4 ms·

This is really strange in my opinion. We should make it harder for rich children to get a good eduction and easier for poor children? Really? Why not make it ha

This is really strange in my opinion. We should make it harder for rich children to get a good eduction and easier for poor children? Really? Why not make it harder for bright students to get good grades and easy for dumb students to get good grades? That would lead to greater "equality" too.

CJefferson 14y ago
The fact that someone on a site like hacker news (which I like consider are on the more intelligent side) would make a comparison like this, deeply disturbs me. We clearly have fundamentally different world views. (edit: I don't want this to sound like davidirch shouldn't have that opinion, just that it's easy to assume people will share your opinion) I don't understand how you can be against what seems to be a completely reasonable proposition to me, that everyone should get a fair chance, regardless of where they start from. I don't see any of this as making it harder for rich children to get a good education, except to remove situations where they currently have an (in my opinion) unfair advantage, like expensive tutoring aimed towards helping them pass exams, which is not available to many. In fact, the precise aim here is to help bright students get good grades, and dumb ones get bad grades, which is the exact opposite of the comparison you seem to be making!
- bingobangobongo 14y ago
  The following are mutually exclusive: a) All children have equal opportunity. b) Parents are able to spend money on their children. I've spoken with many people who are in favor of both a) and b) and don't see the cognitive dissonance, but from this: > like expensive tutoring aimed towards helping them pass exams, which is not available to many. I guess you really favor a) over b). Unless your point was that exams should be selected to minimize the influence of last minute cram efforts which disproportionally benefit those with expensive tutors, in which case I might agree with you.
  - polymatter 14y ago
    Excellent point. I certainly favour a) over b), but in the real world we need to appreciate there is a balance here. The aim should be to limit the effectiveness of parental help by giving 80% of the benefit to all children. In regards to b), not all help is monetary in nature. Some of it can be in the form of social favours, familiarity of cultural norms (national, company and industry culture) and expectations etc.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  Making University education free won't solve the problem. If Education was free, entrance exams would be much more difficult. Rich kids could still pass the exams, because their parents would pay for more tutoring/education.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    India uses strict exam-based entrance exams. US doesn't. Admission criteria can be lotteries above minimum standards, or designed to choose the students who responded most to the level of investment they got (a bit harder to measure)
- arethuza 14y ago
  "except to remove situations where they currently have an (in my opinion) unfair advantage" How would you do that?
- davidiach 14y ago
  1. Tutoring does not make a dumb person smart. Your IQ does not grow because you have a good teacher. 2. Complaining about people not having a fair chance in an age where everybody has access to the internet (which is pretty much all human knowledge) is just wrong. 3. You don't need college to rise to the top - that's just a myth (check out Thiel Fellowship website, they have lot's of materials on this topic). 4. The fact that you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they lack intelligence.
  - CJefferson 14y ago
    Firstly, I hoped I made clear I didn't think the fact someone disagreed with me made them stupid. Secondly, lots of people spend a lot of money on tutoring. I believe it helps people get significantly higher exam results, which then allows entry into significantly better universities. Do you disagree?
  - Livven 14y ago
    2. How many students aged 6-12 do you know that are willing to voluntarily spend time learning and studying? Zero? Don't kid yourself. Just because knowledge and information is out there and accessible for free doesn't mean a child will have the ability and motivation to seek it out on their own. They're children, after all. What and how they learn will largely depend on parents and school. 3. You don't need a plane to get from New York to London. There are ships. You can even sail across the Atlantic! (there must be a fancy Latin term for this fallacy?)
maeon3 14y ago
Do you also think someone should take the money away from the rich child and give it to the paycheck-baby welfare mom's dad's-run-away child? I have noticed lots of robin hoods in the world today. Maybe a true communistic and socialistic society would work if we just gave it a proper chance? If everyone just shared one bank account, all suffering would end?
- chrisbennet 14y ago
  Google "Just World Fallacy"
zzleeper 14y ago
None of the proposals were about that. They propose relying more on intelligence tests instead of the current SAT that can be gamed with money. Also, having varying college fees based on whether you are rich or poor also makes sense.
- hnal943 14y ago
  Whichever rule set you choose, you're always going to disenfranchise someone. What about people with a rich parent who doesn't invest in their education? Under your system, education would be unavailable to them because they would be a poor person being charged as a rich one.

