> Because these students were attached to the most competitive international school in Beijing, the majority of my students were very bright and very motivated

> Because these students were attached to the most competitive international school in Beijing, the majority of my students were very bright and very motivated. [..] At a less selective school this curriculum may be a harder sell. I think this kind of framing often mistakes nurture for nature in ways that can lead to bad thinking: that they were attached to "the most competitive international school" means that these students likely already benefited heavily from support unavailable to other students in order to make it through the filters. The filters don't test for individual aptitude in a vaccuum, they test for the outcomes of prior circumstances. The Chinese education system isn't exactly known for being chill and relaxed to begin with. In other words: I think by looking at this in terms of individual students rather than the systems which brought them forth, this reads like "at other schools the students aren't good enough to pass a course like this" rather than "at other schools the students have not been given the prerequisites to pass a course like this". By only looking at the school as better or worse than other schools it ignores what allowed those students to have those prerequisites and fails to identify what they are, which could have allowed for insights on what needs to be taught as a primer before such a class could be taught to other students.