That's a much worse outcome from an equity lens, but there's only so much you can expect people to voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good. Asking higher income parents to risk their children's future is a lot.
That's a much worse outcome from an equity lens, but there's only so much you can expect people to voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good. Asking higher income parents to risk their children's future is a lot.
Bingo, that is the issue, everybody is worried about equity.
You can't have it, we need meritocracy, equity is just cruel and unusual punishment to future. It is a recipe for driving society to the lowest common denominator.
You should demand proper education or your money back.
(Side note, this is what we will get 10x with free college, and the guaranteed loans have already driven it this way a bit more)
That seems quite different. First, lots of countries have free higher education and seem to do just fine. Second, lowering price of entry is orthogonal to lowering expected performance. Your argument does not apply.
By defintion some of the highest performing students who must compete for entry.
These are not apples alike.
> (Side note, this is what we will get 10x with free college, and the guaranteed loans have already driven it this way a bit more)
But perhaps good colleges in the US just accept anyone that walks through the door and can pay the tuition?
Education at this point feels like exploitation. We tell people that they can achieve greatness, they just have to pay huge amounts to a college to be educated, when the truth is that most of the value of college is networking and status signalling, and the value of those is pretty much directly related to how prestigious the institution is.
Yes, we should set up a system that allows all people, whatever their background, to pursue a liberal arts education if they're passionate about it. But a system that makes a pretty useless and very expensive degree a barrier for entry for completely unrelated jobs is just exploitative.
If you believe that is true, then why would a country want to pay for it? After all, the world isn't limited to your strawmen.
The reason it's valuable to countries the world over, why so many want to pay for it, and why most all of them provide some level of public paid education, is it demonstrably results in a population that ends up with a higher standard of living.
Dont believe it? Simply check Google scholar.
Germany, Switzerland, Belgium all come to mind as countries with free or near-free education that while they don't graduate the same % of their population through tertiary eduction it's not for lack of available opportunity but rather many people choose not to pursue tertiary eduction.
This is actually a good thing because they are often choosing alternatives like vocational education that is more suited to their career choices.
Baristas with university degrees is the outcome of pushing everyone to get a degree and is common place in both the US, Canada and Australia as a result as all 3 have this same notion that you need a degree to get a job. Atleast in Australia and Canada you don't also get saddled with crippling debt.
Lithuania doesn't have free college https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
My bad. I assumed free college is standard in that region.
That used to be true.
Really? Says who? Because the OECD certainly doesn’t seem to think there’s any significant difference.
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-educat...
So the mean and median is around 20% less people with tertiary educations.
When you say no significant difference, what is your threshold? 50% less people educated? 20% is a huge difference.
If I too were to play the data cherry picking game, I could point out that Norway is at 55%.
How does that prove anything?
It just disproves your unfounded assertion:
> Every free college country sends less of their people through college than the US
I really fail to see how any of this proves any causality between free college and lower or higher education rates.
But it seems you enjoy shifting goalposts, so perhaps we should end it here?
The district charter use to have a line in it saying they had to offer each kid the best education possible. My mother used that line to force the school district to send a taxi to every day to take me up to a richer part of the city with better schools. That line of the charter has since been removed as from what I can tell kids now are at the mercy of their circumstances.
There is some fair arguments to make that mixing kids of different backgrounds together improves outcomes, if you take 1 kid from a poor background and surround that kid with a culture of success, there is a very large chance the kid will pick up on that culture of success and start doing better.
So, kernel of truth behind some of these policies.
IMHO the problem is, this plan only works if the vast majority of students are high achievers. If you have 10% of the students who are high achievers and you mix everyone together, after a few years you end up with no high achievers.
America in general needs to seriously look at how we as a culture approach education, until we fix that, there isn't much the schools can do to actually improve outcomes for underprivileged students en masse.
I grew up in Sacramento in the 80's/90's, and the best schools were not in the rich/white areas. The top-performing schools were in so-so neighborhoods, and the schools were very diverse. Best of all, you could test in and enroll from anywhere. We literally had a kid in HS who drove down halfway from Tahoe each morning. It wasn't perfect, but it was much, much better than what we have now, as this article shows.
My understanding is research shows this "evens" outcomes. The worst students do better (Teacher has more time to pay attention to them), the best students do worse (can not get into the really hard stuff, get bored).
