3 ms·

It isn't different from the market they're being groomed for, but the brilliant ones don't have to work in that kind of job market in the first place. There's n

It isn't different from the market they're being groomed for, but the brilliant ones don't have to work in that kind of job market in the first place. There's no point grooming them for it.

BrianOnHN 6y ago
If the education system was designed for the brilliant ones, our society would fall apart in a generation. HN thinks the world revolves around them, see: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131258
- jstanley 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be designed for them, it just has to stop trying to crush their spirit.
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > crush their spirit As a kid I was reprimanded and shamed for my entrepreneurial endeavors, so I get this point. Nowadays, I think it's already different. 20 years ago we didn't have Shark Tank and the rest of the entrepreneur-as-a-rockstar environment that makes the general population recognize the value of a young entrepreneurial spirit.
- tomp 6y ago
  The fallacy is, thinking the system has to be the same for everyone. I think a lot of my talents were wasted by being "stuck" in the "slow lane" with the rest of the kids (in subjects I excelled at, e.g. math). Thank god those of us who were the best at national competition got some extra training, outside of school.
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > thinking the system has to be the same for everyone True. The problem is meritocracy quickly falls apart when humans are responsible for implementing it, for example see the recent celebrity college admission bribery scandal. The Netflix series "3%" is based on this. Given we don't radically change the % of GDP spent on education, a single system focussing on the lowest common denominator makes sense. I mean, we could coddle your genius, but if the trade-off is lack of workers, or a society that succumbs to populist autocracy...

3 ms·

It isn't different from the market they're being groomed for, but the brilliant ones don't have to work in that kind of job market in the first place. There's n

by jstanley 6y ago

It isn't different from the market they're being groomed for, but the brilliant ones don't have to work in that kind of job market in the first place. There's no point grooming them for it.

BrianOnHN 6y ago
If the education system was designed for the brilliant ones, our society would fall apart in a generation. HN thinks the world revolves around them, see: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131258
- jstanley 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be designed for them, it just has to stop trying to crush their spirit.
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > crush their spirit As a kid I was reprimanded and shamed for my entrepreneurial endeavors, so I get this point. Nowadays, I think it's already different. 20 years ago we didn't have Shark Tank and the rest of the entrepreneur-as-a-rockstar environment that makes the general population recognize the value of a young entrepreneurial spirit.
- tomp 6y ago
  The fallacy is, thinking the system has to be the same for everyone. I think a lot of my talents were wasted by being "stuck" in the "slow lane" with the rest of the kids (in subjects I excelled at, e.g. math). Thank god those of us who were the best at national competition got some extra training, outside of school.
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > thinking the system has to be the same for everyone True. The problem is meritocracy quickly falls apart when humans are responsible for implementing it, for example see the recent celebrity college admission bribery scandal. The Netflix series "3%" is based on this. Given we don't radically change the % of GDP spent on education, a single system focussing on the lowest common denominator makes sense. I mean, we could coddle your genius, but if the trade-off is lack of workers, or a society that succumbs to populist autocracy...