9 ms·

Yes. Without a single doubt. I attended the long-running #1 public school in the nation. The School for the Talented and Gifted Magnet High School in Dallas, T

by iplaw 10y ago

Yes. Without a single doubt. I attended the long-running #1 public school in the nation. The School for the Talented and Gifted Magnet High School in Dallas, TX. The environment fostered creativity and learning. There were no distractions or negative pressures or stressors. Being smart didn't result in being bullied, it resulted in being respected.

shawabawa3 10y ago
I think there's no doubt that it's a good thing for the students that go to these schools. The question is whether it's good for society as other schools may suffer
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  How is it bad for society for bright students to excel?
  - habosa 10y ago
    I think the question was what happens to the students who are not labeled as 'bright'? How does their being cast off to a "lower" school affect society in the long run.
  - lol214365 10y ago
    It reduces social mobility. Charles Murray talks about how there is a trade-off between social mobility and meritocracy due to the heredity of IQ. In a meritocratic society, the smartest kids go to the best schools, then to the best colleges, then the most elite companies, then likely marry someone from school or work, and then have the smartest kids. Socioeconomic classes become set due the stability of cognitive function across generations. Is it ideal to have a cognitively and economically stratified america with a cognitive elite and cognitive under-class? Is it ideal that this cognitive elite has little to no interaction with the rest of America, and little understanding of how the rest of the country lives?
    - cloudwizard 10y ago
      Cognitive elite or financial elite. The rich get to send their kids to private schools. Smart poor kids get locked into mediocre public schools with reducing standards. Rich parents pass on their wealth at a lower tax rate. Being smart is not a guarantee of success so we should make it harder so the less intelligent do not suffer any disadvantage.
  - HeavenBanned 10y ago
    100 million goes to a handful of "bright schools" 1 million goes to 100+ "regular schools" The circlejerk here is that it would "help immensely" and "move the needle forward" but it would just result in further deepening the gap between rich and poor. The mindset of this sub is deeply anti-Communist and you can see it in the replies. Separating class from this issue is absolutely impossible.
  - InitialLastName 10y ago
    I can think of a few reasons why we shouldn't optimize purely for the academic achievements of our most talented students: -Less excellent students tend to benefit from having more excellent students in their classes -Even if their academic outlooks are improved, the excellent students are segregated from having to learn how to deal with a wide range of intellectual levels and abilities -I'm not convinced it's really the most efficient way to allocate our educational resources, especially as there's pretty clear evidence that "excellence" in students is correlated to affluence, so we might really just be segregating by class anyway.
- Retra 10y ago
  How would other schools suffer?
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    In the US, much of a school's extracurricular program is funded via PTA, fund-raising, or simply charging extra fees. In this system, the well-to-do parents/families subsidize the others (poor students granted waivers to the various fees, or don't contribute to the PTA monetarily). Given the strong correlation between academic aptitude and economic success, removing the smart students also remove the wealthy students. The funding model falls apart, and the students who remain get even less extracurricular enrichment. Granted, we could design programs that mostly avoid the problem. In my county, the gifted high school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) only takes absolutely brilliant students. Many of whom truly fit the "too smart to fit in" stereotype. Across a large county, that still leaves plenty of gifted/wealthy students in the normal schools, which offer a broad selection of AP/IB/dual-enrollment options.
- CodeSheikh 10y ago
  How other schools will suffer? Endowments from rich parents? Being rich does not mean your kid is smart and these gifted schools should be very selective to whom they admit.
  - conjectures 10y ago
    > Being rich does not mean your kid is smart But it does mean you can pay to get them tutored to jump through hoops, and generally push them harder. There's a very strong relationship between wealth and elite college admission for example. Which is down to culture and opportunity as much as gifts and talents. If being selective means controlling for socioeconomic background when assessing potential - then I'd be more of a cheerleader for it.
    - whorleater 10y ago
      > If being selective means controlling for socioeconomic background when assessing potential So...affirmative action like in colleges but for earlier forms of education?
      - iplaw 10y ago
        I love how you put this. To be fair, the TAG Magnet did have race-based quotas until very recently. Let's just say that the school is now ... less diverse. Although, the 1% "other", which encompassed all East and West Asian, has now makes up roughly one-third of the enrollment. The former court ordered 33/33/33/1 resulted in rejecting some of the most meritorious students.
  - erroneousfunk 10y ago
    There's a very high correlation between household income and SAT scores: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and...
greggman 10y ago
That's great. I wish we could figure out how to change the culture in general though. Some cultures in the world value smarts. USA culture generally does not
- alistairSH 10y ago
  USA culture generally does not [value smarts] That's a very broad generalization. Yes, there are areas where education is not seen as a positive. But, looking at trends in our major suburban areas, I think you're way off base. It is increasingly difficult to gain admission to the top state colleges in many areas of the nation because of overwhelming demand. This in turn has led to a massive increase in the number of after-school tutoring programs, math enrichment programs, expansion of AP/honors course availability, etc.
imgabe 10y ago
>The environment fostered creativity and learning. There were no distractions or negative pressures or stressors. Being smart didn't result in being bullied, it resulted in being respected. I think these are great benefits and we should focus on making them available for all students, regardless of whether or not they're "gifted".
stoic 10y ago
boo TAG go SEM! Glad to see another Townview graduate representing us well. :)
- iplaw 10y ago
  For sure!
- iplaw 10y ago
  Even if SEM plays second fiddle, it's the only other legitimate magnet in that building. ;)

