Hacker News Reader

> a straight-A student failed her organic chemistry class in Brown University

OChem is a weed-out class for pre-med students in every university.

CHEM 0350/0360 are notorious weed-outs at Brown.

> I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different

At some point, it comes down to individuals. I've studied at Community Colleges, State Schools, and Ivies/Ivy Adjacent programs, and the curriculum is largely comparable.

Sure heads of state do occasionally come on campus at Harvard, but undergrads almost never attend those talks or opportunities - just like in any other university.

You can succeed or fail in any program, it just comes down to individual motivation.

> the vast middle who get hurt because they squander their time in school

The un-PC truth is this comes down to parenting. If parents don't help guide or motivate their kids, most kids will stagnate.

Teachers can only do so much.

If Farangi/Ang Mo parents cannot parent, that's on them.

Back in my Bay Area high school, it was the "American" parents that lobbied against APs and Honors classes, but Asian, Hispanic, and Eastern European students tended to be overrepresented in those classes.

--------

There's no point truly optimizing for "gifted" students - the truly gifted will be able to succeed in any environment.

> There's no point truly optimizing for "gifted" students - the truly gifted will be able to succeed in any environment.

I mostly agree, so long as the truly gifted have access to resources which allow them to leverage their gifts. They don't need a teacher who is focused on them. But they at least need access to books, internet resources, etc., to learn on their own, ideally with some guidance from others but not essential.

> I've studied at Community Colleges, State Schools, and Ivies/Ivy Adjacent programs, and the curriculum is largely comparable.

I'm very happy with the education system of the US colleges too. I was specifically talking about trainings in high school.

> The un-PC truth is this comes down to parenting. If parents don't help guide or motivate their kids, most kids will stagnate.

At least this was not true in my personal experience. My parents gave me love and support, but they gave me zero relevant guidance on how to study. Funny that my parents told me that "just make sure you understand your textbook and can solve all the problems on it, and you will excel" because that was their experience in college. Yet they had no idea that we had no problem understanding textbooks, and questions we got from our teachers were miles deeper than our textbook. Merely following textbook will guarantee failure, except for the truly talented (this is very different from the US textbooks. Books like CLRS and Jackson's Electrodynamics are famous for tough exercises and deep discussions, but high-school textbooks, at least in my country, cover only the basics).

> There's no point truly optimizing for "gifted" students - the truly gifted will be able to succeed in any environment.

I guess it depends on what we mean by "gifted". If you are talking about gifted as in those who push themselves, who took initiative to find resources, who are so competitive or passionate that constantly seek challenges, then yeah, I are truly gifted and will stand out.

On the other hand, if you are talking about those who are like me, then I doubt we don't need to push them in high school. I got multiple wakeup calls because my teachers gave us challenging problem sets, so I realized that I didn't really learn as well as I thought.

counterpoint: https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-ct-har...

America has some of the best schools, but also some of the worst. Engaging kids doesn't mean pushing them to academic heights. We should be working on engaging kids in all the facets of life instead of pushing sports and STEM.

> Engaging kids doesn't mean pushing them to academic heights

Agreed. I guess the previous discussions were conditioned on the assumption that some kids want to perform well enough academically.

> The most talented get access to all kinds of free yet prestigious programs and camps, excellent books in local libraries, and professors in colleges.

I agree with this part

> The least talented are carefully looked after, and they don't necessarily have much pressure to get into a college, and rightly so.

This has nothing to do with talent. The poorest in society do receive subsidies (medicaid, food stamps) that the middle class do not qualify for. But that has nothing to do with talent. It's also not "carefully looked after" -- they're just not starving.

I meant programs like No Kids Left Behind, so we are careful to make sure the least talented won't feel singled out in school, or to make sure that their egos get as little bruised as possible. We also tailor the difficulties to them so they at least learn something.

Do you make a distinction between a "bad student" and a "disadvantaged student"? Is it ever fair to describe a student as "less talented" than another, in your view?

And adding a bit more info, because I hate seeing people get misled about what equity is arguing for.

The key difference of equity with equal opportunity is that equal opportunity provides the same resources/treatment to everyone, while equity recognizes that people start from different positions and may need different levels or types of support to reach the same opportunities.

Equity is about ensuring everyone has a fair chance to succeed according to their own potential and efforts, not about guaranteeing identical outcomes.

Yeah, I'm totally for this. I can see a push-back from some people, though: a talented kid may have access to more scarce resources, say a professor in a prestigious university, or a highly-selective camp like SAMS. For that those people will cry unfair.

Ya, there's push back from some people on either side.

I think one side doesn't want to "pay" to help others. Sometimes the idea of like everyone getting 500$ a month in social security is more alluring than giving it only to those who need it. So some people do prefer equality over equity. Similarly, in education, they don't see why they should "pay" for students that are not "smart", or for the fault of their parents, etc. Or they think, well if they get an extra hour of math tutoring, everyone should, or no one should. Which is the idea of equality, and not equity.

While the other side can get jealous of those that got lucky and started with money or privilege. So when the kid with money goes to a prestigious university, even though they also had to show they were smart enough for it, people start calling it unfair. Or if one person managed to bust their ass and make it from nothing, they pretend like probably they had more luck or privilege.

> So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap.

That's not what equity is, but it's a common messaging by those trying to move the popular opinion against it, so I understand why you wrongly thought so.

Equity isn't about holding back high-achieving students or bringing everyone to the same level. Instead, it's about ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential, while recognizing that different people might need different levels or types of support to get there.

A true equity approach in education would mean:

    Supporting gifted students to reach their full potential
    AND providing additional support to students who face systemic barriers or need extra help
    AND ensuring all students have access to quality education and resources

The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back. The idea that equity means lowering standards or limiting achievement is a misrepresentation often used to argue against equity initiatives as a straw man.

> Equity isn't about holding back high-achieving students or bringing everyone to the same level. Instead, it's about ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential, while recognizing that different people might need different levels or types of support to get there.

Isn't this equal opportunity, which means equality, which I also support?

> The goal is to lift everyone up, not to hold anyone back.

I thought California, or at least SFUSD, did exactly the opposite. For instance, they pushed the algebra to Grade 8 (or grade 9?) and geometry to grade 9, in the name of equity. That is, they try to restrict the access from even the ordinary kids (many kids have no problems studying algebra before grade 8) in the name of helping the challenged.

> Isn't this equal opportunity, which means equality, which also support?

Sorry, I forked the convo in two different replies. I explain the difference with equal opportunity in my other response. But basically, the introduction of the idea of equity was because the prior idea of equal opportunity assumed everyone starts from the same place, or has the same potential.

With equal opportunity, you give everyone the exact same education.

With equity, you give everyone the education they deserve.

> I thought California, or at least SFUSD, did exactly opposite. For instance, they pushed the algebra to Grade 8 (or grade 9?) and geometry to grade 9, in the name of equity. That is, they try to restrict the access from even the ordinary kids (many kids have no problems studying algebra before grade 8) in the name of helping the challenged.

Ya, instead of providing additional support to help struggling students access advanced math earlier, they essentially "leveled down" by restricting access for everyone. That case is often cited as an example of how misunderstanding equity (or using equity as a cover for other goals, let's be honest) can lead to policies that actually increase educational disparities rather than reducing them.

I can't explain it, and I don't support it. But it's not an example of equity, even if it pretends to be.

I think sometimes the political deadlock results in stupid things like this. Like, they wanted funding to help struggling students, got opposition to it, so resorted to this "cost-free" but harmful alternative, and labeled it as "equity" to try to make it more palatable and fool the people who wanted them to implement equity polices to believe they did.