Goodbye, MIT

>simply switch teachers

I think you’re on to something. 10 years ago, what you describe would have been entirely infeasible what with forcing teachers to move places they don’t want to go. Now, with KhanAcademy, you can have top-notch teaching on virtually any subject anywhere.

That’s not to say e-learning is a suitable replacement but as a supplement, it should certainly be able to bridge much of the gap.

See, here is the thing. What you said is completely true, some people grow up in a really shitty environment and the achievements of children needs to be compared with the achievements of those around them.

However, without going into details, I have spent enough time at one of these ivy league universities to see first hand how it works it practice. The black people I met who benefited from these affirmative action policies were some of the richest most privileged human beings in the country. These policies are in no way actually implemented to help disadvantaged people.

A simple test would be your family income, for example. But MIT openly avoids this. These universities definitely don't want "those lower class people" corrupting them with their lower class ideas. They just want to feel virtuous, and the best way to do that is to have people there that "look the part" whether or not they are actually disadvantaged.

"The answer and the future is kids will be raised by the state and given an equal playing field."

I read this as sarcasm, but I re-read it and am not so sure?

I hope you're will to pay for that in blood because there will be war over it.

We get that there's no such thing as a perfectly level playing field, but we're not going to allow children to be raised by the state to achieve what will be frankly in all likelihood not much of a gain in that regard, and a loss of basic freedom, and that's before the obvious risk of totalitarianism.

If you're worried about the state reading your emails, or net neutrality, you should naturally be 100x more concerned about what the state wants your child to believe.

While I am actually in support of good basic public education, I suggest the issue is important enough so that it should be at 'arms length' from the politicians, much like the Central Bank, but with more public input.

We need to get rid of this notion that there's really such a thing as 'perfectly equal' anyhow. Comparative Value. People value different things. Instead, take the approach of 'if there's a will there's a way' i.e. every kid gets access to good, basic, core schooling, and if a kid is motivated and has basic talents, they should have access to basic higher education.

Finally, most of the needle has nothing to do with quality of education, which most kids have access to, it's the quality of their home life. I'll bet material improvements in minimum wage and some kind of basic 'healthcare for all' would yield materially better results for kids than any specific changes to schooling, other than the cost of higher ed.

Edit: thee are enough examples of great public schools i.e. Norway, S. Korea, Canada, we don't need to get all theoretical about it. Work on 'all the issues' and the kids will be mostly ok.

There is nothing defensible regarding the collapse of higher education in the U.S.

It's a neat idea but it rests on what I believe is a total misunderstanding of what education is.

In supposed 'bad schools' - kids don't show up to class. There's not much in the way of clubs to join, nobody joins them. Kids are bullied for even contemplating doing well. They are bullied on the way to school. Pulled into gangs. Totally absent an role models at all. Parents absent, living in very poor conditions, often one parent missing or in jail. They might knew very few who actually graduated from anything including HS, let alone College. The thought never crossed their mind and they see no point to it. There is literal violence in class. Kids pay little attention when they are there.

The best school in the world can't 'fix' that.

A 'good school' has conscientious parents who make sure their kids get to school, they live in homes erring towards happy, have the material they needs, parents who care about them, parents who inquire at least a bit. Some friends with talent, enough critical mass in activities that good non-academic clubs exist. An overall workable situation wherein teachers can teach.

Some teachers are better than others, some schools better than others, but it's not really that.

I would really support this 'rotation of teachers' concept because I suggest absolutely nothing would change and people would realize what the underlying issues are.

FYI shipping kids from the ghetto, in smaller numbers, to 'decent schools' in the burbs actually seems to work, so long as the 'special kids' can avoid the extra violence they might face for being labelled as nerds by their peers in poor areas.

As for MIT and donors, there is obviously a good discussion to be had about equality, and frankly I think everyone is open to that discussion, but the extremists shutting down discussion need to be stopped.