5 ms·

"class-neutral" sounds like code-word for "the most direct measure of competency doesn't serve our agenda, so we will throw it out". Should colleges find people

"class-neutral" sounds like code-word for "the most direct measure of competency doesn't serve our agenda, so we will throw it out". Should colleges find people who have integrity, honesty, grit and determination, commitment to ideals? Sure, but I'm not sure that is what this is, because they wouldn't need to use "class-neutral" in that case. Talent at mathematics is class neutral, though prior training for it might not be. If you want to raise a generation of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, then "higher education" is for continuing the education they have already received and adding to it. Parents from different classes give their children different opportunities and levels of education, fact of life, higher education is for research and extending human knowledge beyond what normal institutions do, some classes may not be at that level, and that is okay, they should receive as much education as possible, but not at the expense of driving the state of the art. If you want to find those who are prodigies at mathematics, test their skill at that and hone their gift, regardless of what class they are.

mav3rick 8y ago
This is an immensely parochial view. You're essentially saying, "poor people will have limits to their growth and that is okay as long as the rich are the vanguard of sciences". Views like this are the starting of a generation of oppression and hate. There are enough examples of universities admitting geniuses as well as students who almost met the bar but were constantly let down by their environment. Given the right resources the latter can match and even outperform the former. It's funny how you mention nothing about finding and nourishing talent in the poor communities yet you stand up for the rich. Get outside your bubble, dismissing uplifting policies as being "PC" has become some sort of popular stance without any nuance or understanding of the other side.
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  > finding and nourishing talent in the poor > students who ... were constantly let down by their environment The problem is that the effects of talent are usually masked to obscurity by more powerful effects of environment. We ought to focus on not causing these students to fall behind at the start, rather than thinking we're doing something virtuous by graciously uplifting them alongside those who weren't artificially held back.
  - mav3rick 8y ago
    It is impossible to be prescient about every broken home or toxic environment. Meanwhile a leg up to one student means his next generation and his grand-generation are educated and have now transcended classes. I wouldn't advocate the same benefits to a recipients following generations (if they indeed made it to the middle class and above). The problem comes when this benefit keeps on going for generations and generations in the same family. This is the case in India right now and is a very big reason for disillusionment with the education system.
    - mav3rick 8y ago
      Edit:s/his/their
      - wild_preference 8y ago
        Just edit the post with the edit button. It's 17 minutes old.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  I fully agree with providing opportunities for education among the poor-- they have the most to benefit from it. I mentioned that "they should receive as much education as possible", and I support finding the best ways to do that. What I disagree with is what is already happening in California colleges where "Student Success" classes promote writing about what "makes you angry" with your position in society or your gender. I believe _that_ is promoting anger, hatred, lack of co-operation, and oppression. It is difficult to think clearly when you are always being told to be angry about something, and it is difficult to have a co-operative society with that kind of division.
  - mav3rick 8y ago
    That is not what your original comment was about. I do agree that asking students to manufacture hardships or points of views to fit narratives is not healthy. There could be better ways for the students to showcase their strengths and originality.
jjjensen90 8y ago
> Parents from different classes give their children different opportunities and levels of education... I don't think this is true, at least they way you've worded it. Typically the only parents that have any control over their child's "opportunities and levels of education..." are those in the uppermost classes.
- oytis 8y ago
  You mean that lower class children often accidentally get a degree in a top university while their parents are not watching? Otherwise I don't see a contradiction here.
- thedevil 8y ago
  > Typically the only parents that have any control over their child's "opportunities and levels of education..." are those in the uppermost classes. I'm not in "the uppermost classes". I'm probably at the 80% of household income and went to a state school. I put my son in a fantastic school in a well-off neighborhood rather than the default assigned school (my mom drives him there and I pay a babysitter/nanny to drive him back). Most of the kids that can read a little bit before entering kindergarten. He goes to various sports camps and activities classes. His babysitter (more like a part-time nanny) helps teach him to read. We'll probably pay for music lessons and various tutoring later. I also taught my son addition and subtraction of small numbers before entering kindergarten. And we've done a variety of activities to help him learn about science, money, and more.
- barrow-rider 8y ago
  > opportunities and levels of education... Plenty of opportunities and education without being sent to a private school. IIRC there was a study on kids and race and found that black kids and white kids did the same through most of elementary school, but the white kids get sent to summer camp, have an easier time scoring par-time jobs, are around people with broader vocabularies, and family and friends in different places which can score educational or employment opportunities down the line. I didn't grow up particularly well off, but my dad had a subscription to The Economist, Time, and the local big-city newspaper. He'd read us articles at dinner and then we'd discuss, or just let us read them later -- which definitely had an impact. Grandma bought me a chemistry kit one year in middle school, which helped my science grades later. None of this stuff was super expensive, certainly no where near private school costs, but it can absolutely make a difference.
ataturk 8y ago
I will take it a step further and argue that only independently wealthy people should be research faculty, at least in the USA, because the ability to make a living as a professor without being forced to compromise one's ethics in the service of grant-whoring is a matter of grave concern. In the past, only aristocrats had the leisure and funding to pull off the work. Approaching science without bias, without masters (e.g. who holds the purse strings) is very important and is the #1 difference in today's world.

