3 ms·

People routinely criticize rigid schooling yet the very people they aspire to emulate are products of such systems. The people who often struggled in such syste

People routinely criticize rigid schooling yet the very people they aspire to emulate are products of such systems. The people who often struggled in such systems (artists, athletes, celebrities) are looked down upon. Even entrepreneurs, by in large, did well in school. For every Steve Jobs there's 10 other founders who were former super students that aggressively tracked into tier-1 schools through hard work and (yes) conformity. No offense but every founder story I read about their "rebellion" is almost silly. It's always like "My parents wanted me to be an investment banker but I said NO!"

Barrin92 7y ago
Yes, if you look at extreme versions like the Soviet system it by and large did what it was supposed to do and produced for all it's other flaws a pretty solid amount of very well trained experts, and a very highly educated general populace. I'd include athletes from your list as well because they also tend to thrive in very rigid environments, artists and celebrities less so. In my experience whenever I hear people talk about unschooling or free thought for their children it isn't about children at all but about the political beliefs of their parents. There's still this kind of 60s hippie or California 'free spirit' individualist attitude that also has a renaissance in 'hacker' circles. It seems to me more about the beliefs of a certain social class than generally about education.
- Fins 7y ago
  That's a rather charitable view of the Soviet education system, probably colored by the biased selection you'd see in the West. By 1990, that "very highly educated general populace" was setting out jars of water in front of their TV screens, so they would get charged with healing powers of ESPers
devoply 7y ago
I don't think schooling has much to do with people's failure or success as much as other factors that are either inherited genetically, financially, or socially. If you want high performers make sure they have the best genetics, come from secure families, have lots of money, and have a wealthy and powerful social network. Outside of that we have lottery winners and for those theorizing about to reproduce them is stupid as they are in fact lottery winners that won because of chance not for any good reasonable reason.
randomdata 7y ago
Product of the system doesn't sound right as even before schooling was common, there were some people who would rise to the top of the success ladder and some who would fall down. It is a fact of life that everyone is different and those difference allow some to be successful and others not. In fact, incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post secondary school popularity, indicating that schooling does not provide success (of the monetary kind). Mathematically, incomes need to be rising if people are making more money through attaining increasing levels of scholastic achievement when compared to people who lack such achievement. In reality, people continue to fall into the same income segments that they always would have, with some rising to the top, and others falling down. What is well understood at this point is that people who are born into the right circumstances (genetics, family wealth, avoidance of illness/handicaps, etc.) are able to be more successful in what they do, be it school or other ventures. This is why you see a correlation between those successful entrepreneurs and success in school. Even Steve Jobs was successful in school, despite going about it in a non-traditional way. People are not successful because of school, people do well in school because they are successful.

Barrin92 7y ago

Yes, if you look at extreme versions like the Soviet system it by and large did what it was supposed to do and produced for all it's other flaws a pretty solid amount of very well trained experts, and a very highly educated general populace. I'd include athletes from your list as well because they also tend to thrive in very rigid environments, artists and celebrities less so. In my experience whenever I hear people talk about unschooling or free thought for their children it isn't about children at all but about the political beliefs of their parents. There's still this kind of 60s hippie or California 'free spirit' individualist attitude that also has a renaissance in 'hacker' circles. It seems to me more about the beliefs of a certain social class than generally about education.

Fins 7y ago
That's a rather charitable view of the Soviet education system, probably colored by the biased selection you'd see in the West. By 1990, that "very highly educated general populace" was setting out jars of water in front of their TV screens, so they would get charged with healing powers of ESPers

devoply 7y ago

I don't think schooling has much to do with people's failure or success as much as other factors that are either inherited genetically, financially, or socially. If you want high performers make sure they have the best genetics, come from secure families, have lots of money, and have a wealthy and powerful social network. Outside of that we have lottery winners and for those theorizing about to reproduce them is stupid as they are in fact lottery winners that won because of chance not for any good reasonable reason.

randomdata 7y ago

Product of the system doesn't sound right as even before schooling was common, there were some people who would rise to the top of the success ladder and some who would fall down. It is a fact of life that everyone is different and those difference allow some to be successful and others not. In fact, incomes have held stagnant through the rise of post secondary school popularity, indicating that schooling does not provide success (of the monetary kind). Mathematically, incomes need to be rising if people are making more money through attaining increasing levels of scholastic achievement when compared to people who lack such achievement. In reality, people continue to fall into the same income segments that they always would have, with some rising to the top, and others falling down. What is well understood at this point is that people who are born into the right circumstances (genetics, family wealth, avoidance of illness/handicaps, etc.) are able to be more successful in what they do, be it school or other ventures. This is why you see a correlation between those successful entrepreneurs and success in school. Even Steve Jobs was successful in school, despite going about it in a non-traditional way. People are not successful because of school, people do well in school because they are successful.