7 ms·

I hope that this isn't hinting at boosting SAT scores based on such a measure, because the obvious problem here is that you can't possibly objectively measure h

I hope that this isn't hinting at boosting SAT scores based on such a measure, because the obvious problem here is that you can't possibly objectively measure how much adversity a child was exposed to. Some schools are poorer than others, that's for sure, but some of the kids from rich schools are queer, getting bullied, or getting chronically abused by alcoholic or mentally ill parents at home. There's a lot of suffering out there that is not visible, not spoken about, and not identified by race, place of birth or skin color. IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly, don't try to adjust SAT scores based on some guestimate of how oppressed you think a person might have been.

OCASM 7y ago
No, communism isn't the answer. Some people having an edge over others is not an issue in the first place.
- tachyonbeam 7y ago
  I believe that it's useful to have capitalistic motivations to motivate people to perform. You should be able to start a business and get outsized returns if you take risks and succeed. However, I also believe in equal opportunities, and giving kids a more equal start.
  - friedman23 7y ago
    We could easily give kids an equal start if we mentally handicap them all at birth.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      Sure, but it'd also be easier to just provider decent nutrition at school, to ensure it's actually happening, irregardless of whether the parents are rich or not. Disclaimer: I'm Scottish/European; we have different cultural thoughts on these issues
      - pandaman 7y ago
        This implies that all people have the same mental and physical abilities and any observable differences are due to nutrition. One famous European (albeit Austrian), has debunked this theory in 1860s. I am not sure if his discoveries are taught in Europe nowadays though.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    The generic argument is that people should have an equal start otherwise we're running a Ponzi scheme society. This doesn't mean that people should have an equal finish though, as if you work harder and smarter, not many would you shouldn't reap the rewards.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    What you’re suggesting is a pretty massive intervention. I think it’s useful to know whether or not your proposed intervention would actually do anything before seriously putting it forward. Do you know whether schooling actually has a causal effect on life outcomes? I think you might be surprised if you start reading the literature on this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jamescostian 7y ago
  This isn't someone having an edge over someone else because they worked for it, took a risk for it, or earned it in any way. It's because they had different parents - capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school. Communism pretends to seek equality at all times for all, but this is only proposing a more equal start for all, and still allows some to do better than others. Are you sure authoritarianism isn't the word you were looking for?
  - vageli 7y ago
    > Capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school. Since when is capitalism _about_ rewarding work and risk?
    - jamescostian 7y ago
      I don't personally think that capitalism does a good job of rewarding work. But, IME, people who are in favor or capitalism are under the impression that it's a system that allows anyone to succeed and do well, all they have to do is work hard, get money, invest, start their own business, etc. They feel communism is unfair as it rewards people for doing nothing, while capitalism allows rags-to-riches based on work and risk AIUI
      - vageli 7y ago
        Many people would characterize this misconception as the lie of the American dream. I don't know if there ever has been a time under capitalist systems where things like inheritance, etc (which would unlevel the playing field, as it were) were explicitly banned.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    A large part of the reason capitalism works is not because people want to make a better life for themselves, but because they want to make a better life for their kids. In a system where a parent can not work hard to increase the likelihood of their children’s’ success in life, likely the system would collapse. (This doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t become more socialized, I’m pointing out the flaw in the argument that capitalism is tied to individual benefit. For any parent, their individual benefit takes a back seat to that of their kids.)
daenz 7y ago
>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?
- tachyonbeam 7y ago
  It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.
  - brobdingnagians 7y ago
    But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
      - hgoel 7y ago
        No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
        ownagefool 7y ago
scoot 7y ago
> the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools. > make sure all [public] schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly That only addresses one aspect of the problem. None of the other issues measured, or others like the subjective ones you listed would benefit from that.
- carlmr 7y ago
  >Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools. When what you pay into public schools becomes your tax contribution to private schools they will on average have more per student if more students from higher tax brackets join.
  - scoot 7y ago
    Yes, it's two-fold: 1. Those in private school do not have to be funded by the state, and so, given a finite budget, the average funding per child in public school goes up. 2. (Your point, if I understood correctly, and which I hadn't considered...) The tax take from private school fees indirectly helps fund the public schools. Without that tax income, the education budget (or some other public spending) would necessarily go down.
datashow 7y ago
> IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student. Funny you forgot students still get different education resources from home. When schools are equal, other factors become more significant. I think the next steps are: - ban private tutoring - ban zoning, not sure how this is going to work - ban educational books from the market, so all educational books are equally distributed through public libraries - wait, parents can still teach their kids. This is not fair. We also need to ban parents from teaching their kids. For an equal society, programmers should not be allowed to teach their kids programming. - etc.
- daenz 7y ago
  You missed a step: - remove children from their families and put them in state-run facilities[0] People who promote "equality by handicap" will be happy to go down the path you outline, if/when they don't see the results they expect from the previous step. I have yet to see a line they aren't willing to cross for "no, that infringes on individual freedom too much." 0. https://destroycapitalismnow.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/abolish-the-family/ https://destroycapitalismnow.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/abolis... "The guarantee of protection of children will be taken away from the backwards bourgeois family and assigned to new, progressive social institutions."
  - datashow 7y ago
    Yes. Eventually this will be the only final solution.
- isbwkisbakadqv 7y ago
  Banning private schools is an extreme position, but I see some sense in it. Here's how I think about it. It tends to be the wealthier, better connected, more influential people who send their kids to private schools. So, we have a situation where the influential people don't have a lot to lose if public schools happen to be under-funded (their kids get private education). So it is more politically tolerable than it should be to under-fund public schools.
kkarakk 7y ago
Being poor is simply a lack of resources and opportunity. A rich kid in a poor school will still have access to the same opportunities as a rich kid in a private school...
- username90 7y ago
  Parental wealth only matters if the parents are willing to spend on the kid. A "rich" kid in a poor school probably doesn't have parents who care to help the kid, making the parents money moot.
  - CompanionCubee 7y ago
    Or they are parents who believe in supporting the public school system, even at the expense of their kid.

