6 ms·

Exactly. I strongly suggest to speak with some actual teachers, instead of blindly relying on ridiculous propaganda. The problem is not the system, the problem

Exactly. I strongly suggest to speak with some actual teachers, instead of blindly relying on ridiculous propaganda. The problem is not the system, the problem is social mobility. Poor kids don't do well in school because their families and their environment don't value education. They perceive (correctly, BTW, from a statistical perspective) that if you're born poor, there isn't much you can do. You're gonna die poor anyway. So why worry about school? Families don't care (exceptions do exist, of course), peers look down upon you if you're "bookish", it's a vicious cycle. There's a lack of hope among those at the bottom. No amount of educational reform will fix that. People know they're in a social straightjacket from birth. Fix whatever systemic problems keep America's social mobility so low, and the aforementioned issues will get a lot better.

peller 10y ago
> Poor kids don't do well in school because their families and their environment don't value education. Have you considered the possibility that the educational system doesn't value the needs of the poor?
- vixen99 10y ago
  And if it did, how would that work or operate?
  - peller 10y ago
    What I was getting at is that the subject matter often isn't applicable to helping them solve their specific problems. Education (curriculums) shouldn't be one-size-fits-all.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?
      - peller 10y ago
        Well I imagine the needs of inner-city-poor and rural-poor are often different, to pick two extremes. But I myself have never lived either of those lives, and I've only interacted with the rural-poor (through volunteer organizations). So, I can't really know their needs. But where I'd start, is with what I might call the "forbidden subjects" - stuff you and I probably learned from our families, if we were lucky. Interpersonal relationship skills, managing personal finances, and probably most importantly, mental patterns/attitudes/habits/priorities for more effective use of the mind. (Because complacency is effectively the "default state" of the amygdala. And combined with ignorance of the mind's ways, it can only stay that way.) If you can stomach some underground hip hip, here's a track by Dead Prez for one anecdotal inner-city perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IUbVQRqAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IUbVQRqAk
        Kalium 10y ago
        You know, my rural poor high school had a course covering personal finance, relationships, health, home economics, and so on. It was a required course for all freshman, who were 15 or so and not yet eligible to drop out. It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. The underground hip hop complaints as relative to material mostly cover political questions and show that he didn't pay attention to the courses that would help "get our rent paid".
        adamnemecek 10y ago
        > It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. Exactly, I can't think of a single subject that actually achieves what it should when taught in the school setting.
        Kalium 10y ago
        Really? Because basic literacy, civics, history, and mathemathics as commonly taught work roughly as well as they are expected to. The problem with the class I describe isn't that it didn't teach effectively. It's that the students largely didn't care to apply what was taught.
code_sardaukar 10y ago
>They perceive (correctly, BTW, from a statistical perspective) that if you're born poor, there isn't much you can do. How can you blithely state this "fact" given that the article itself shows that a poor person who graduates college has a better-than-average income distribution (every percentile is better off than the population as a whole). It's really frustrating to me that people like you don't make any honest effort to distinguish between objective "lack of hope" where poor people actually cannot improve their situation, with subjective "lack of hope" where people for whatever reason are unable to be motivated to take actual opportunities that could help them. Clearly these are different phenomena and conflating them is irresponsible and dangerous.

peller 10y ago

> Poor kids don't do well in school because their families and their environment don't value education. Have you considered the possibility that the educational system doesn't value the needs of the poor?

vixen99 10y ago
And if it did, how would that work or operate?
- peller 10y ago
  What I was getting at is that the subject matter often isn't applicable to helping them solve their specific problems. Education (curriculums) shouldn't be one-size-fits-all.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    What subject matters do you think are substantially neglected by the American educational system that fails to reflect the needs of the poor? How should curricula be changed? What specific problems are unaddressed?
    - peller 10y ago
      Well I imagine the needs of inner-city-poor and rural-poor are often different, to pick two extremes. But I myself have never lived either of those lives, and I've only interacted with the rural-poor (through volunteer organizations). So, I can't really know their needs. But where I'd start, is with what I might call the "forbidden subjects" - stuff you and I probably learned from our families, if we were lucky. Interpersonal relationship skills, managing personal finances, and probably most importantly, mental patterns/attitudes/habits/priorities for more effective use of the mind. (Because complacency is effectively the "default state" of the amygdala. And combined with ignorance of the mind's ways, it can only stay that way.) If you can stomach some underground hip hip, here's a track by Dead Prez for one anecdotal inner-city perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IUbVQRqAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8IUbVQRqAk
      - Kalium 10y ago
        You know, my rural poor high school had a course covering personal finance, relationships, health, home economics, and so on. It was a required course for all freshman, who were 15 or so and not yet eligible to drop out. It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. The underground hip hop complaints as relative to material mostly cover political questions and show that he didn't pay attention to the courses that would help "get our rent paid".
        adamnemecek 10y ago
        > It did not accomplish nearly so much as you might hope. Exactly, I can't think of a single subject that actually achieves what it should when taught in the school setting.
        Kalium 10y ago
        Really? Because basic literacy, civics, history, and mathemathics as commonly taught work roughly as well as they are expected to. The problem with the class I describe isn't that it didn't teach effectively. It's that the students largely didn't care to apply what was taught.

code_sardaukar 10y ago

>They perceive (correctly, BTW, from a statistical perspective) that if you're born poor, there isn't much you can do. How can you blithely state this "fact" given that the article itself shows that a poor person who graduates college has a better-than-average income distribution (every percentile is better off than the population as a whole). It's really frustrating to me that people like you don't make any honest effort to distinguish between objective "lack of hope" where poor people actually cannot improve their situation, with subjective "lack of hope" where people for whatever reason are unable to be motivated to take actual opportunities that could help them. Clearly these are different phenomena and conflating them is irresponsible and dangerous.