8 ms·

> I find it remarkable that they somehow claim that it's doing a disservice to the high achievers that they didn't increase as much in their results. Yes, it i

> I find it remarkable that they somehow claim that it's doing a disservice to the high achievers that they didn't increase as much in their results. Yes, it is a disservice to high achievers and to society as a whole. Bringing the more intelligent ones down is fine, as long as you don't need anybody to cure cancer or invent the Internet. > This wouldn't be an example of the (white male) high achievers feeling threatened, would it? By attacking white males you're making HN a worse place for me, a white male. Stop with it.

lutorm 18y ago
Sorry, but you didn't read the article or my response correctly. They did not bring the high achievers down. They just brought them up less than the ones further down. But if they could cure cancer or invent the internet before, they should still be able to do so, and better, now. I'm a white male too, btw. (We can take a little attack. ;-) I'm just saying that high-achievers complaining that the educational policies didn't further widen the gap seems so dishonest that there must be something more than societal well-being behind that sentiment. It's not as if the US has a problem at the high end, it's the 25% high-school dropout rate that brings it down compared to other countries in the educational measures.
- cousin_it 18y ago
  After seventh grade my parents brought me to the best math school in Russia, the Moscow 57th. I passed the entry tests (barely), and studied there for four years. University - math, honors degree - was a breeze after that. I shudder to think of what my life would've been like if that didn't happen... or if the 57th was financially forced to bring underachievers up, instead of kicking them out. Before it, I was absolutely not adjusted to society, and was often bullied at regular schools. That's why I'm in favor of widening the gap, giving maximum opportunities to gifted kids.
- maurycy 18y ago
  Most people add little value to the society. Please see Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In my opinion, what is education, and the whole welfare state, about is creating the best environment for the high archievers, and not limiting them needlessly. The thing is that no one knows which family raises a genius. That is why all children, and thus their parents, should have the slighty the same starting environment, or at least the guaranteed minimum. One side note is that most educational reforms perceive the education as a thing separated from the society. It is not truth. For instance, it is harder to be a high archiever if your parents lack the social and cultural capital. And the financial capital's role is way less important than before. The yet another side note is that enormous time, at least in Polish education, is wasted on propaganda and socialization. This time could be spent better.

lutorm 18y ago

Sorry, but you didn't read the article or my response correctly. They did not bring the high achievers down. They just brought them up less than the ones further down. But if they could cure cancer or invent the internet before, they should still be able to do so, and better, now. I'm a white male too, btw. (We can take a little attack. ;-) I'm just saying that high-achievers complaining that the educational policies didn't further widen the gap seems so dishonest that there must be something more than societal well-being behind that sentiment. It's not as if the US has a problem at the high end, it's the 25% high-school dropout rate that brings it down compared to other countries in the educational measures.

cousin_it 18y ago
After seventh grade my parents brought me to the best math school in Russia, the Moscow 57th. I passed the entry tests (barely), and studied there for four years. University - math, honors degree - was a breeze after that. I shudder to think of what my life would've been like if that didn't happen... or if the 57th was financially forced to bring underachievers up, instead of kicking them out. Before it, I was absolutely not adjusted to society, and was often bullied at regular schools. That's why I'm in favor of widening the gap, giving maximum opportunities to gifted kids.
maurycy 18y ago
Most people add little value to the society. Please see Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In my opinion, what is education, and the whole welfare state, about is creating the best environment for the high archievers, and not limiting them needlessly. The thing is that no one knows which family raises a genius. That is why all children, and thus their parents, should have the slighty the same starting environment, or at least the guaranteed minimum. One side note is that most educational reforms perceive the education as a thing separated from the society. It is not truth. For instance, it is harder to be a high archiever if your parents lack the social and cultural capital. And the financial capital's role is way less important than before. The yet another side note is that enormous time, at least in Polish education, is wasted on propaganda and socialization. This time could be spent better.