Hacker News Reader

I don't like the idea of "positive rights" at least as applied to human rights. I don't think it makes sense to consider something a "right" when it requires the active participation of others to provide.

Education is good, but it should be as cheap and simple as possible. Putting it in universities that cost more than the per-capita GDP to attend is about as far from that as it gets. If we take that system and call it a "human right" and get the Government directly involved in paying for it, we're only making it worse by institutionalizing all of the bad practices that make it so insanely expensive, making it even more difficult to ever change and effectively extracting even more money from the people who don't use it.

Education is also not for everyone, and not at every time. People should pursue it because they actually want it, not because they perceive or are told they need it to succeed in life. We shouldn't tell kids they're destined for failure if they don't go to college, shouldn't shame people for being interested in jobs that don't need college, and shouldn't require college degrees for jobs that don't actually need it.

> I don't like the idea of "positive rights" at least as applied to human rights. I don't think it makes sense to consider something a "right" when it requires the active participation of others to provide.

All rights require active participation of others to provide. Negative rights such as the right to live and the right to have property don't exist by default. They only become real if the society spends sufficient effort to prevent people from killing and stealing.

Human rights are aspirational. They are not rights people already have but rights people should have. They are the desired outcomes in an ideal society.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with positive rights. The right to physical safety involves active participation of others, and you'd be bonkers to say it isn't a valid right. No society functions without police.

What we do with positive rights is bundle them up into government provided services, so the load gets distributed evenly through society. These tend to work well, at least in Europe. I really can't understand the US view that anything that is state-provided is inefficient.

Look up US vs Europe university statistics and the population. Also look at what socioeconomic classes in Europe and the US go to and finish university. The data is very close to one another. To the point arguing one is decidedly better woule be too much.

Status and class in the US blows. It doesn’t seem to be much different in Europe either.

What is troubling about that last paragraph?

First, by definition, not everyone can be elite. Hell, you can't even get more than 50% of the population to be better than average! -- its math.

And if "In America not being part of the elite is a failure because the political and economical system is made to benefit, empower and sustain elites." is true (which seems likely), then maybe that is what needs to change.

A good step would be as you suggest, to start to massively invest in education and childhood health.

Probably not relevant to the point you want to make, but you seem to be confusing average and median.

Average can mean either mean or median.

> But not only that, children of all social classes go to the same schools

That's quite a fantasy - many people in Europe who can, enlist their kids in private schools because they don't want them to go to integrated schools. Why? Because in cities like Amsterdam integrated schools usually have a big amount of children of immigrants who are poorer and harder to teach. So the teachers who go there are also oftentimes not the best (since the best teachers go to private schools). I'm not saying everyone does this, but it's getting quite common for those who can afford it.

European elite go to American schools. Just like the elite from all around the world.

The premise is faulty from the onset. Most ‘top’ European schools are mediocre outside of liberal arts degrees.

I spent one year as an undergrad reading maths at Oxford and the curriculum, teaching and students were all far superior to the same at Duke University (1988)

Oxford is a global institution, so is Cambridge. What portion of British college attendees attend those two universities? How do the universities in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany compare?

Comparing Oxford to Duke is like comparing a Tesla Model S Plaid to a Toyota Camry.

I wish someone would have told me this is completely false when I was in college, then I wouldn't have been stressed about it.

Truth is the education quality doesn't correlate that strongly with "top" University ranking; at above top X ranked university, or top university in respective country, the quality of education is mostly the same. The difference in the ranking only really reflects the research output/opportunities and networking opportunities.

This becomes so glaringly clear as soon as you start being the interviewing side of the job.

European elites seems to not go to US top universities either; top talent (in intelligence) from upper middle class and above, maybe. But there's more to gain networking in their own countries top universities than abroad. (hence the exchange year system for that)

> the quality of education is mostly the same. The difference in the ranking only really reflects the research output/opportunities and networking opportunities.

I think the point of the top level comment here is exactly what you've said and additionally that the networking opportunities are actually what matter for success.

Exactly. If you have the opportunity to network with people who will actually be relevant in industry -- globally -- and the means to do it, you do. This is the whole point of many MBA programs.

So ETH Zurich, L'École polytechnique, etc are not elite? What are talking about?

I said most. ETH Zurich and L'École are on the short list of 'real' universities in Europe for me.

Hm, I'd hire a RTWH, Saclay or ETH graduate over a graduate from every single US university anytime. They seem better grounded in reality, look for solutions instead of 'visions' and actually understand math. But that's just me.

>RTWH

But it is RWTH

I went there because it was supposed to be the best university in my state. But it did not help my career at all

I should have tried to get into a US university