upvote

points

by throwaway274481 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ofjcihen44 minutes ago|
next
[-]
Just FYI I was dirt poor and from a crap neighborhood and qualified for and benefited from these AP classes. Not all kids who succeed only succeed because of their background.
reply
upvoteby tracker114 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Similar.. not dirt poor, but bottom 1/3.
reply
upvoteby tracker154 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The bottom 75th percentile don't advance humanity to nearly the same level. Do you think you'd have the internet or iPads if everyone was capped to the 75th percentile? No.

Beyond this, the entire point of higher education is to push those who are able to higher levels, not to drag the 75% along for the ride.

reply
upvoteby throwaway2744852 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> The bottom 75th percentile don't advance humanity to nearly the same level.

Who do you think produces all the value in the world? It's not the people organizing the labor, it's the goddamn laborers.

> Do you think you'd have the internet or iPads if everyone was capped to the 75th percentile? No.

What do you think we would be eating if we left the world up to the rich nerds? We would have starved many millennia ago.

reply
upvoteby tracker112 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I said specifically "advance humanity" ... simple labor doesn't advance humanity. It's absolutely necessary, but it also doesn't require a college education.

Advancing humanity is coming up with cures for disease, or inventing useful things. We manage to feed the world with a fraction of the labor it once took to do so. It wasn't the common laborer that came up with solutions that effectively eliminated food scarcity.

reply
upvoteby 24 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby ajsnigrutin57 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
That's horrible. Smarter kids could get a better education, but they can't, because the teachers have to deal with illiterate kids that don't want to learn in the first place.
reply
upvoteby throwaway2744856 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe if we tried to educate all our kids instead of just the rich ones they wouldn't be illiterate
reply
upvoteby tracker150 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
We do... The VAST majority of kids go through public education... It's mostly a matter of effort, and that comes down to mostly parent pressure on having their kids do the work.

Maybe if we actually held kids that can't do the work back, they wouldn't be illiterate. Let social pressure do the work it's meant to. For that matter, let parents do the work they're supposed to.

reply
upvoteby ajsnigrutin53 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Some kids are just stupid, and it doesn't matter if they're rich or poor, there's nothing you can do about it. No need to keep everyone at the stupidest kids level.
reply
upvoteby throwaway2744852 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Half of them are in AP classes. let's not pretend our methods of sorting kids into castes makes any sense. Let's be honest: this is about money and attention, and you want to grind the poor kids into dust
reply
upvoteby ajsnigrutin39 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not about money, you're the one who just thinks about money. Maybe, by your logic, if someone gave you $100 now, you'd become smarter and look wider... but probably not.

Sorting into better highschools and worse ones, and better classes and worse was done even back in my times, in what used to be yugoslavia, with communism, red stars and a dictator. You want better kids to excell as much as they can, and you want the stupid kids to at least learn to read and write for their boring communist factory jobs for the next 40 years, even if they never get to learn how to solve differential eqations... if you keep the kids together, the stupid ones still won't be able to do basic math and there would be no time left over for the smarter ones to learn more. There was no correlation between money and stupidity of kids.

Some kids are smart enough to become engineers, some can barely read, there's no need for them to be in the same classroom.

reply