Comment by smtddr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smtddr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad.

I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits.

Once you divide a group between the "desired" and "non-desired" traits, there's no way the less desired people will get the same quality attention as the desired. It pretty much will turn into: Group them all together, then systematically eliminate them, condemn them or make them irrelevant. Basically, that segregation will become the solution itself:

"We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average."

So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into? It's true that there are more resources associated with success, but doesn't that also incentivize people to work harder to end up in the higher bracket? I don't see the "Class-C" problem as necessarily a problem, so long as the person in "Class-C" has the opportunity to get back to Class-A by putting in the appropriate work.

My own feeling (having also observed higher ed in Europe and Asia and other places) is that the US system works better for cultivating high achievement, but less well at making sure that lower achievers maintain a certain level of quality. This means that there is more spread over the bell curve and less in the center. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to prefer more clustering in the center of the bell curve.

This is equally true for wealth acquisition, btw, with Europeans generally preferring not to have extremes (i.e. extremely high wage earners or extremely low wage earners).

>> So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into?

Yes, I do think there's a flaw there too. But the paid schools' issue is more complicated because of the "private" money involved. "Private" in that, students are paying directly out of pocket rather than the taxes that go into public high-schools that's less visible to people. What I'd like to see there, is that people who go to the cheaper & less "high society" schools get a chance to take maybe 1 or 2 classes a year at the Havards/Stanfords/Yales/etc just to see what it's like on those campuses. No segregation either; there should not be any way to tell which students are exclusively attending Harvard/Stanford versus the ones on the "visitor" program unless the student him/herself chooses to disclose that info.

>> I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad.

>I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits.

The error is labeling children to put them into tidy categories. Whether the 9-year-old is two years behind in math or two years ahead in math is still taking the mindset that the children are like farm animals we should measure with "calipers" and compare to others in same age segregated litter.

What is important is that their existing skills are correctly assessed, and then the appropriate lessons provided to move forward. The only reason people are graduating from HS without solid skill in arithmetic is they are being pushed forward on a relentless educational conveyor belt. The basics should have been mastered when they were 9 or 10 or 11.

>"We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average."

In the real world, the opposite is more likely to be true. Why a student is a high achiever is, from the school's point of view, largely a mystery -- 99% likely it has everything to do with the parents and very little to do with the school itself. The school is capable of shoving many, many students through a standard curriculum. That suggests shooting for near the median and ignoring both the low and high outliers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com