[brighton36]

Because exceptionalism requires knowledge asymmetry, relative to the mean. I think it's definitional that You can't have a macro-scale program that delivers exceptional results to all participants.

I don't think mediocre is unacceptable. But, I do think the country's achievement systems do. And yes, we should look for better systems.

I don't think funding will improve the education system much, unfortunately. Probably we would be better off spending that money reducing the number of single parent families. (Somehow...)

[saiya-jin]

I think I get the downvotes, although there is some truth. If everybody is exceptional, nobody is. For better or worse, we still live in system where parents are responsible for their kids wellbeing. You can't just outsource good parenting to school teachers. Just because somebody has this high paying job and doesn't have time for your kids at all, the reality won't reshuffle itself to make them feel like success. Do your god damn job as a parent, and don't just throw money at the problem.

On the other side, we all would benefit from good quality education for everybody. I mean proper benefit for whole mankind for generations, golden age and whatnot.

Currently, in many places which prefer predatory mindset (looking at you too, US), its everybody for themselves, fuck the rest, the higher I am above everybody else the better I am off. Well, not really if you actually want to live in society. Otherwise you end up walled in your luxury home like in South Africa, with private security, but afraid to go out after dark, carrying guns everywhere, high crime rate etc.

[brighton36]

People don't want to hear what they don't want to hear. The downvotes are reasonable. The vote count has little to do with truth, and much to do with affirmation.

I agree that we all benefit from a high quality education for the children.

I think you're describing 'Bellum omnium contra omnes'. And yes, we seem to be heading in that direction in much of the world.

[ElFitz]

Depends; you can could consider the mean to that of the whole world, or the whole of History, and seek exceptionalism relative to that.

In case, we would seek to have a macro-scale program delivering exceptional results to all of our current participants.

[brighton36]

If we consider the mean to 'that of the whole world' then, our task is done. A child from today needs to merely watch television for an hour a day, in order to be wiser than the average human being across time. School would be unnecessary.

Your last sentence isn't reasonable. We would test the performance of participants in your proposed program, and a bell curve would immediately arise.

[ElFitz]

> A child from today needs to merely watch television for an hour a day, in order to be wiser than the average human being across time.

Depends what you mean by wiser. It really seems we absolutely don't have the same definition.

> Your last sentence isn't reasonable. We would test the performance of participants in your proposed program, and a bell curve would immediately arise.

So what? Nowhere did I say it would deliver equally exceptional results to all the participants.

Just that it's goal would be to deliver exceptional results to all current participants, compared to the means of the rest of the world and all of human history.

How does your inevitable bell curve contradict or invalidate any of it? How does having internal variations invalidate any of it?