mav3rick 8y ago

This is an immensely parochial view. You're essentially saying, "poor people will have limits to their growth and that is okay as long as the rich are the vanguard of sciences". Views like this are the starting of a generation of oppression and hate. There are enough examples of universities admitting geniuses as well as students who almost met the bar but were constantly let down by their environment. Given the right resources the latter can match and even outperform the former. It's funny how you mention nothing about finding and nourishing talent in the poor communities yet you stand up for the rich. Get outside your bubble, dismissing uplifting policies as being "PC" has become some sort of popular stance without any nuance or understanding of the other side.

LeifCarrotson 8y ago
> finding and nourishing talent in the poor > students who ... were constantly let down by their environment The problem is that the effects of talent are usually masked to obscurity by more powerful effects of environment. We ought to focus on not causing these students to fall behind at the start, rather than thinking we're doing something virtuous by graciously uplifting them alongside those who weren't artificially held back.
- mav3rick 8y ago
  It is impossible to be prescient about every broken home or toxic environment. Meanwhile a leg up to one student means his next generation and his grand-generation are educated and have now transcended classes. I wouldn't advocate the same benefits to a recipients following generations (if they indeed made it to the middle class and above). The problem comes when this benefit keeps on going for generations and generations in the same family. This is the case in India right now and is a very big reason for disillusionment with the education system.
  - mav3rick 8y ago
    Edit:s/his/their
    - wild_preference 8y ago
      Just edit the post with the edit button. It's 17 minutes old.
brobdingnagians 8y ago
I fully agree with providing opportunities for education among the poor-- they have the most to benefit from it. I mentioned that "they should receive as much education as possible", and I support finding the best ways to do that. What I disagree with is what is already happening in California colleges where "Student Success" classes promote writing about what "makes you angry" with your position in society or your gender. I believe _that_ is promoting anger, hatred, lack of co-operation, and oppression. It is difficult to think clearly when you are always being told to be angry about something, and it is difficult to have a co-operative society with that kind of division.
- mav3rick 8y ago
  That is not what your original comment was about. I do agree that asking students to manufacture hardships or points of views to fit narratives is not healthy. There could be better ways for the students to showcase their strengths and originality.

jjjensen90 8y ago

> Parents from different classes give their children different opportunities and levels of education... I don't think this is true, at least they way you've worded it. Typically the only parents that have any control over their child's "opportunities and levels of education..." are those in the uppermost classes.

oytis 8y ago
You mean that lower class children often accidentally get a degree in a top university while their parents are not watching? Otherwise I don't see a contradiction here.
thedevil 8y ago
> Typically the only parents that have any control over their child's "opportunities and levels of education..." are those in the uppermost classes. I'm not in "the uppermost classes". I'm probably at the 80% of household income and went to a state school. I put my son in a fantastic school in a well-off neighborhood rather than the default assigned school (my mom drives him there and I pay a babysitter/nanny to drive him back). Most of the kids that can read a little bit before entering kindergarten. He goes to various sports camps and activities classes. His babysitter (more like a part-time nanny) helps teach him to read. We'll probably pay for music lessons and various tutoring later. I also taught my son addition and subtraction of small numbers before entering kindergarten. And we've done a variety of activities to help him learn about science, money, and more.
barrow-rider 8y ago
> opportunities and levels of education... Plenty of opportunities and education without being sent to a private school. IIRC there was a study on kids and race and found that black kids and white kids did the same through most of elementary school, but the white kids get sent to summer camp, have an easier time scoring par-time jobs, are around people with broader vocabularies, and family and friends in different places which can score educational or employment opportunities down the line. I didn't grow up particularly well off, but my dad had a subscription to The Economist, Time, and the local big-city newspaper. He'd read us articles at dinner and then we'd discuss, or just let us read them later -- which definitely had an impact. Grandma bought me a chemistry kit one year in middle school, which helped my science grades later. None of this stuff was super expensive, certainly no where near private school costs, but it can absolutely make a difference.

ataturk 8y ago

I will take it a step further and argue that only independently wealthy people should be research faculty, at least in the USA, because the ability to make a living as a professor without being forced to compromise one's ethics in the service of grant-whoring is a matter of grave concern. In the past, only aristocrats had the leisure and funding to pull off the work. Approaching science without bias, without masters (e.g. who holds the purse strings) is very important and is the #1 difference in today's world.