5 ms·
Education never was the "Great Equalizer". Its purpose has always been "to educate people in what they need to know." Now, "what they need to know" differs by
by kstenerud 5y ago
Education never was the "Great Equalizer". Its purpose has always been "to educate people in what they need to know."
Now, "what they need to know" differs by caste.
The high caste learn how they deserve their privileged position, how to perpetuate their position, and who are the key players.
The medium caste learn how to set up or run business and merchant operations, how to be an exec, how power works, who are the key players within their field, and how to cultivate their networks.
The low caste learn how to do the jobs they're destined for, how to take orders, how to climb the ladder (somewhat), and hopefully how to politick at work.
The bottom caste are lucky to learn anything beyond reading, writing, and a smattering of arithmetic. They might learn a few things to help them in their jobs, but there's really no point since they're easily replaced anyway.
Education follows our birth caste. That's all we're raised to realistically aspire to, and that's also all the higher castes will allow for you unless you get VERY lucky (i.e. someone wasn't paying attention), or someone throws you a bone (scholarship or the like - and even then you're limited in how far you can rise without resentful pushback). New money is always frowned upon for at least a few generations.
Most of us are in the bottom two castes. Medium is reserved for the 2% whose families are wealthy and influential enough. I doubt you know anyone in the high caste.
- alexgmcm 5y agoI somewhat agree with the sentiment although I think it's a bit pessimistic and as described holds a stronger resemblance to a YA dystopian novel than reality. I went to a state school (i.e. public school in American terminology) in a poor area and studied hard and did well, got scholarships, went to Uni etc. There are some problems with people not being able to afford to dedicate time to study - this can be solved by offering a maintenance allowance to all students, as I believe is done in some Nordic countries. But the biggest issue I saw in my high school was people either giving up on education altogether, or having unrealistic expectations leading them to choose University degrees with poor job prospects. Note, I include the trades in education as in fact they better than many University degrees when it comes to helping people improve their lot in life.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoEh, it’s pretty real, we just call it going to a top school. People like me will never achieve what the people at Ivy+ schools will, and I’ll be locked in a lower caste for good.
- mc32 5y agoI thought one of the main complaints of the system is “too many ivy leaguers” (who share diff values), so why aim for the thing that we talk bad about? What’s bad about not being part of the derided elite class?
- rejectedandsad 5y agoBeing near the bottom of any hierarchy is bad, and without smashing these hierarchies people like me are just destined to suffer. After all, the elite class is usually not derided anyway - and many of the people deriding them (think JD Vance) are elites already.
- mc32 5y agoI can totally understand wanting to reject and "smashing" the elite Ivy League. I can't understand wanting to join them if they are so bad. It's akin to slaves wanting the right to own slaves --that's not the solution to the problem of the institution.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoThis is true - I would love the validation the most!
- danielodievich 5y agoTake a look at the https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-... for a similar viewpoint, articulated much more deeply, and check out the "elite overproduction" concept.