3 ms·
A tutor doesn't just imply parents who can afford one but also who care enough to do so in the first place and see the value of an education. I think you'd fin
by recuter 4y ago
A tutor doesn't just imply parents who can afford one but also who care enough to do so in the first place and see the value of an education.
I think you'd find that even by the sat-prep age the actual limiting factor for many (most?) of the tutor-less is a fate-accompli attitude towards their path in life.
Might as well turn on the chat bots at the cradle. Ah, and make sure everybody gets the same quality AI to parent them for it to be egalitarian.
- alach11 4y agoRight... but the whole point Bloom's experiment is that if you give every kid a tutor, they perform (on average) at the 98th percentile. Not just the rich kids who can afford tutors. I do think there are valid concerns that this technology (like old-school human tutoring) could be disproportionately available to already-privileged children. This could potentially widen the achievement gap. But it seems way more likely that we can get poor kids a laptop to tutor them vs. getting them a dedicated human tutor.
- asdff 4y agoBlooms experiment would probably more relevant here if he gave the kids the option of using a tutor, at their own liberty and pacing (not sure if he did in fact do so). Everyone has chatgpt here but not everyone will use it. Just like how not everyone shows up to office hours or asks questions of their teacher.