Academically selective education. Good or Bad?

Post Reply New Topic

Correlation is not causation.
How do we think they designed the IQ test anyway? 19th century men were looking for a way to measure intelligence. Therefore, they made a test meant to measure intelligence. How would they know if this test was accurate? They would have people who are already highly educated and--to them--"intelligent", and if they scored well, then the test was deemed a success. It's just trying to give an air of meritocracy to a situation that has arisen from inequality and a lack of meritocracy.
When the wealthy, aristocratic people with educations from top universities scored poorly when they were designing the test, they blamed the test and changed it so those people scored better. If someone less educated or (heaven forbid) Irish scored well instead, then they blamed the test and changed it.
Those from affluent backgrounds--who already have an advantage on such tests for the above reasons--would also have fewer test preparation resources. Which reinforces the cycle further.

Please bear in mind I say all this as someone who went to one of the best public schools in my state. My parents moved so I would go to a better public school than the one I would have gone to if they hadn't moved. I came from an affluent family. I had test prep resources available to me. I had a financially stable, non-abusive household in which to grow and study. I did nothing to deserve these advantages. I will not tolerate a system that disadvantages who did not have it as easy as me through no fault of their own. It is anti-individualist.

One of the things I thoroughly detest is the right wing ass gravy of 'I'm rich because I'm hard working , and you're poor because you're lazy'. It's banal, dishonest and mind numbingly stupid. You don't have any say in the genetic cards, good or bad, you're dealt at birth. Being highly intelligent is no more a virtue than having an intellectual disability is a sin.

Being born rich doesn't default to granting you any favors. If you're rich, OF COURSE you should offer your kids more than you had growing up. If you were born rich, OF COURSE you should teach your kids to stand on your shoulders, not in your shadow, and to continue your ancestral legacy through ongoing achievement.

But if you were born poor, I think you really have a better experience than those born wealthy because you can demonstrate firsthand values that build wealth, something that can be a strong, positive influence on your own children.

I also firmly believe that it is plenty acceptable for wealthy people to strictly limit any entitlement to their kids. They can't drive a Lambo or a Bentley--they have to bum rides to their min wage job until they save $3k-$4k for whatever's available on the used car lot. I don't believe in even giving my own kids allowances--If I have them do something out of the ordinary (like cook breakfast for me), I'll pay them. I'll give them basic necessities, too, but I don't just hand over a determined amount of money on any regular basis just because they consume oxygen. They ARE, however, allowed to enjoy the outdoors, watch movies, and play video games on OUR (mom and dad's) XBox, but if they have our money or enjoy our things, it's on our terms. Anything else, they have to work for, and we mainly want them focused on school right now.

You have more of a problem with "privileged" people who grow up with a sense of entitlement to things, largely owing to a failure on the part of parents to instill in them the value of achievement. And that is a problem regardless of who your parents are. Either you are entitled to daddy's money or you are entitled to taxpayer money, and no redistribution scheme that hinges on greed, envy, or victimhood can possibly be a good one. Instead, people should learn to feel entitled to returns on investment since that is built on the foundation of personal achievement and mutual benefit. If you've built wealth on value rather than dependence, you have nothing to be ashamed of.

[NOT implying that being dependent is something to be ashamed of. I'm only saying that the achievement of wealth is nothing to be ashamed of.]

Not my country, not my business. However, I'm personally of the mindset that education should not be segregated at any level. Where I live, high school grades and below don't mean a thing, no matter how much the government likes to scare kids into thinking it does, and as far as I'm concerned, that's how it should be. As long as someone graduates Grade 12, the sky's the limit for them.

Sure, good marks in high school ensure that a young person can get into the post-secondary institution of their choosing earlier than they would otherwise, but one of the worst kept secrets is that one can just go to a local college for a bit, take some courses there (and likely save some money vs going to a huge university from the get go), and whatever they do there replaces their high school marks before too long, thus ensuring they can get into whatever university they want anyways.

Of course I believe in getting a good education, but it's a means to an end and one's future does not need to be decided in high school. Quite frankly, I would have saved myself a lot of unnecessary stress had I known that. The government likes to mislead kids because of course it wants to have young people help fill positions in various fields ASAP. Technically, post-secondary is a means to a means to a means to an end if you really think about it, and while it can certainly help people get where they need to be, it also isn't what's most important in life.

I don't like the idea of segregated education. I think that it's very old-fashioned and outdated. I like the idea of inclusion better.