4 ms·

This is my go to defense for "social justice reform" when pulling at the heartstrings doesn't work. There are a couple of truisms when it comes to the global ec

This is my go to defense for "social justice reform" when pulling at the heartstrings doesn't work. There are a couple of truisms when it comes to the global economy for the next 100 years (barring major catastrophe): 1. The US will not be able to compete w/ India or China when it comes to population. 2. As low-hanging fruit in the economy is gobbled up, advanced economies will need to rely on highly skilled workers to continue growth. Basically, America is going to have to get MUCH better at realizing the full potential of it's population in order to keep growing. That means investing in poor neighborhoods and undeserved communities, providing equal access and opportunity and removing as many barriers as possible to those who have been traditionally marginalized. While many companies use "woke as a business strategy" the underlying economics behind the recent diversity push of major tech companies is backed by these facts.

zozbot123 8y ago
Most "woke" advocacy hardly favors "realizing the full potential of [our] population". Back here in the real world, the "woke" folks are the ones pushing for deeply flawed educational approaches like "whole language" reading (aka don't actually teach kids to read by explaining the rules that link written and spoken English, viz. phonics; just give them fully-formed written texts and let them figure it out!) and "reform math" (aka don't actually teach kids the traditional, efficient algorithms for computing simple arithmetical operations, just have them do a lot of fuzzy "mental math" and "discovering their inner knowledge" without even caring whether they're anywhere near a correct approach. They'll figure it out eventually!). These approaches are being pushed as a result of mindless cargo-culting and politicking, and are doing quite a bit of damage to our educational system. The basic attitude of not caring about the actual outcomes of what you're teaching persists all the way through K12, and explains quite a bit of how far U.S. primary and secondary schooling underachieves compared to the rest of the developed world. When a potentially "bright" kid has been subjected to 12 years of such deeply-flawed, even outright nonsensical cargo-cult schooling, how can we even expect her to be interested in college?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  So, assuming none of the silly pedagogical techniques are used, is the argument for aiming for a highly educated workforce sound?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  I'm sorry the comment describing how SFUSD had eliminated algebra from middle school [0] has been deleted. Waiting until junior year to split up a class based on math aptitude is probably good for those in the middle, but it's certainly bad for those with higher or lower than average aptitude. As I recall, my pre-algebra and algebra I courses were attended by two classes: 7-8 and 8-9 grades respectively. After that there was no requirement that you take a particular course in a particular year, just that you had passed the prerequisites. This seemed to work very well, since everyone was ready for the material. [0] https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-teaching/ https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-...
  - geebee 8y ago
    I didn’t realize anyone had read it, I moved it To the parent comment in the thread.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Haha no worries... I guess I should have looked for it before posting.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  The actual "cargo-culting" in K-12 education is opposing new ways of teaching because it's not how you learned when you were a kid. That's not that far from worshiping cargo boxes because you remember that one time that they had food in them. As an example of new ways of teaching math, my daughter is in public school kindergarten and they are doing less arithmetic than I did as a kid, but they're already introducing concepts like number sets and bases.
geebee 8y ago
In SFUSD, there's a big debate around algebra right now - in particular, the decision to remove it from the 8th grade curriculum. It's important to note that this is both a controversial and complicated topic, since it isn't entirely accurate to say that the course material for algebra has been eliminated from 8th grade math. However, it does mean that graduates of SFUSD now have to amend their high school path (summer sessions, private classes followed by entrance exams, or doubling up on math during one or more years of high school) in order to be prepared to take calculus in their senior year of High School. This isn't the case for private schools or public schools from other Bay Area districts, which continue to teach algebra as a formal standalone course in 8th grade. Here's one link about it, but I'd recommend reading more extensively if you're interested: https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/SF-schools-move-to-delay-algebra-shows-13518860.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/SF-schools-mov... It's a more nuanced issue than pure "progressive" (or what the parent poster called "woke") politics, as this decision was also made as part of a push to teach math differently and less mechanically (common core). https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-teaching/ https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-... However, concern over the racial/ethnic composition of 8th grade algebra classes in SFUSD was a stated concern of many of the people promoting this decision.
- obpacheco 8y ago
  Coming from a public high school in the Bay Area I can totally understand the issue of AP/Honors or advanced math classes having the effect of segregation based on socioeconomic background. It's a tricky subject but I was able to take algebra in 7th grade which set me up to take calculus in junior year all through what the public schools provided which I was extremely greatful for. Personally I think it would be a shame if these classes get removed even though I understand the sentiment.
MuffinFlavored 8y ago
India and China already have more people than America. Why does number of people matter in your context? Isn't the average American's quality of life much higher than the average Indian's in terms of housing, health care, public transport, etc.?
