421–430 of 510 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every free college country sends less of their people through college than the US. Is that the outcome we want? Fewer educated?
Do you mean per-capita or over all? Because a very few countries with a bigger number of populations than US have free-education. If the former, can you provide a data source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's a much worse outcome from an equity lens Bingo, that is the issue, everybody is worried about equity. You can't have it, we need meritocracy, equity is just cruel and unusual punishment to future. It is a recipe for driving society to the lowest common denominator. You should demand proper education or your money back. (Side note, this is what we will get 10x with free college, and the guaranteed loans have…
That term "meritocracy" was coined originally in a book that was highly critical of meritocratic societies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The child of the professors has the parents who are supposedly smart and teach him or her all the time at home, how exactly do you make this available to children from those inner city areas?
It's called a teacher you find them in schools. If you pay them properly and give them adequate resources they can achieve these goals. You also add in libraries and other places where kids can learn independently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That term "meritocracy" was coined originally in a book that was highly critical of meritocratic societies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
And apparently everyone thought the book was satirical and embraced the word as a positive concept. :p (But then, of course, you realize that you've merely shifted the game of haves and have-nots to other kinds of "have" and feel the hubristic urge to socially engineer your way to equal outcomes.)
Compare "blood is thicker than water", which was rooted in the opposite conclusion, that the blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb, i.e. your relationships and social bonds outcompete genetic ties.
The failing of meritocracy is that it is tautological; those who succeed did so because they must have been successful. It can't bear scrutiny because, as it turns out, we can have neither fair nor equal grounds for competition (if we're measuring results as comparative, which is the case here), but people secretly desire unfairness as long as there's a chance they will benefit, even if they are not the beneficiary of a given instance or result. See monarchies, lotteries, CEO pay discrepancies, etc... what matters is there was an arbitrary chance you're dealt out at the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you summarize this three-hour video?
Not the OP, but it's a debunking of a fairly long book (and associated claims by one of its authors), so probably not. While threads like this reliably attract HN's substantial contingent of so-called 'race realists', the consensus among experts is that Murray is wrong. Therefore I really think we should be putting the burden of proof on people who think this consensus is false. Murray's claims should be evaluated in…
...and the policies that lead to the situation in the article were also developed by "experts".
The amount of political ideology surrounding this stuff is immense. The truth is black and white (pun intended) but people don't want to see.
I live in Seattle, not San Francisco, but we have some similar issues with our schools. I'd really prefer to send my son to our local public schools, but if they aren't challenging him appropriately then my wife and I obviously aren't going to just give up on his education. We'll either pay for extracurricular enrichment like the person in this article, move to a wealthy suburb, or send him to a private school instea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being intentionally obtuse. If you have the capacity to have an accelerated program for 1,000 students in a district, then you rank by test scores and bring in the top 1,000.
My intentions aren't epistemologically accessible to you. What parents commenters are doing is laundering agency through a testing regime. It's part of the process of the absolution of responsibility of consequence. As an aside, it's clear that parent commenters aren't mature enough to be approached socratically. I regret their schools taught them to read and write. They clearly don't want to learn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not going to improve the lives of impoverished children by lowering the bar. It's absurd. The best solution I can think of is to pay children to succeed in academics or extracurriculars (STEM, clubs, sports, arts, etc.) A student wouldn't have to be gifted in math, just apply themselves to some interest that drives them. Give them a score-based percentage of $200/mo for hitting certain criteria each month. Pla…
> Give them a score-based percentage of $200/mo for hitting certain criteria each month. Yes, let's embed the fundamentals of wage-slavery at even younger ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the fix? It’s not the system. If you have parents that are involved in education and engage in the kind of child-rearing, that is conducive to education - it doesn’t matter the kind of system you’re operating under (keep in mind, our bar for success is very low - we want kids that graduate high-school to be functionally literate with basic arithmetic and basic general knowledge). Put another way, if a child gr…
What's the fix? More support from the state of course. It really is a task for the society compared to the individual, otherwise you will never ever ever have a fair system. Success in schools should not be so dependent on the parents. What about single parents? Do you just accept that it will be miserable for them to get their kids trough school? Parents without a lot of education will also have a problem of helping…
That’s the current theory and it fails. The reality is that public eduction is education at (massive) scale. There is no amount of available resources to create, say, a personalized learning environment with dedicated teachers for individual students - when you’re dealing with millions, or tens of millions of students. Parental involvement is so critical because that is the individualized focus that is needed by kids.
There is no way for you to create a public system that overcomes the success that comes out of parents who are involved and invested in their child’s education. No way.