. 

The cut-off point regulated by the Bhutan Council for School Examination and Assessment (BCSEA), now under the MoESD determines students' eligibility to transition from Year 10 to Year 11 after appearing the Bhutan Certificate of Secondary Education (BCSE). Students who meet this cut-off threshold (percentage) continue in public schools, while others opt for private schools, Vocational Education Training (VET) institutes, or become high school dropouts.

The reinstatement of such policy presents both benefits and challenges to Bhutan’s emerging education system, considering the inconsistent changes introduced by different political governments after every 5 years. Having worked as a teacher under the education ministry for over a decade, I possess both lived experiences and implications of abrupt policy changes – including the ongoing debate over abolishing or reinstating cut-off points for BCSE students. 

The reinstatement of the cut-off point is a double-edged sword. While it may help maintain academic standards (or quality of education as some argue albeit without any evidence) or fare resource constraints, it may also widen educational disparities and discourage students who do not meet the threshold. Instead, the government must introduce tangible ways to enhance our education system, without letting the cut-off point become an obstacle to holistic educational growth. 

That being said, the drawbacks of common myth that having cut-off point will enhance the quality of education might outweigh the commonly perceived benefits, as it tends to overlook the diverse needs of students and does not address the deeper, underlying issues that cause inequality in education. In other words, relying on a cut-off system as a measure of quality of education can be harmful if we do not consider the broader context of educational issues and challenges.

Instead of focusing on cut-off points, the government should prioritise overhauling the education system by ensuring equitable infrastructure and creating inclusive policies that support all students. Academic success should not be measured solely by meeting a cut-off point, but by providing every student with equal opportunities, necessary tools, and fair resources to thrive. Addressing this issue will offer a better if not accurate reflection of the true quality of education. It also brings us back to the crucial task of clearly defining what Quality of Education means in our context, especially in light of the belief that cut-off points inherently enhance educational quality.  

Norm-Referenced Vs Criterion-Referenced Assessment  

I believe that the idea of cut-off point in our education system originates from the systemic emphasis we place on norm-referenced assessments (NRA) over criterion-referenced assessment (CRA). 

Our education system dominantly uses NRA (e.g., percentage-based grading systems) to categorise and rank students’ performances as compared to their peers rather than the actual level of mastering the required knowledge or skill. On the contrary, in other educationally advanced countries, they emphasise on CRA (e.g., measuring learners’ performance before their entry into the job) which is more concerned with whether a candidate has mastered specific skills or knowledge against a fixed set of criteria. 

While both forms of assessment have its own merits and drawbacks, looking at the current scenario of how education system and labour market are interlinked, CRA has still more edge than the NRA. CRA focus on learning, encourages mastery of knowledge or skills, and eventually facilitate students to understand expectations and areas needing improvement. NRA is largely useful when students are required to be ranked for college or university admission or comparing large group of student performance for research or policy decisions. 

Our strong emphasis on NRA results in cut-off points based on comparing student grades, rather than measuring the actual skills or knowledge they have acquired. In today’s world, employers value skills more than grades. Shifting the focus to CRA may better help prepare students for the job market. This shift would not only make students more employable but also ready for international opportunities.

Understanding "Quality and "Education"   

The topic of “Quality” has come under scrutiny again in the recent discussions regarding the state of education in Bhutan. It has been reportedly argued that the reinstatement of cut-off points is a measure to a decline in the quality of education. But what exactly is meant by the term “Quality of Education”?

Before debating whether the quality of education has improved or declined, we must first examine what both “quality” and “education” truly mean in our context. Without a clear and shared understanding of these terms, any judgment on the state of our education system risks being incomplete or misinformed. These terms are not universal, and their meanings can vary significantly depending on how they are defined, applied, and understood in different settings.

Only by defining what “quality” and “education” truly represent in our context can we then accurately assess the effectiveness of our education policies – such as the cut-off point system – and determine whether they really enhance or undermine from the educational experience. It is crucial to explore what these terms really mean to us as a society, and how they should be understood in the context of Bhutan’s evolving education system.

I argue this based on the following points: 

Understanding the Terms

The term “quality” is subjective, relative, and context dependent. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of what “quality” is in the context of education, it is hard to measure whether it has improved or declined. The same goes for “education”, which is interpreted in different ways – sometimes as a process, a product, or an outcome. 