- YetAnotherNick 8y ago
  True. It is like Sweden or Norway or Switzerland complaining that they can't compete with America and that it is unfair. It does not matter how much is your population except if you are a politician and want global power.
- magduf 8y ago
  Those countries are catching up quickly, and they have far more human resources at their disposal. At some point, we won't be able to compete any more. They can afford to let half their population be completely underutilized and still have way more people than us. As for quality of life, China already seems to be doing better in terms of public transport. America doesn't have anything at all to brag about here, unless you're comparing to Zimbabwe or something.
  - shard972 8y ago
    > As for quality of life, China already seems to be doing better in terms of public transport. America doesn't have anything at all to brag about here, unless you're comparing to Zimbabwe or something. How long until the west starts to immigrate into china instead of the other way around?
    - magduf 8y ago
      It's already happening; there's a lot of American expats living there for work.
  - MuffinFlavored 8y ago
    > and they have far more human resources at their disposal It was my honest opinion that this worked against India and China historically. More mouths to feed, more people to educate.
OCASM 8y ago
You invest all that just so that big firms hire people from overseas at a lower wage.
microcolonel 8y ago
> That means investing in poor neighborhoods and undeserved communities, providing equal access and opportunity and removing as many barriers as possible to those who have been traditionally marginalized. It seems to me that precisely the worst forms of that are the ones promoted most heavily. It is not difficult in the slightest to test a person's financial means, and that is the best proxy for the kind of inequality you're talking about; but American (and Canadian) schools tend to focus on imperfect, politically-charged metrics of "marginalized" (usually mainly race). Since the current forms of this kind of policy tend to mainly attract racists (the subtle, erudite kind), they tend not to address the broader issues, and they tend to push away true progressives.
rland 8y ago
I agree, but the US has the wrong cultural mindset for this issue. The example I turn to -- and I'd be interested in the hard data on this -- is the explosion of STEM education in the US after WWII. It seems to me that a massive institution of STEM education was built on the idea that we needed to "beat the soviets" in the tech race. Ample public funding made tuition cheap and expanded opportunities for huge swaths of the population. But access to these institutions is being shut out by increasing costs. Students pay a fortune in tuition and housing, and yet every intro science and technology class doesn't have enough seats. I think it's a subtle change that has occurred. The universities don't much care about providing the best possible education. They care about signaling to the market that their graduates are the best, so that graduates can pay their loans back. This is because there is no unified mission any more. We're not engaged in a technological race with anyone, so the institutions only need to perpetuate the signal of quality--not quality itself--to maintain their existence. We're resting on the inertia, which is slowly waning until we are not the best in the world any more. At that point, the true magnitude of the deficit will become apparent, because immigrants will look elsewhere to be educated. The institutions that are really picking up the slack here are community colleges. Their resources are dwarfed by the scope of their mission.
- shmat 8y ago
  This is a great example. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 galvanized the US. I started first grade in 1960, and throughout my elementary school years there was a huge emphasis on math and science. We did number theory in 4th grade and started algebra in 5th grade. We had LOTS of science classes. This was at a good but not outstanding public school in a middle class town. It wasn't a magnet school or special in any way. It was considered patriotic to provide the best possible public schools. Unfortunately, that emphasis was not sustained after the 1960s.
- loosetypes 8y ago
  > there is no unified mission any more I enjoyed the way you phrased this. At times I've felt like different aspects of the "college experience" would be a scam if there weren't so many disparate good-intentions. > They care about signaling Non-traditional students in my university used to qualify for free tutoring by specific university-approved tutors. This semester, it was deemed an inappropriate use of resources and the funding was instead redirected to hire an administrator to write a regular newsletter "designed for the nontraditional undergraduate community" to "provide more opportunities to enhance and enrich your student experience". That's quite an ambitious goal for what I would term marketing. If there is in fact anything resembling a unified-mission at this time, it certainly does not include reducing friction of at-risk students from graduating.
T2_t2 8y ago
If anything, that is a call for better immigration, not better utilisation of those born in a country. Reasoning: 1. The US will not be able to compete w/ India or China when it comes to population 2. Most people with high ability are born outside of the US or any country statistically. 3. Importing the best and brightest is the surest way to continue growth. The argument for immigration is that most 1st world countries do a great job of filling the middle 80% - most jobs in other words. We struggle at the top - as the top is hard to fulfill by definition - and the bottom, as most 1st world born don't want to, say, pick fruit. To make sure 1st world economies continue to grow maximally, we need more of the very best, and more of those willing to do the sort of menial tasks we collectively simply don't want to. Everyone wins from that. Those born in a 1st world country get to work at better run companies, and have their menial tasks fulfilled at a rate that keeps fruit cheap, and wait times low for things like fixing a broken door / getting a house painted.