If you are in the bottom 25%, you WANT integrated classrooms of all levels.
If you are in the top 25%, you WANT an elite classroom with ramped up work and less distractions.
There is the crux.
Bad cultures exist and we dont need to celebrate them. Bad culture drags everyone down and makes society worse.
We need to ask why those bad cultures exist and take steps to remediate the underlying problems.
In Seattle, one of the richest cities in one of the richest countries in all of human history, some of the public schools still have leaded drinking pipes that "may be safe" for kids to drink from.
For the vast majority of working adults in America, a job means unreliable shifts, being treated with outright cruelty by management, and pay that isn't enough to cover health insurance premiums.
Given that, why is anyone surprised that kids don't "apply themselves"? What are their parents going to say? "Work hard and you to can be in debt and barely afford to pay rent!"
(Caveat: This doesn't work if the point of your university is mostly to signal that its graduates came from a family wealthy enough to send them to your university.)
Equality of outcome can be an undesired outcome, equality of opportunity is completely different.
The only trouble is getting the opportunities to be equal - there must be no advantage that can be unfairly given to one more deserving student than another, being able or willing to send your children to summer bootcamps must be an option for all children (who qualify), not whether you pay for it with time or money, e.g.
Free college is fantastic, but once again you confuse opportunity with outcome, and not even for the same individuals - parents are unburdened by cost, but in fact the opportunities are far from equal - money does not a quality education make, yet the majority or colleges are run as for profit institutions, not places that accept students based on their merits or potentials, nor do they actually try to actively shed students who are undeserving. Party culture does not need or require an expensive room and board situation, yet it pervades nearly every 'higher' education institution, only somewhat subsiding when graduate/doctorate programs become involved, and academics are once again taken seriously.
I.e. your meritocracy does not exist precisely because universities are busy making profits not teaching students.
The moral and practical thing to do would be focusing on improving objective outcomes. Focusing on equality degrades objective outcomes in favor of moral perversion - taking away from some to make others feel better.
Imagine the child of two millionaire college professors. What will you do to equalize this child's opportunity with a child in the inner city of (pick a bad city)?
Improving objective outcomes is some Krypton level shit, "Your a black doctor and were trained to be one from birth due to the outcome we wanted." "I wanted to be an artist."
You meant at t0, the movement the baby is born to a parent optimizes education vs a baby that is born to a parent that cares much less. Impossible for government to "make sure" this happens.
There is no real way to perfect this - but if an effort is made a good result can be achieved nonetheless. The fallacy with the professor example is that they will have the time to teach their child, and that their child must necessarily be receptive to their limited tuition.
Unless they quit their job, and thus are no longer professors, a majority of their time will be spent teaching multiple students, and while one on one coaching has it's merits there is also value in classroom peer experiences. If an effort is made to provide tutoring to all the kids, it may even be in the parents interest not to provide tutoring services, if the quality is good, because that takes away from their own time spent being able to provide the most effective teaching experience they can offer.
We can't build perfect bridges, but we can sure as hell mandate they are good enough, it's some nonsense to say we shouldn't try because we can't get it perfect.
Or do you simply deny that parents educate their children? Do you believe that as long as they have the same teachers at school, who are 'paid properly', say, a farmer's son and a son of a musician will have the same knowledge and skills in animal husbandry and musical theory?
That is obvious, the discussion is about the education opportunities though, not mastering school math, which is, honestly, a joke.
(But then, of course, you realize that you've merely shifted the game of haves and have-nots to other kinds of "have" and feel the hubristic urge to socially engineer your way to equal outcomes.)
Compare "blood is thicker than water", which was rooted in the opposite conclusion, that the blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb, i.e. your relationships and social bonds outcompete genetic ties.
The failing of meritocracy is that it is tautological; those who succeed did so because they must have been successful. It can't bear scrutiny because, as it turns out, we can have neither fair nor equal grounds for competition (if we're measuring results as comparative, which is the case here), but people secretly desire unfairness as long as there's a chance they will benefit, even if they are not the beneficiary of a given instance or result. See monarchies, lotteries, CEO pay discrepancies, etc... what matters is there was an arbitrary chance you're dealt out at the top.
