6 ms·
> the largest performance indicator of a child's success is the value their parents place on education. +100 > This means that we need to stop heaping blame
by aikah 12y ago
> the largest performance indicator of a child's success is the value their parents place on education.
+100
> This means that we need to stop heaping blame on teachers, administrators, schools and local authorities for perceived inadequacies.
Well sometimes authorities are to blame. Look, in my country,being a teacher used to be like being a lawyer or a doctor.
It used to be a prestigious profession.
Then some politicians,influencial thinkers came in and said,"we need to focus on children,they have special needs,they are always right and if they cant learn properly it's the adults fault". 30 years forward and the education here is totally broken,teachers are despised both by students and parents who want instant gratification no matter how dumb their offspring is.
But hey,they cant be wrong,they've been told all their life they are "special" and always right ...
> Regardless of whether the parent's are rich or poor, the children of these parents often struggle, and achieve below expected results in national examinations.
The big difference is rich people can literally buy a career for their offspring even if they perform poorly at school. At worse, they'll have a job at mom and pop's business.
- james1071 12y agowhere are you?
- throwaway344 12y agoHe's French.
- thecopy 12y agoOr Swedish :p
- teddyh 12y agoAustralia, I believe: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753907)
- javert 12y ago> The big difference is rich people can literally buy a career for their offspring Details? Where do I go to buy a career? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to know.
- jackvalentine 12y agoMom or Dad to business partner: if you want to make this deal with me, give my kid a management position somewhere on the project. Or "if you give my kid an internship then I'll give you the keys to my ski lodge for this season"
- javert 12y agoThat is not buying a career. That's making a deal. The guy said: > rich people can literally buy a career I'm not being sarcastic here. It used to be possible to purchase a commission in the military. That is speaking historically. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't careers today you can literally purchase. Franchising comes kind of close, and running a taxi in NYC comes close. In ancient times, you could purchase the position of tax collector. Anyway, that person should not have said "literally" unless he meant it.
- gizmo686 12y agoLiterally - "in effect : virtually" [1]. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- javert 12y agoThat isn't correct usage. (A falliable human being putting it in one particular dictionary doesn't mean it's correct.) Even someone who thinks that language should not be rule-based still should not use it, if their goal is to communicate clearly and concisely---since it does not achieve that. So ultimately, it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of language.
- rdl 12y agoSadly what killed k-12 teaching as a profession was a side effect of allowing women into the rest of the workforce. For a long time, teaching was one of the few professions allowed to women. Thus, the best women became teachers, if they wanted jobs. When you have the choice of becoming a teacher or: a doctor, investment banker, scientist, lawyer, etc., it isn't much of a choice.