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

The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

teachforamerica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 922 posts

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#911

Post by usrn »

deanCommie wrote: post #910
whatevenisthat wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of…

> and consequently crime has increased significantly It has not. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che... Consider why you think that it has, and whether you are also getting your information from an in-group that is primarily motivated by ideology and not reality. (Just a different one from the one you criticise)

No post body was provided.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#912

Post by deanCommie »

silicon2401 wrote: post #732
whatevenisthat wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of…

> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

What is your definition of progress?

For all the flaws in reasoning that are being highlighted in this thread, progressive have very clear and concrete goals: Equity, removing discrimination, improving opportunities, raising the floor for the social safety net, closing the wealth gap, improving housing affordability, etc.

You may disagree with their methods and have criticisms. That is valid. But are you opposed to their goals or their means?

Do you have alternative goals?

I ask you because most of the internet and media that criticizes "woke ideology" does not seem to have it's own perspective. I genuinely need to understand what is the alternative that people are proposing. Because certainly "Things were just fine before we started talking about racism, and the world was already a meritocracy that we shouldn't try to fix" doesn't resonate with me either.

Many on this site complain about Woke SJWs and all their focus on ideology, but what do people seek here instead? Just pure free market libertarianism?

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#913

Post by deanCommie »

ken47 wrote: post #588

Equality of opportunity is impossible. Equality of outcome is an order of magnitude more impossible. Each of us was born into this world through a randomized process that was not created by humankind: the genes you were born with, the environment you were given before you could manage your own affairs, the accumulation of genetic mutations over the course of countless millennia that resulted in who you are today. Thi…

> Equality of opportunity is impossible.

Your next paragraph focuses on inevitable natural inequalities. Fine. Not everyone is Einstein, Picasso, or Jordan.

But what about SOCIETY is natural? Is society itself fair? Or does it include inevitable unfairnesses created to perpetuate "natural inequalities"?

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#914

Post by deanCommie »

usrn wrote: post #911
deanCommie wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and consequently crime has increased significantly It has not. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che... Consider why you think that it has, and whether you are also getting your information from an in-group that is primarily motivated by ideology and not reality. (Just a different one from the one you criticise)

Quoted post unavailable.

I didn't downvote you, but if you are it's because you've set up a discourse that is unresolvable.

If you're not going to believe statistics because they don't match your worldview, how can we possibly hope to come to a conclusion in any debate?

And can you then not say absolutely anything you want if it "feels true"??

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#915

Post by Viliam1234 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #718
realfun wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It does need memorization. Anyone who don't think so can try to add and multiply in hexadecimal, what is 0xA + 0xC and what is 0x8 * 0x6? It becomes quite obvious memorization is required when you try it in any other radix other than decimal(which is memorized already).

It might be quite obvious that memorization is convenient , but 'required' means "you can't do it any other way" and that's obviously incorrect.

It should be understood first, and memorized later.

If you do not memorize small things that you frequently need, it will slow you down.

But if keep memorizing things without understanding, at some moment your memory will return an incorrect result, and you will be unable to notice it.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#916

Post by usrn »

deanCommie wrote: post #914
usrn wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I didn't downvote you, but if you are it's because you've set up a discourse that is unresolvable. If you're not going to believe statistics because they don't match your worldview, how can we possibly hope to come to a conclusion in any debate? And can you then not say absolutely anything you want if it "feels true"??

I'm totally ok with believing statistics that don't match my worldview. I've even adjusted my worldview because of some statistics I've seen but my understanding is that those statistics are flawed. A very important part of statistics is understanding how they're gathered and these are usually gathered from crimes reported to police. From what I've heard people haven given up reporting most crimes there.

If you're going to blindly believe statistics without trying to interpret them then what about the ones showing the outsized homicide rate for Black people? Without interpretation all you can conclude from that is something extremely racist.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#917

Post by annyeonghada »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #822
kgwgk wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paying for parking? There will be a sign listing how much money you need to put in for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and so on. Then if the maximum parking time is 3 hours, it's 10:15 and you want to know at what time you need to leave you take out a cardboard clock, set the current time, and advanced the small hand one, two, three steps. And to know whether you can afford both the parking and a coffee with the money yo…

Sigh, just happened to me. Booked a room at 1:45 for 3 hours, and was told to leave at 4. The staff insisted so hard that it was like we are the troublesome customer who try to milk out something. A jaw-dropping moment. Maybe school education is more important than we though.

>Maybe school education is more important than we though.

The arguments against schools are generally made[1] by people who do not remember how it was before compulsory education.

[1]At least in Europe.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#918

Post by slothtrop »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #847
slothtrop wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that gifted programs are associated with those phenomenons. There is evidence that it helps students excel.

While above normal intellect tends to bring a slight resilience to stress induced expression of latent psychological problems. It still doubles the probability that a latent disorder will develop if there is a generational precedent (roughly 20% of the general population). This is common 1st/2nd year developmental psychology and neurology material. Thus, I find it hard to believe anyone engaged in a pedagogical profe…

No post body was provided.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#919

Post by lanfeust6 »

DAlperin wrote: post #789
slothtrop wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's not enough to say it, show the numbers. Considering the tiny demographic it serves, I'd imagine the cuts on the basis of inequality are a convenient excuse to slash spending, and not increase it otherwise. There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention. Th…

A lot of this is a Google search away. Here's an article from vox that is well researched: https://www.vox.com/22841191/gifted-and-talented-education-p...

There's absolutely nothing in there about the cost of those programs, which is why you didn't bother to quote it. What there is: talk about under-representation in those programs. That's it.

It's puzzling why you won't lend credence to an important factor: poverty has cognitive consequences. Yet rather than trying to improve the lot of those students, you're fixated on taking things away. This is how socialists think: some people have it too good and need to be punished.

Re: The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted education programs (2021)

#920

Post by chucksta »

0des wrote: post #884
chucksta wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least my post is relevant to the topic, not just critiquing someone for being hangry

how are your hands both simultaneously on your hips and the keyboard at the same time?

Zing! keep em coming!
Post reply on HN