I went to private schools, and even kids of parents with money can wind up very unintelligent—placing them in the same classes as overachievers is good for neither. Same concept as bright kids from underprivileged families, let's bend over backward to get them in the same classes as the overachievers too.
A pure meritocracy wouldn't prioritize curing rare diseases or ending poverty, and might not reduce suffering as much as a more equitable society, even if that equitable society has less raw talent and education, so obviously there's an optimal point.
That optimal point may be a function of the current state of tech, as more and more of the stuff people need education for is done by AI.
It's not like they're ever going to have zero high achievers, even without school at all there's always going to be a few genuises.
On the other hand, the better AI gets, the less anyone outside the top 1% actually needs math, because AI may be able to do most of what an average person could learn without unrealistic amount of effort way beyond their motivation.
We're in East Renton, which usually follows Seattle, but they have kept honor courses. In fact, honor courses are encouraged to take, open to everyone, and from what I understand, no one is rejected (possibly only for the first year). I like this approach better than 'algebra for no one'.
Yes, the better school districts are east of Seattle, and this is why all those homes are retaining their skyrocketing value.
>> Asking higher income parents to risk their children's future is a lot.
We're not wealthy at all, so if the Renton school system follows Seattle, we're not going to waste our child's future on crap education.
The best solution I can think of is to pay children to succeed in academics or extracurriculars (STEM, clubs, sports, arts, etc.) A student wouldn't have to be gifted in math, just apply themselves to some interest that drives them.
Give them a score-based percentage of $200/mo for hitting certain criteria each month. Playing for the school sports team, being in the band, getting involved in photography. Something positive in academics, arts, leadership, cooperation.
Paying kids would teach valuable lessons about finance and build up a reward system that would serve them later in life as they begin to associate action and achievement with positive outcomes. It should still work even if they don't have a suitable environment at home to discover this on their own.
Right now school is basically daycare. It can teach those that are properly prepared at home to pay attention, but it fails so many others.
As a poor kid in Seattle, I am now no longer poor because of a high bar.
In my high school (West Seattle High School!) we edited DNA. We spliced DNA, inserted a gene, closed it up, and made bacteria change color. It was awesome.
> The best solution I can think of is to pay children to succeed in academics or extracurriculars
Unfortunately, extrinsic motivations mess people up and don't end well long term.
Therein lines the problem.
Pay people enough $ and they'll go to the gym and get in shape, but once the $ stops they'll almost universally stop going.
Take people who have a regular gym habit, start paying them, stop paying them and most of them will stop going to the gym, adding in the extrinsic motivation will actually destroy the intrinsic motivation (and pleasure!) they once had around the activity.
With enough extrinsic only motivators, people stop feeling any actual joy in life, everything becomes a fight for an external reward.
The home environment also contributes a great deal to academic success or failure. I know of households that actively dissuade kids from pursuing academic success. If parents won't intervene in their children's education for any reason that diminishes their chance of success.
Honestly, it is part of the social contract that the government, or at least society, needs to maintain.
If you look at cultures where education is valued, where academic achievement is high, there is a very strong social contract in place that equates academic success to success later in life. China has had national exams for over a thousand years, with the same promise: Anyone who does well in school and succeeds can have their station in life elevated by doing well in school.
Rich or poor, rural or urban, everyone (or at least a large swath of people) in China has traditionally had this guarantee lying around.
Do good in school, and you will be taken care of after that. You can get a good spouse, a good job, and life will get easier.
America has actively worked to break such promises. Historically when a minority community worked together and excelled, their houses and businesses got literally burned down to the ground, or sometimes, less violently, just taken away from them.
That teaches a lesson right there, "work hard, and fuck you".
Rather recently, middle class white students in America studied hard only to find the social contract involved universities jacking up tuition fees to sky high levels, loading them down with tons of debt, and then leaving school for crap jobs and a life of constant interest payments.
A shit ton better than being burned out of your house, but it still shows how American society is willing to tear up social contracts so that powerful institutions can earn some extra $$$.
Housing then folds into this, it used to be American cities worked hard to expand the housing supply, they eagerly courted young families, now cities are actively hostile to anyone new coming to town.
But the fact is, maintaining that social contract pays for itself many times over with social stability, a lesson America has apparently forgotten.
