4 ms·

Might be fun to answer this question very literally. Set up a world simulation with two nations. In one nation parents are rewarded a great deal for investing

Might be fun to answer this question very literally. Set up a world simulation with two nations. In one nation parents are rewarded a great deal for investing in making their kids maximally educated/capable/productive, through the better opportunities and status they win for their children. In another, just turn that dial down and reward parents who do that a little less. The simulated nations are in all other respects equal. Nation one will always outcompete nation two. Because of compounding effects, eventually the difference between the two nations will be very large. Nation one will ultimately subsume nation two and set its policy equal to nation one’s. So that’s why.

sdenton4 6y ago
It's a false dichotomy. In a third nation, there's a government program that identifies high-achievers without parental input. They have a larger, less biased, field of kids to choose from, and therefore end up identifying and raising up kids that would have been passed over in the system that depends on the parents doing the right things. Since this leads to a larger pool to pick high achievers from, they end up outcompeting the country picking over achievers only from those with additional class advantages.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  So logical conclusion, all children are put in isolation from their parents, since we cannot their parents tarnish the children in any way
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    That's a straw-man, and I think you know it. I said nothing about isolating children from their parents. I also didn't call parents 'dumb' for not knowing how to manipulate the system on their children's behalf, as you said in your other comment. Parents want the best for their children across the board, but have different ideas of what 'the best' might be, and different access to information and resources for getting there. That doesn't make them 'dumb,' and dismissing them as such means you're not asking questions about what other priorities and/or limitations might be in place. You're applying a label and deciding not to understand what might be behind it. My point is that it's ultimately best to widen the mouth of the funnel to increase the chance of picking up high performers. I tend to think it's better to do this at an institutional level, for a variety of reasons. As a point of reference, I think the California university system has done an excellent job historically of facilitating this kind of thing. The community colleges are cheap and widely accessible, and provide a solid, attainable path into R-1 and R-2 research universities for students who do well. This (and similar efforts to widen access to higher education) had a lot to do with the easy availability knowledge labor in the 70's and 80's throughout California, powering an economic boom and improving class mobility at the same time.

sdenton4 6y ago

It's a false dichotomy. In a third nation, there's a government program that identifies high-achievers without parental input. They have a larger, less biased, field of kids to choose from, and therefore end up identifying and raising up kids that would have been passed over in the system that depends on the parents doing the right things. Since this leads to a larger pool to pick high achievers from, they end up outcompeting the country picking over achievers only from those with additional class advantages.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
So logical conclusion, all children are put in isolation from their parents, since we cannot their parents tarnish the children in any way
- sdenton4 6y ago
  That's a straw-man, and I think you know it. I said nothing about isolating children from their parents. I also didn't call parents 'dumb' for not knowing how to manipulate the system on their children's behalf, as you said in your other comment. Parents want the best for their children across the board, but have different ideas of what 'the best' might be, and different access to information and resources for getting there. That doesn't make them 'dumb,' and dismissing them as such means you're not asking questions about what other priorities and/or limitations might be in place. You're applying a label and deciding not to understand what might be behind it. My point is that it's ultimately best to widen the mouth of the funnel to increase the chance of picking up high performers. I tend to think it's better to do this at an institutional level, for a variety of reasons. As a point of reference, I think the California university system has done an excellent job historically of facilitating this kind of thing. The community colleges are cheap and widely accessible, and provide a solid, attainable path into R-1 and R-2 research universities for students who do well. This (and similar efforts to widen access to higher education) had a lot to do with the easy availability knowledge labor in the 70's and 80's throughout California, powering an economic boom and improving class mobility at the same time.