>It's not about being an asshole. This is the danger of thinking about your own personal experiences. _You_ viewed the experience as drivel and far below your c

>It's not about being an asshole. This is the danger of thinking about your own personal experiences. _You_ viewed the experience as drivel and far below your capabilities. But how does this affect the aggregate experience of students? For that matter, how does this affect the experience of elite students? You have to speak from your own personal experiences when it comes to education. You did so yourself in other places in the thread despite your own warning. Everyone that went through the public school system in america has a bias because they experienced it personally. To attempt to ignore that experience and bias for some theoretical broader good is a farce. The curricula was definitely far below my capabilities in K-12. However, what I care about here is not so much the capabilities, as much as it is to try and foster an environment of students that at least try compared to the kids that show up and are complete jackasses. If we're really talking about aggregates, how would removing gifted programs possibly benefit the aggregate? How would the kid that would never be in a gifted program possibly benefit from the removal of said programs? The existence of the programs benefits elite students because it segregates them from idiots that don't care, regardless of the joke curriculum.