4 ms·

Affirmative action has no place at that end of the pipe. You need to be addressing the root cause of lower inputs for minority students instead of pretending th

by jpgvm 5y ago

Affirmative action has no place at that end of the pipe. You need to be addressing the root cause of lower inputs for minority students instead of pretending that admitting them has the same rate of success that admitting higher scoring students does. As a society we seem to think it's on everyone to make a difference at every level but unless the earliest stages have bought into that it's way less effective than it sounds. Inequality is a society wide problem that needs society wide solutions, implemented by governments to reduce these gaps at their origin. Once we see change there it will filter through the system naturally as long as you are making these sorts of biased "personal score" systems illegal.

candiodari 5y ago
What you're saying essentially means that we can no longer use cheap and/or uneducated people for things from kindergarten, even creches to high school. PLUS of course, all sorts of supporting services, from sport clubs to child protection. Anyone who doesn't have the qualification that matters (ie. a university diploma in a STEM field, in this case, NOT pedagogy or ...) should be removed and kept out of those professions. We have to use qualified people, who have the qualification we target for the kids, and have to kick most of the current ones out, maybe even make it illegal for them to continue to their chosen profession anywhere. Additionally, we would need to provide various ways for kids to spend more of their time at school (how else are you going to lessen parents' influence)? And then, after holding on to such an investment for 18 years (a bit more), we will begin to see results? Aside from the cost, because this would mean 300% raises, minimum, for teaching staff, this would be a social bloodbath, and the education sector will fight anything that goes 1% in that direction to the death.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  Yeah, basically. If you want a school system that doesn't suck you do have to pay for it. Same goes for the rest of social support structures. America might not be ready for this but plenty of other countries have managed it fine so I'm sure with how filthy rich America is they can work it out.

by jpgvm 5y ago

candiodari 5y ago

What you're saying essentially means that we can no longer use cheap and/or uneducated people for things from kindergarten, even creches to high school. PLUS of course, all sorts of supporting services, from sport clubs to child protection. Anyone who doesn't have the qualification that matters (ie. a university diploma in a STEM field, in this case, NOT pedagogy or ...) should be removed and kept out of those professions. We have to use qualified people, who have the qualification we target for the kids, and have to kick most of the current ones out, maybe even make it illegal for them to continue to their chosen profession anywhere. Additionally, we would need to provide various ways for kids to spend more of their time at school (how else are you going to lessen parents' influence)? And then, after holding on to such an investment for 18 years (a bit more), we will begin to see results? Aside from the cost, because this would mean 300% raises, minimum, for teaching staff, this would be a social bloodbath, and the education sector will fight anything that goes 1% in that direction to the death.

jpgvm 5y ago
Yeah, basically. If you want a school system that doesn't suck you do have to pay for it. Same goes for the rest of social support structures. America might not be ready for this but plenty of other countries have managed it fine so I'm sure with how filthy rich America is they can work it out.