zozbot123 8y ago

Most "woke" advocacy hardly favors "realizing the full potential of [our] population". Back here in the real world, the "woke" folks are the ones pushing for deeply flawed educational approaches like "whole language" reading (aka don't actually teach kids to read by explaining the rules that link written and spoken English, viz. phonics; just give them fully-formed written texts and let them figure it out!) and "reform math" (aka don't actually teach kids the traditional, efficient algorithms for computing simple arithmetical operations, just have them do a lot of fuzzy "mental math" and "discovering their inner knowledge" without even caring whether they're anywhere near a correct approach. They'll figure it out eventually!). These approaches are being pushed as a result of mindless cargo-culting and politicking, and are doing quite a bit of damage to our educational system. The basic attitude of not caring about the actual outcomes of what you're teaching persists all the way through K12, and explains quite a bit of how far U.S. primary and secondary schooling underachieves compared to the rest of the developed world. When a potentially "bright" kid has been subjected to 12 years of such deeply-flawed, even outright nonsensical cargo-cult schooling, how can we even expect her to be interested in college?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
So, assuming none of the silly pedagogical techniques are used, is the argument for aiming for a highly educated workforce sound?
jessaustin 8y ago
I'm sorry the comment describing how SFUSD had eliminated algebra from middle school [0] has been deleted. Waiting until junior year to split up a class based on math aptitude is probably good for those in the middle, but it's certainly bad for those with higher or lower than average aptitude. As I recall, my pre-algebra and algebra I courses were attended by two classes: 7-8 and 8-9 grades respectively. After that there was no requirement that you take a particular course in a particular year, just that you had passed the prerequisites. This seemed to work very well, since everyone was ready for the material. [0] https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-teaching/ https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-...
- geebee 8y ago
  I didn’t realize anyone had read it, I moved it To the parent comment in the thread.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Haha no worries... I guess I should have looked for it before posting.
snowwrestler 8y ago
The actual "cargo-culting" in K-12 education is opposing new ways of teaching because it's not how you learned when you were a kid. That's not that far from worshiping cargo boxes because you remember that one time that they had food in them. As an example of new ways of teaching math, my daughter is in public school kindergarten and they are doing less arithmetic than I did as a kid, but they're already introducing concepts like number sets and bases.

geebee 8y ago

In SFUSD, there's a big debate around algebra right now - in particular, the decision to remove it from the 8th grade curriculum. It's important to note that this is both a controversial and complicated topic, since it isn't entirely accurate to say that the course material for algebra has been eliminated from 8th grade math. However, it does mean that graduates of SFUSD now have to amend their high school path (summer sessions, private classes followed by entrance exams, or doubling up on math during one or more years of high school) in order to be prepared to take calculus in their senior year of High School. This isn't the case for private schools or public schools from other Bay Area districts, which continue to teach algebra as a formal standalone course in 8th grade. Here's one link about it, but I'd recommend reading more extensively if you're interested: https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/SF-schools-move-to-delay-algebra-shows-13518860.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/SF-schools-mov... It's a more nuanced issue than pure "progressive" (or what the parent poster called "woke") politics, as this decision was also made as part of a push to teach math differently and less mechanically (common core). https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-teaching/ https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-... However, concern over the racial/ethnic composition of 8th grade algebra classes in SFUSD was a stated concern of many of the people promoting this decision.

obpacheco 8y ago
Coming from a public high school in the Bay Area I can totally understand the issue of AP/Honors or advanced math classes having the effect of segregation based on socioeconomic background. It's a tricky subject but I was able to take algebra in 7th grade which set me up to take calculus in junior year all through what the public schools provided which I was extremely greatful for. Personally I think it would be a shame if these classes get removed even though I understand the sentiment.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago

India and China already have more people than America. Why does number of people matter in your context? Isn't the average American's quality of life much higher than the average Indian's in terms of housing, health care, public transport, etc.?