Context Matters

Quality of education in Bhutan may mean different things at different stages of development or in different contexts (e.g., urban/rural, traditional/modern). For example, the quality of education in Bhutan may be judged differently than in other countries – based on our local ideas like Wholesome Education (Kuen tshang Shey Yoen) – which adopts a more holistic in approach by combining values and skills, instead of focusing solely on academic performances. 

Misconceptions in Understanding

Often, discussions around quality of education are oversimplified, by depending on superficial indicators like test scores or graduates not being able to write a proper job application. This does not reflect the full spectrum of what constitutes quality education, which includes a broad range of factors or soft skills (e.g., critical thinking, creativity, social skills) and real-world preparedness.

Dynamic Nature of Education

Education is complex because it is seen both as a process and a product. It is not just about grade in the schools but also includes the long-term development of individuals. The concept of education is always evolving – and hence it cannot be limited to a single definition or a fixed structure.

Broadening the Understanding

Education also has both abstract and tangible aspects. It includes formal systems like schools and curriculums, as well as informal ways of learning like social and hands-on experiences. Because education is always changing, it cannot be simplified into one formula, so definitions should be flexible enough to consider this fact. 

Quality of Education in Bhutan  

The term “Quality of Education” is often used loosely in Bhutan, with people from all walks of life discussing it without clearly understanding what it means. There is widespread concern about the perceived decline in education quality, but few take the time to question what “quality of education” refers to.

When debating whether the quality of education has improved or declined, the first question should be: 

· What does “quality of education” mean in Bhutanese context? 

·  Was there ever a quality of education in the past? If so, what did it look like? 

These questions often go unanswered. Instead, many argue that quality of education has declined because nowadays graduates struggle to write formal job applications or conduct miserably in the society. Others claim students today are increasingly getting into social issues like drug abuse rather than focusing on their studies.

What stands out is the lack of a firm, shared definition of “quality of education” in the Bhutanese context. It is difficult to judge whether education has improved or declined without first clearly defining what “quality"” means. 

“Quality” and “education” are separate concepts and combining them requires a unified understanding and an agreed method of measurement. Without this, any argument about the state of education becomes misleading. 

Quality of education is not just about academic scores. It should be holistic, inclusive, and relevant to the country’s economic and social needs. That's why, in Bhutan, it is often linked to providing wholesome education – emphasising not only reading, writing, and comprehension but also the all-round development of individuals. Academic excellence matters, so do technical and vocational skills.

The talk of quality of education gained attention at the first Annual Education Conference in 1997 and perhaps, remain unaddressed until now. Bhutan still lacks a concrete definition or conceptual framework for quality education.

The 8th Annual Education Conference (2004) however, identified five strategies to ensure quality of education:

1.    Quality infrastructure and facilities

2.    Quality curriculum 

3.    More instructional time 

4.    Enhancing wholesome education 

5.    Quality teachers

Identifying strategies to ensure quality education is one thing, but determining whether we have really achieved it is another. It is still debatable if all schools across the nation have the same quality infrastructure, adequate motivated teachers, and equitable learning opportunities for students.  

Quality of education goes beyond these broad categories. For example, it also includes factors like a manageable student-teacher ratio, insightful school leadership, transparent policies, active collaboration with the community, inclusive policies, and better support for student engagement and well-being.

There are many factors to consider when discussing the quality of education. It is not enough to make claims based on personal opinions without substantial evidence to support the argument.

 

Filter or Foster: At the Crossroad 

 

We are at a crucial crossroad – still not very late – to decide whether we continue filtering students through cut-off policies or foster better learning opportunities by reimagining our education system. It is time to evaluate if we have implemented the strategies aimed at enhancing the quality of education. 

We can begin by examining whether quality infrastructure and resources are fairly distributed across all schools (urban, remote) in Bhutan. We must assess if our curriculum has a quality to prepare students for jobs – both locally and internationally. Are our colleges affiliated with international institutions and our courses and qualifications globally recognised? 

Are our schools running based on nationally standardised student-teacher ratio? Are teachers offered enough professional development opportunities? 

Are school principals fostering positive learning environment? Is there a robust collaboration between schools and the community?

Depending solely on cut-off points to define quality of education is not only misguided but also risky. Not only it overlooks deeper issues (e.g., unequal access to quality teachers, infrastructure, and learning opportunities) – factors essential for improving education standards - we are ignoring the diverse talents of students in areas like creativity, leadership, and vocational skills. True quality of education lies in building an inclusive system that supports every learner, not just those who pass a narrow academic cut-off point.