The reason we have public education is that we're trying to give everyone an equal footing to start out in life. This goal is unachievable, but anything that further stretches the distance between the children of the poor and the children of the rich raises alarm bells for me.
I wish I had a good suggestion as to what to do about it.
...is to allow the economy to function more efficiently, through pervasive literacy, use of numbers, &c. It's in the interest of the wealthy if they can off load some of the organizational details to a large class of literate servants, but that's not the same as giving everyone a shot at wealth and power.
I think it's clear that these schools are using their endowments to pick up smart, but (relatively) poor kids. To a lot of people, that's no comfort, as a cognitive aristocracy is no better than a financial aristocracy. The strategy at the ivies has been to filter for both the very smart and the very rich. This gives aptitude access to capital.
If this article was about a high-end public school that got its budget from seized money (eg property taxes), then rest assured that the private-school-educated NYTs editors would have suggested some forceful "fixes" for the "problem".
(EDIT: I guess I sound like a jerk. I'm just wondering actually...)
"You guys have it real easy. I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich.
But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you." - Herman Blume, speech to Rushmore Academy
>This goal is unachievable
I completely disagree with you. It is achieveble, not easily, but neither is it so difficult. Hint: it's completely incongruent with "No Child Left Behind". Leave the important stuff to tehnocrats, not politicians.
Asian countries in general, and I know about Japan in particular, are very very harsh to students. Test scores up, freedom down. If our children don't put up with that kind of thing, maybe that speaks well of us.
one way to try to observe obedience is to look at how harsh conditions people will accept when told to, without complaining and trying to do something about it. everything i know about japanese schools points to a lot more pressure on students to be studious and that kind of thing, and a lot less complaining about any decisions by authorities.
Also, I've heard (don't remember where...) that not all languages are equal when conveying an idea: for example eskimos have a lot of words for snow and white. Some concepts would be very hard to express in any other language.
My point of view is clearly viased: I speak Catalan and Spanish (mother tongues) and I'm more or less fluent in English (hoping to take the CPE this june).
I can't really agree with your position on language learning, but I'm a little biased. I've studied Ancient Greek, German, Chinese and Middle English.