4 ms·

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 becom

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
    Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
carlmr 7y ago
It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
- pochamago 7y ago
  I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.

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
  Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
remarkEon 7y ago
People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.

carlmr 7y ago

It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.

pochamago 7y ago
I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
- carlmr 7y ago
  Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.