3 ms·

It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this in China. For-profit tutoring (and schooling) have been so prevalent in the US in the last decade and it

It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this in China. For-profit tutoring (and schooling) have been so prevalent in the US in the last decade and it would provide evidence on if curbing it would help students on a universal level. Please note that I am NOT saying that the US should ban it like China because that would be authoritarian obviously. I am thinking more along the lines of giving more equity to students who can't afford for-profit tutoring.

Barrin92 5y ago
> Please note that I am NOT saying that the US should ban it like China because that would be authoritarian obviously Wouldn't be so quick with that label. The German basic law plainly states "Preparatory schools shall remain abolished", with the straight forward justification that education is a universal human right, should be equally accessible to all, and there should be no privilege that funnels upper-class kids through the school system. (Which was the primary reason for the existence of the so-called Vorschule, before 1919). Abolishing these kinds of systems and banning them seems honestly right to me and meritocratic.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  I can see the point but I don't quite buy it. A better way to decrease inequality would seem to me progressive taxation whose proceeds can be used to provide high-quality education to anybody who wants it and is capable of studying hard. In market economy teaching is a commodity so those who are capable of providing better quality education should be rewarded for it. That should be regulated however, so we really know who is providing better quality education.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The thing is that this is a zero-sum game. These schools aren't providing education. It's not about actually improving yourself. It's about getting the highest possible score on the gaokao, nothing else at all. If they were actually helping students further their education I'd agree with you. I've been to these kinds of schools and I have friends who did for even longer, and they really, really suck. It doesn't help you in any way, I'd say it's a net negative in terms of education for most.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    The problem with this kind of technocratic thinking is that your market economy education sector produces exactly the kind of elites who have literally zero interest in creating a system in which anyone else has the same resources as they have in the first place, because the unequal system that does exist helps them to reproduce their own class. It's the same way when I follow discourse about "YIMBY-ism" in the US. People say "Gosh I love the market I just wish we had the right regulations", yet it's exactly the reliance on private-property value as an asset that makes it so homeowners want to restrict supply. And they have all the political power, so you'll never get the regulations.
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      Exactly this. If this was done in the EU or the US everyone would be spinning it as being a boon for children, finally allowing them to live their best lives while they are young and equalising opportunity across the wealth spectrum. But because it's China it's "authoritarian".
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Ah, it's really nice to read this sort of thing on HN. What an oasis.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    This presumes that, with enough tax money, government can provide good education. San Francisco public schools spend ~$2k per class per day. (Based on $1.1bn budget, fewer than 60k students, and ~20 students per class.) Is more money a sufficient answer? Or even part of the answer?
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    I don't think rich kids should be segregated. I think mixing up the people is more important than having some sort of educational marketplace. I've gone to a lot of private school and I think it's terrible bfor society, and I bet my history teachers would agree.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Abolishing these kinds of systems and banning them seems honestly right to me and meritocratic. It seems neither to me - it’s based on the false equating of school with education and it creates a totalitarian state monopoly on education.

Barrin92 5y ago

> Please note that I am NOT saying that the US should ban it like China because that would be authoritarian obviously Wouldn't be so quick with that label. The German basic law plainly states "Preparatory schools shall remain abolished", with the straight forward justification that education is a universal human right, should be equally accessible to all, and there should be no privilege that funnels upper-class kids through the school system. (Which was the primary reason for the existence of the so-called Vorschule, before 1919). Abolishing these kinds of systems and banning them seems honestly right to me and meritocratic.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
I can see the point but I don't quite buy it. A better way to decrease inequality would seem to me progressive taxation whose proceeds can be used to provide high-quality education to anybody who wants it and is capable of studying hard. In market economy teaching is a commodity so those who are capable of providing better quality education should be rewarded for it. That should be regulated however, so we really know who is providing better quality education.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The thing is that this is a zero-sum game. These schools aren't providing education. It's not about actually improving yourself. It's about getting the highest possible score on the gaokao, nothing else at all. If they were actually helping students further their education I'd agree with you. I've been to these kinds of schools and I have friends who did for even longer, and they really, really suck. It doesn't help you in any way, I'd say it's a net negative in terms of education for most.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  The problem with this kind of technocratic thinking is that your market economy education sector produces exactly the kind of elites who have literally zero interest in creating a system in which anyone else has the same resources as they have in the first place, because the unequal system that does exist helps them to reproduce their own class. It's the same way when I follow discourse about "YIMBY-ism" in the US. People say "Gosh I love the market I just wish we had the right regulations", yet it's exactly the reliance on private-property value as an asset that makes it so homeowners want to restrict supply. And they have all the political power, so you'll never get the regulations.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    Exactly this. If this was done in the EU or the US everyone would be spinning it as being a boon for children, finally allowing them to live their best lives while they are young and equalising opportunity across the wealth spectrum. But because it's China it's "authoritarian".
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Ah, it's really nice to read this sort of thing on HN. What an oasis.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  This presumes that, with enough tax money, government can provide good education. San Francisco public schools spend ~$2k per class per day. (Based on $1.1bn budget, fewer than 60k students, and ~20 students per class.) Is more money a sufficient answer? Or even part of the answer?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I don't think rich kids should be segregated. I think mixing up the people is more important than having some sort of educational marketplace. I've gone to a lot of private school and I think it's terrible bfor society, and I bet my history teachers would agree.
zepto 5y ago
> Abolishing these kinds of systems and banning them seems honestly right to me and meritocratic. It seems neither to me - it’s based on the false equating of school with education and it creates a totalitarian state monopoly on education.