OCASM 7y ago

No, communism isn't the answer. Some people having an edge over others is not an issue in the first place.

tachyonbeam 7y ago
I believe that it's useful to have capitalistic motivations to motivate people to perform. You should be able to start a business and get outsized returns if you take risks and succeed. However, I also believe in equal opportunities, and giving kids a more equal start.
- friedman23 7y ago
  We could easily give kids an equal start if we mentally handicap them all at birth.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    Sure, but it'd also be easier to just provider decent nutrition at school, to ensure it's actually happening, irregardless of whether the parents are rich or not. Disclaimer: I'm Scottish/European; we have different cultural thoughts on these issues
    - pandaman 7y ago
      This implies that all people have the same mental and physical abilities and any observable differences are due to nutrition. One famous European (albeit Austrian), has debunked this theory in 1860s. I am not sure if his discoveries are taught in Europe nowadays though.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  The generic argument is that people should have an equal start otherwise we're running a Ponzi scheme society. This doesn't mean that people should have an equal finish though, as if you work harder and smarter, not many would you shouldn't reap the rewards.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  What you’re suggesting is a pretty massive intervention. I think it’s useful to know whether or not your proposed intervention would actually do anything before seriously putting it forward. Do you know whether schooling actually has a causal effect on life outcomes? I think you might be surprised if you start reading the literature on this.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jamescostian 7y ago
This isn't someone having an edge over someone else because they worked for it, took a risk for it, or earned it in any way. It's because they had different parents - capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school. Communism pretends to seek equality at all times for all, but this is only proposing a more equal start for all, and still allows some to do better than others. Are you sure authoritarianism isn't the word you were looking for?
- vageli 7y ago
  > Capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school. Since when is capitalism _about_ rewarding work and risk?
  - jamescostian 7y ago
    I don't personally think that capitalism does a good job of rewarding work. But, IME, people who are in favor or capitalism are under the impression that it's a system that allows anyone to succeed and do well, all they have to do is work hard, get money, invest, start their own business, etc. They feel communism is unfair as it rewards people for doing nothing, while capitalism allows rags-to-riches based on work and risk AIUI
    - vageli 7y ago
      Many people would characterize this misconception as the lie of the American dream. I don't know if there ever has been a time under capitalist systems where things like inheritance, etc (which would unlevel the playing field, as it were) were explicitly banned.
- gfodor 7y ago
  A large part of the reason capitalism works is not because people want to make a better life for themselves, but because they want to make a better life for their kids. In a system where a parent can not work hard to increase the likelihood of their children’s’ success in life, likely the system would collapse. (This doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t become more socialized, I’m pointing out the flaw in the argument that capitalism is tied to individual benefit. For any parent, their individual benefit takes a back seat to that of their kids.)

daenz 7y ago

>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?

tachyonbeam 7y ago
It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
    - hgoel 7y ago
      No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
      - ownagefool 7y ago

scoot 7y ago

> the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools. > make sure all [public] schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly That only addresses one aspect of the problem. None of the other issues measured, or others like the subjective ones you listed would benefit from that.

carlmr 7y ago
>Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools. When what you pay into public schools becomes your tax contribution to private schools they will on average have more per student if more students from higher tax brackets join.
- scoot 7y ago
  Yes, it's two-fold: 1. Those in private school do not have to be funded by the state, and so, given a finite budget, the average funding per child in public school goes up. 2. (Your point, if I understood correctly, and which I hadn't considered...) The tax take from private school fees indirectly helps fund the public schools. Without that tax income, the education budget (or some other public spending) would necessarily go down.

datashow 7y ago

> IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student. Funny you forgot students still get different education resources from home. When schools are equal, other factors become more significant. I think the next steps are: - ban private tutoring - ban zoning, not sure how this is going to work - ban educational books from the market, so all educational books are equally distributed through public libraries - wait, parents can still teach their kids. This is not fair. We also need to ban parents from teaching their kids. For an equal society, programmers should not be allowed to teach their kids programming. - etc.

daenz 7y ago
You missed a step: - remove children from their families and put them in state-run facilities[0] People who promote "equality by handicap" will be happy to go down the path you outline, if/when they don't see the results they expect from the previous step. I have yet to see a line they aren't willing to cross for "no, that infringes on individual freedom too much." 0. https://destroycapitalismnow.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/abolish-the-family/ https://destroycapitalismnow.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/abolis... "The guarantee of protection of children will be taken away from the backwards bourgeois family and assigned to new, progressive social institutions."
- datashow 7y ago
  Yes. Eventually this will be the only final solution.
isbwkisbakadqv 7y ago
Banning private schools is an extreme position, but I see some sense in it. Here's how I think about it. It tends to be the wealthier, better connected, more influential people who send their kids to private schools. So, we have a situation where the influential people don't have a lot to lose if public schools happen to be under-funded (their kids get private education). So it is more politically tolerable than it should be to under-fund public schools.

kkarakk 7y ago

Being poor is simply a lack of resources and opportunity. A rich kid in a poor school will still have access to the same opportunities as a rich kid in a private school...

username90 7y ago
Parental wealth only matters if the parents are willing to spend on the kid. A "rich" kid in a poor school probably doesn't have parents who care to help the kid, making the parents money moot.
- CompanionCubee 7y ago
  Or they are parents who believe in supporting the public school system, even at the expense of their kid.