3 ms·

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

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.

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.