Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 308 posts

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#131

Post by Kalium »

peller wrote: post #122
Kalium wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?

Well I imagine the needs of inner-city-poor and rural-poor are often different, to pick two extremes. But I myself have never lived either of those lives, and I've only interacted with the rural-poor (through volunteer organizations). So, I can't really know their needs. But where I'd start, is with what I might call the "forbidden subjects" - stuff you and I probably learned from our families, if we were lucky. Inte…

You know, my rural poor high school had a course covering personal finance, relationships, health, home economics, and so on. It was a required course for all freshman, who were 15 or so and not yet eligible to drop out.

It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope.

The underground hip hop complaints as relative to material mostly cover political questions and show that he didn't pay attention to the courses that would help "get our rent paid".

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#132

Post by Kalium »

adamnemecek wrote: post #130
Kalium wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?

The main issue is that you don't really learn anything in depth. You get some sort of very general overview but your knowledge still has so many gaps. If you make the educational system more efficient, when you leave the reformed high school, you might actually be somewhat proficient at X.

It sounds like your complaint is that the basic primary/secondary educational system does not produce specialists. Have you considered the possibility that neither primary nor secondary education serves the purpose of specialist training, that being reserved for tertiary education?

The purpose of the current design for primary and secondary education is to produce a general foundation atop which any sort of tertiary education can be built.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#133

Post by ethanbond »

refurb wrote: post #128
ethanbond wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, everyone knows that causality has a hard limit of 25 years! It's a ruse to imply that Reagan's policies don't play a role in this. GP didn't claim that he's exclusively responsible, just that correcting those mistakes would be a good place to start. Do you think that kids aren't thrown in jail every single day for war-on-drug offenses simply because Reagan was president almost 30 years ago?

just that correcting those mistakes would be a good place to start That's my point. Regan has been dead for a while, he can't fix things now. If you don't like how things are going, blame the current people in power.

Nobody asked a dead man to fix things. GP asked us/the govt to fix the problems the dead man created.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#135

Post by adamnemecek »

Kalium wrote: post #132
adamnemecek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is that you don't really learn anything in depth. You get some sort of very general overview but your knowledge still has so many gaps. If you make the educational system more efficient, when you leave the reformed high school, you might actually be somewhat proficient at X.

It sounds like your complaint is that the basic primary/secondary educational system does not produce specialists. Have you considered the possibility that neither primary nor secondary education serves the purpose of specialist training, that being reserved for tertiary education? The purpose of the current design for primary and secondary education is to produce a general foundation atop which any sort of tertiary…

My main issues are the lack of efficiency and lack of educational freedom.

> The purpose of the current design for primary and secondary education is to produce a general foundation atop which any sort of tertiary education can be built.

Yeah, it's not very good at that.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#136

Post by adamnemecek »

Kalium wrote: post #131
peller wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I imagine the needs of inner-city-poor and rural-poor are often different, to pick two extremes. But I myself have never lived either of those lives, and I've only interacted with the rural-poor (through volunteer organizations). So, I can't really know their needs. But where I'd start, is with what I might call the "forbidden subjects" - stuff you and I probably learned from our families, if we were lucky. Inte…

You know, my rural poor high school had a course covering personal finance, relationships, health, home economics, and so on. It was a required course for all freshman, who were 15 or so and not yet eligible to drop out. It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. The underground hip hop complaints as relative to material mostly cover political questions and show that he didn't pay attention to the course…

> It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope.

Exactly, I can't think of a single subject that actually achieves what it should when taught in the school setting.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#137

Post by Kalium »

adamnemecek wrote: post #135
Kalium wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like your complaint is that the basic primary/secondary educational system does not produce specialists. Have you considered the possibility that neither primary nor secondary education serves the purpose of specialist training, that being reserved for tertiary education? The purpose of the current design for primary and secondary education is to produce a general foundation atop which any sort of tertiary…

My main issues are the lack of efficiency and lack of educational freedom. > The purpose of the current design for primary and secondary education is to produce a general foundation atop which any sort of tertiary education can be built. Yeah, it's not very good at that.

It's relatively efficient compared to alternative currently available approaches. We have not reached a point where Khan Academy and Udemy can replace everything - or even a major part - of education after basic literacy and numeracy.

The model of turning a literate child loose in a library and letting them be for six or eight years should not be assumed as universally useful.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#138

Post by Kalium »

adamnemecek wrote: post #136
Kalium wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, my rural poor high school had a course covering personal finance, relationships, health, home economics, and so on. It was a required course for all freshman, who were 15 or so and not yet eligible to drop out. It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. The underground hip hop complaints as relative to material mostly cover political questions and show that he didn't pay attention to the course…

> It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. Exactly, I can't think of a single subject that actually achieves what it should when taught in the school setting.

Really? Because basic literacy, civics, history, and mathemathics as commonly taught work roughly as well as they are expected to.

The problem with the class I describe isn't that it didn't teach effectively. It's that the students largely didn't care to apply what was taught.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

adamnemecek wrote: post #130
Kalium wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?

The main issue is that you don't really learn anything in depth. You get some sort of very general overview but your knowledge still has so many gaps. If you make the educational system more efficient, when you leave the reformed high school, you might actually be somewhat proficient at X.

Most people agree with this. What becomes more difficult is figuring out what concrete steps make the educational system more efficient.

OTOH, even that would still probably disproportionately benefit those with the best home environments and support to make use of the more efficient system, and increase rather than narrow the gap between the best and worst served. Efficiency and equality are largely orthogonal concerns.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#140

Post by adamnemecek »

Kalium wrote: post #138
adamnemecek wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. Exactly, I can't think of a single subject that actually achieves what it should when taught in the school setting.

Really? Because basic literacy, civics, history, and mathemathics as commonly taught work roughly as well as they are expected to. The problem with the class I describe isn't that it didn't teach effectively. It's that the students largely didn't care to apply what was taught.

The classes are never the suitable speed for all the students. When learning on your own, you set your own speed but you can't do that when in school. But note that all subjects are like the subjects you mentioned you took in HS. The mathematics doesn't actually go all that far. Note that all of HS mathematics can be summarized in those HS math review books that are actually not that thick. It's a travesty that fundamentally, you spend maybe like 4 years reading like 6-7 books?
Post reply on HN