by iplaw 10y ago

shawabawa3 10y ago

I think there's no doubt that it's a good thing for the students that go to these schools. The question is whether it's good for society as other schools may suffer

maverick_iceman 10y ago
How is it bad for society for bright students to excel?
- habosa 10y ago
  I think the question was what happens to the students who are not labeled as 'bright'? How does their being cast off to a "lower" school affect society in the long run.
- lol214365 10y ago
  It reduces social mobility. Charles Murray talks about how there is a trade-off between social mobility and meritocracy due to the heredity of IQ. In a meritocratic society, the smartest kids go to the best schools, then to the best colleges, then the most elite companies, then likely marry someone from school or work, and then have the smartest kids. Socioeconomic classes become set due the stability of cognitive function across generations. Is it ideal to have a cognitively and economically stratified america with a cognitive elite and cognitive under-class? Is it ideal that this cognitive elite has little to no interaction with the rest of America, and little understanding of how the rest of the country lives?
  - cloudwizard 10y ago
    Cognitive elite or financial elite. The rich get to send their kids to private schools. Smart poor kids get locked into mediocre public schools with reducing standards. Rich parents pass on their wealth at a lower tax rate. Being smart is not a guarantee of success so we should make it harder so the less intelligent do not suffer any disadvantage.
- HeavenBanned 10y ago
  100 million goes to a handful of "bright schools" 1 million goes to 100+ "regular schools" The circlejerk here is that it would "help immensely" and "move the needle forward" but it would just result in further deepening the gap between rich and poor. The mindset of this sub is deeply anti-Communist and you can see it in the replies. Separating class from this issue is absolutely impossible.
- InitialLastName 10y ago
  I can think of a few reasons why we shouldn't optimize purely for the academic achievements of our most talented students: -Less excellent students tend to benefit from having more excellent students in their classes -Even if their academic outlooks are improved, the excellent students are segregated from having to learn how to deal with a wide range of intellectual levels and abilities -I'm not convinced it's really the most efficient way to allocate our educational resources, especially as there's pretty clear evidence that "excellence" in students is correlated to affluence, so we might really just be segregating by class anyway.
Retra 10y ago
How would other schools suffer?
- alistairSH 10y ago
  In the US, much of a school's extracurricular program is funded via PTA, fund-raising, or simply charging extra fees. In this system, the well-to-do parents/families subsidize the others (poor students granted waivers to the various fees, or don't contribute to the PTA monetarily). Given the strong correlation between academic aptitude and economic success, removing the smart students also remove the wealthy students. The funding model falls apart, and the students who remain get even less extracurricular enrichment. Granted, we could design programs that mostly avoid the problem. In my county, the gifted high school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) only takes absolutely brilliant students. Many of whom truly fit the "too smart to fit in" stereotype. Across a large county, that still leaves plenty of gifted/wealthy students in the normal schools, which offer a broad selection of AP/IB/dual-enrollment options.
CodeSheikh 10y ago
How other schools will suffer? Endowments from rich parents? Being rich does not mean your kid is smart and these gifted schools should be very selective to whom they admit.
- conjectures 10y ago
  > Being rich does not mean your kid is smart But it does mean you can pay to get them tutored to jump through hoops, and generally push them harder. There's a very strong relationship between wealth and elite college admission for example. Which is down to culture and opportunity as much as gifts and talents. If being selective means controlling for socioeconomic background when assessing potential - then I'd be more of a cheerleader for it.
  - whorleater 10y ago
    > If being selective means controlling for socioeconomic background when assessing potential So...affirmative action like in colleges but for earlier forms of education?
    - iplaw 10y ago
      I love how you put this. To be fair, the TAG Magnet did have race-based quotas until very recently. Let's just say that the school is now ... less diverse. Although, the 1% "other", which encompassed all East and West Asian, has now makes up roughly one-third of the enrollment. The former court ordered 33/33/33/1 resulted in rejecting some of the most meritorious students.
- erroneousfunk 10y ago
  There's a very high correlation between household income and SAT scores: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and...

greggman 10y ago

That's great. I wish we could figure out how to change the culture in general though. Some cultures in the world value smarts. USA culture generally does not

alistairSH 10y ago
USA culture generally does not [value smarts] That's a very broad generalization. Yes, there are areas where education is not seen as a positive. But, looking at trends in our major suburban areas, I think you're way off base. It is increasingly difficult to gain admission to the top state colleges in many areas of the nation because of overwhelming demand. This in turn has led to a massive increase in the number of after-school tutoring programs, math enrichment programs, expansion of AP/honors course availability, etc.

imgabe 10y ago

>The environment fostered creativity and learning. There were no distractions or negative pressures or stressors. Being smart didn't result in being bullied, it resulted in being respected. I think these are great benefits and we should focus on making them available for all students, regardless of whether or not they're "gifted".

stoic 10y ago

boo TAG go SEM! Glad to see another Townview graduate representing us well. :)

iplaw 10y ago
For sure!
iplaw 10y ago
Even if SEM plays second fiddle, it's the only other legitimate magnet in that building. ;)