YetAnotherNick 8y ago
True. It is like Sweden or Norway or Switzerland complaining that they can't compete with America and that it is unfair. It does not matter how much is your population except if you are a politician and want global power.
magduf 8y ago
Those countries are catching up quickly, and they have far more human resources at their disposal. At some point, we won't be able to compete any more. They can afford to let half their population be completely underutilized and still have way more people than us. As for quality of life, China already seems to be doing better in terms of public transport. America doesn't have anything at all to brag about here, unless you're comparing to Zimbabwe or something.
- shard972 8y ago
  > As for quality of life, China already seems to be doing better in terms of public transport. America doesn't have anything at all to brag about here, unless you're comparing to Zimbabwe or something. How long until the west starts to immigrate into china instead of the other way around?
  - magduf 8y ago
    It's already happening; there's a lot of American expats living there for work.
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  > and they have far more human resources at their disposal It was my honest opinion that this worked against India and China historically. More mouths to feed, more people to educate.

OCASM 8y ago

You invest all that just so that big firms hire people from overseas at a lower wage.

microcolonel 8y ago

> That means investing in poor neighborhoods and undeserved communities, providing equal access and opportunity and removing as many barriers as possible to those who have been traditionally marginalized. It seems to me that precisely the worst forms of that are the ones promoted most heavily. It is not difficult in the slightest to test a person's financial means, and that is the best proxy for the kind of inequality you're talking about; but American (and Canadian) schools tend to focus on imperfect, politically-charged metrics of "marginalized" (usually mainly race). Since the current forms of this kind of policy tend to mainly attract racists (the subtle, erudite kind), they tend not to address the broader issues, and they tend to push away true progressives.

rland 8y ago

I agree, but the US has the wrong cultural mindset for this issue. The example I turn to -- and I'd be interested in the hard data on this -- is the explosion of STEM education in the US after WWII. It seems to me that a massive institution of STEM education was built on the idea that we needed to "beat the soviets" in the tech race. Ample public funding made tuition cheap and expanded opportunities for huge swaths of the population. But access to these institutions is being shut out by increasing costs. Students pay a fortune in tuition and housing, and yet every intro science and technology class doesn't have enough seats. I think it's a subtle change that has occurred. The universities don't much care about providing the best possible education. They care about signaling to the market that their graduates are the best, so that graduates can pay their loans back. This is because there is no unified mission any more. We're not engaged in a technological race with anyone, so the institutions only need to perpetuate the signal of quality--not quality itself--to maintain their existence. We're resting on the inertia, which is slowly waning until we are not the best in the world any more. At that point, the true magnitude of the deficit will become apparent, because immigrants will look elsewhere to be educated. The institutions that are really picking up the slack here are community colleges. Their resources are dwarfed by the scope of their mission.

shmat 8y ago
This is a great example. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 galvanized the US. I started first grade in 1960, and throughout my elementary school years there was a huge emphasis on math and science. We did number theory in 4th grade and started algebra in 5th grade. We had LOTS of science classes. This was at a good but not outstanding public school in a middle class town. It wasn't a magnet school or special in any way. It was considered patriotic to provide the best possible public schools. Unfortunately, that emphasis was not sustained after the 1960s.
loosetypes 8y ago
> there is no unified mission any more I enjoyed the way you phrased this. At times I've felt like different aspects of the "college experience" would be a scam if there weren't so many disparate good-intentions. > They care about signaling Non-traditional students in my university used to qualify for free tutoring by specific university-approved tutors. This semester, it was deemed an inappropriate use of resources and the funding was instead redirected to hire an administrator to write a regular newsletter "designed for the nontraditional undergraduate community" to "provide more opportunities to enhance and enrich your student experience". That's quite an ambitious goal for what I would term marketing. If there is in fact anything resembling a unified-mission at this time, it certainly does not include reducing friction of at-risk students from graduating.

T2_t2 8y ago

If anything, that is a call for better immigration, not better utilisation of those born in a country. Reasoning: 1. The US will not be able to compete w/ India or China when it comes to population 2. Most people with high ability are born outside of the US or any country statistically. 3. Importing the best and brightest is the surest way to continue growth. The argument for immigration is that most 1st world countries do a great job of filling the middle 80% - most jobs in other words. We struggle at the top - as the top is hard to fulfill by definition - and the bottom, as most 1st world born don't want to, say, pick fruit. To make sure 1st world economies continue to grow maximally, we need more of the very best, and more of those willing to do the sort of menial tasks we collectively simply don't want to. Everyone wins from that. Those born in a 1st world country get to work at better run companies, and have their menial tasks fulfilled at a rate that keeps fruit cheap, and wait times low for things like fixing a broken door / getting a house painted.