Some parts of the government get this, some types of inefficient contracts (build/buy American) are in fact job creation programs, but we need to do a lot better.
Build more housing, a ton more, and force state universities to have much lower tuition by removing the obscene overhead. I rarely advocate for "just cut funding and make people figure it out", but honestly, pass a law saying State Universities aren't allowed to cut any faculty positions, then demand they cut tuition by 50%, and have their new budgets independently audited. Sure the student swimming pool may get shut down, but too bad.
Yes, let's embed the fundamentals of wage-slavery at even younger ages.
I definitely agree with this
>>> Give them a score-based percentage of $200/mo for hitting certain criteria each month.
I would love if this would work, but unfortunately there is no easy answer. In fact, MacArthur Genius Award Winner and John Bates Clark medalist Roland Fryer managed to somehow persuade entire school districts to test your very assertion at scale, and the results were not straightforward as you seem to believe [1]
Incentives dont quite work like you expect them ...
[1] https://www.econtalk.org/roland-fryer-on-educational-reform/
Luckily, everyone in the area gets access to Running Start[1]. Doesn't address the earlier years of schooling, though.
If your children are in HS, I'd really recommend sitting downing with a HS councilor to make sure that your kids take the classes that are required by the district for HS, but aren't required for a college degree (I'm thinking of speech here, but there may be others) in the first 2 years of HS. That way they get the most benefit out of their Junior and Senior years, if they decide to go that route.
I'm honestly not sure how the GPA thing works - I know AP classes can sometimes let kids increase their GPA above 4.0 for admissions purposes. But as someone who did both Running Start and AP classes, IMO, the actual college credit was way more valuable. But I also went to school in state, so those credits transferred nicely. May be a totally different story if you're shooting for Ivys.
---
1. https://www.k12.wa.us/student-success/support-programs/dual-...
There are plenty of other reasons to do running start, aside from transfer credits. Access to higher level subjects you wouldn't have access to otherwise.
Personally, I traded high school PE for scuba and yoga, a full year of A&P, college calculus, and an intro year of psych.
Transfer credits had very little to do with it - it was just a more fulfilling curriculum.
My understanding is that there are been a number of reforms to WA community colleges that mean that a larger portion of community college credits transfer to public universities now. Of course, going out of state is a roll of the dice as always.
> Transfer credits had very little to do with it - it was just a more fulfilling curriculum.
Very true. I loved taking Microbiology as a HS student. Def something I wouldn't have gotten the chance to do normally. And CC offers far more advanced math than HS.
2. I think it really depends on the person's career. If they've had 7 jobs in 10 years, yeah - GPA probably isn't super relevant. But if someone's been at the same place for 10 years, maybe it's not the worst thing.
IMO, the 1 page (with large text) rule is more important. GPA should probably fall off before relevant job related stuff, but there's no harm in keeping it there if the resume has the space.
I would have done a phone screen.. but with that low of a GPA, and the judgement to put it on your resume? Pass.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2023/03/29/cancellatio...
If the students are prepared enough for those classes, what’s the point in keeping them in High School anyway?
I had a strange experience where I had a bunch of AP courses lined up my senior year and then moved to a place which did not have nearly any of them. In hindsight, I should have really pressed for direct enrollment to college instead of faffing around my senior year in “communication skills”, AP english, and “Economics” - all three required by the school district but mostly useless.
Not that I was taking particularly hard classes or anything so I think they were just getting a leg up on the prerequisites for later on.
Linear algebra is not hard. I had a math teacher who taught the basics of linear algebra in my middle school math class. While she was an exceptional teacher (incredibly good, we still talk over 25 years later!), I can attest that the concepts presented no great difficulty to any of the students (with the caveat that all of us were in an advanced learning program)
Now calculus, I feel that at least some high school students I've talked to really didn't "get it", even for single variable. Then again I get the feeling that most people who take calculus don't get it, which I find sad because IMHO calculus is absolutely phenomenal. For me, it was when math started really connecting to the real world and making an impact on how I saw things in my day to day.
Keep in mind that this term covers a huge range of math that can be introduced at very different levels of abstraction and generality. You might think linear algebra is mainly matrix multiplication and Gaussian elimination, someone else might think it's about the representation functor in Abelian categories.
Almost any subject in math can go really deep!