CJefferson 14y ago

The fact that someone on a site like hacker news (which I like consider are on the more intelligent side) would make a comparison like this, deeply disturbs me. We clearly have fundamentally different world views. (edit: I don't want this to sound like davidirch shouldn't have that opinion, just that it's easy to assume people will share your opinion) I don't understand how you can be against what seems to be a completely reasonable proposition to me, that everyone should get a fair chance, regardless of where they start from. I don't see any of this as making it harder for rich children to get a good education, except to remove situations where they currently have an (in my opinion) unfair advantage, like expensive tutoring aimed towards helping them pass exams, which is not available to many. In fact, the precise aim here is to help bright students get good grades, and dumb ones get bad grades, which is the exact opposite of the comparison you seem to be making!

bingobangobongo 14y ago
The following are mutually exclusive: a) All children have equal opportunity. b) Parents are able to spend money on their children. I've spoken with many people who are in favor of both a) and b) and don't see the cognitive dissonance, but from this: > like expensive tutoring aimed towards helping them pass exams, which is not available to many. I guess you really favor a) over b). Unless your point was that exams should be selected to minimize the influence of last minute cram efforts which disproportionally benefit those with expensive tutors, in which case I might agree with you.
- polymatter 14y ago
  Excellent point. I certainly favour a) over b), but in the real world we need to appreciate there is a balance here. The aim should be to limit the effectiveness of parental help by giving 80% of the benefit to all children. In regards to b), not all help is monetary in nature. Some of it can be in the form of social favours, familiarity of cultural norms (national, company and industry culture) and expectations etc.
paulhauggis 14y ago
Making University education free won't solve the problem. If Education was free, entrance exams would be much more difficult. Rich kids could still pass the exams, because their parents would pay for more tutoring/education.
- Evbn 14y ago
  India uses strict exam-based entrance exams. US doesn't. Admission criteria can be lotteries above minimum standards, or designed to choose the students who responded most to the level of investment they got (a bit harder to measure)
arethuza 14y ago
"except to remove situations where they currently have an (in my opinion) unfair advantage" How would you do that?
davidiach 14y ago
1. Tutoring does not make a dumb person smart. Your IQ does not grow because you have a good teacher. 2. Complaining about people not having a fair chance in an age where everybody has access to the internet (which is pretty much all human knowledge) is just wrong. 3. You don't need college to rise to the top - that's just a myth (check out Thiel Fellowship website, they have lot's of materials on this topic). 4. The fact that you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they lack intelligence.
- CJefferson 14y ago
  Firstly, I hoped I made clear I didn't think the fact someone disagreed with me made them stupid. Secondly, lots of people spend a lot of money on tutoring. I believe it helps people get significantly higher exam results, which then allows entry into significantly better universities. Do you disagree?
- Livven 14y ago
  2. How many students aged 6-12 do you know that are willing to voluntarily spend time learning and studying? Zero? Don't kid yourself. Just because knowledge and information is out there and accessible for free doesn't mean a child will have the ability and motivation to seek it out on their own. They're children, after all. What and how they learn will largely depend on parents and school. 3. You don't need a plane to get from New York to London. There are ships. You can even sail across the Atlantic! (there must be a fancy Latin term for this fallacy?)

maeon3 14y ago

Do you also think someone should take the money away from the rich child and give it to the paycheck-baby welfare mom's dad's-run-away child? I have noticed lots of robin hoods in the world today. Maybe a true communistic and socialistic society would work if we just gave it a proper chance? If everyone just shared one bank account, all suffering would end?

chrisbennet 14y ago
Google "Just World Fallacy"

zzleeper 14y ago

None of the proposals were about that. They propose relying more on intelligence tests instead of the current SAT that can be gamed with money. Also, having varying college fees based on whether you are rich or poor also makes sense.

hnal943 14y ago
Whichever rule set you choose, you're always going to disenfranchise someone. What about people with a rich parent who doesn't invest in their education? Under your system, education would be unavailable to them because they would be a poor person being charged as a rich one.