I know some kids are really exceptional and maybe ought to take this much math that young. But I think a lot do it now to get into a college.
Frankly, Multivariable and Linear Alg. is on the low end of the ability of advanced high school kids these days. The ease of deploying tensor flow has gotten a lot of kids motivated to learn linear algebra.
So I think for a high school student who knows they're heading for STEM, with room on their schedule, it can still be a good choice.
Standards change greatly with time and it is a joke to believe that applying the same standards to everyone will get a good outcome.
Anecdata: I would have loved to get the possibility to study higher math at high school level, at school. I had to dig it out on my own since the local school topped out after basic calculus, linalg, statistics. I was not alone.
Today I would estimate that top 5% could easily and happily handle multivariate, ode/pde, etc in high school given proper support and encouragement.
Top few percent learn several times faster than average. What is the point, other than ancient ideology, to slow them down and hinder their learning progress?
For example, I was one of the best students in class, yet it took me about a year to really get stochastic processes.
Taking advanced classes could be valuable even if you need to retake them.
It's also an arms race that's misplaced. STEM majors are learning math anyway, there really are diminishing returns in cramming more of it into your school curriculum. A lot of different subjects are way more useful, ideally some that do exactly not prepare yourself for a major of your choice, otherwise you end up with over-optimised education. You need some social studies and discuss current topics moving america and the world. You need to write essays about these difficult topics. You need a little bit of science and a little bit of history. And a foreign language. It's about the abstract ideals of education, afterwards you can choose the major you want.
I didn't take any advance math in HS and actually did quite average. By some miracle I was admitted a very good Electrical Engineering program. However they made me take these advance math classes before university to prove that I could handle the task.
Removing these options from HS just lowers the bar for everyone.
In contrast, high school was three years of repeating the same equation solving with some calculus sprinkled on.
In Ontario (Canada), schools are funded by the province. Schools doing worse can access addition funding and other resources. In 2020 teachers earned an average of $103,000/year including benefits. In Toronto, which has a high cost of living, the average was $108,000.
That's not to say that school quality doesn't vary, often by household income. Poorer people often have language issues (immigrants) and can't afford to pay for extra help for their kids, or don't have free time to work with them. The system is still stacked against them, but not nearly as badly.
The American "I got mine" method of school funding seems like the worst possible choice.
LA Unified is currently ~16,000/student/year.
It looks to me like SF actually gets significantly more money per student than people in the suburbs.
California too, yet California has one of the most corrupted education systems. Case in point, the Bay Area schools couldn’t even afford school buses
Still, there was a whole system of special schools, both for high and low achievers. I have went to a “math/physics” grade school from the start, and subsequently changed schools two times, each time through hard entrance exams, to finally end up in the most challenging/prestigious school in the country.
It's completely mind boggling to me that a communist country has such a system, but a capitalist country is trying to bring everyone to common denominator.
A developed country is not where even the poor have cars, it's where even the rich use public transport - a quote attributed to many including LKY.
Extrapolating this to the current argument (disclaimer: not read the article), if the same system is thrust onto the rich and poor alike, it should get better over a period of time, no?
This is a complicated question, thoughts welcome.
(I say that as a husband to a public school teacher, son of a public school teacher, and father of children attending public school.)
The student body generally excels. A graduating class of 120 students might have a dozen who score 30+ on the ACT. And, of course, there is perhaps an equal number who fail to graduate.
They all go to the same school, but I wouldn't say "the same system is thrust onto the rich and poor alike." The most important system in the education of a child is not within the walls of a school. It is within the walls of their home.
It is simply true that a certain level of affluence is necessary to provide a stable learning environment * in the home *. Affluence does not guarantee that stability, but it increases the odds so dramatically that its affect should not be ignored.
and beyond that, isn't the whole point of GP's comment that the idealistic rich people are trying to / would like to leave their children in public schools? what's idealistic about sending your kids to private school instead? seems like the exact opposite to me.
so other than "pay" not making any sense, "idealism" not making sense, and randomly swapping whose (not "who's") idealism is being paid for, your reply makes perfect sense.
like, when people make comments like this, do they think that they are saying anything in particular, or is it just about the words sounding good in a certain order, like music lyrics? it's like some sort of pathos DDoS. but, hey: at least "your heart's in the right place", right?