[gugagore]

> Anybody who has been through education has observed that there are the people who "get it" and the people who struggle.

I've been through education, and my take-away is that it's quite a bit more nuanced than that dichotomy. Get what? Struggle with what?

> The idea that "we all can do it" because "we're all equals" is doing a disservice to the kids who struggle. You better prepare them by putting them in courses that are matched to their level and challenge them appropriately.

Strawman. The idea isn't simply "everyone is equal". The literal first thing I quote mentions differences.

> To be blunt

> But all this "not sorting" kids stuff? That's just nonsense.

Careful not to confuse being blunt with being upset and stubborn! Or maybe you just really like the hat in Harry Potter!

[dolni]

> I've been through education, and my take-away is that it's quite a bit more nuanced than that dichotomy. Get what? Struggle with what?

Seems like a bit of a bad faith take here. Of course I didn't mean that there "are kids who are good at school and kids who suck" and that's it. Some kids are really strong in a particular subject. Some kids really struggle in a particular subject.

Growing up, we have all observed peers who are in say, math class, and kids seem to grasp every new concept that is taught intuitively. There are others who seem to struggle with everything. There is also the wide range in between.

> Strawman. The idea isn't simply "everyone is equal". The literal first thing I quote mentions differences.

It does mention differences, and then follows up with something to the effect of "well if we only didn't take note of their differences, and try to give them appropriately challenging coursework, they would do better!" As if to imply that really they're not that different. They are just as capable and the difference is mostly a result of reinforcing their ability by track placement.

It's flowery language. Some people are dumb, some people are geniuses, and most people are just mediocre. It's not fair, but that is the way life is.

> Careful not to confuse being blunt with being upset and stubborn! Or maybe you just really like the hat in Harry Potter!

No need to assume my emotional state here now. No ill-will was intended -- that text just rang my bullshit alarm and was woefully unconvincing to me, that's all. Sorry if I offended you.

Any time somebody writes things that presume to understand the myriad factors in someone's psyche, and how particular words are impacting them or not, need to show up with a mountain of evidence. There are way too many factors at play, and way too little evidence for such a bold claim to stand up to any scrutiny.

[gugagore]

> It's flowery language. Some people are dumb, some people are geniuses, and most people are just mediocre. It's not fair, but that is the way life is.

What you are dismissing as "flowery language" appears to be a different epistemology from yours. I cannot reconcile "there is a wide range in between" with these concrete categories you are giving.

If you believe in these categories wholeheartedly, then it makes sense to figure out the true category a person is in. It is wholly consistent to believe that you cannot ever know with complete certainty the true category someone is in, but that there is some underlying truth. You can imagine measurements that provide information about those categories (no one seriously believes a test could directly detect such a thing, however).

I am confident that I understand the appeal of that worldview. It certainly is tidy (maybe this is the bluntness you speak of)! But I have a different take on education, and the purpose of education. I do not see myself arguing in bad faith. If you can express your worldview without so heavily relying on [ad hoc] dichotomies and categories, then I will respond to that.

[dolni]

What I believe is this: people are complex creatures with sophisticated brains. Measuring "ability" objectively is nigh-impossible for a lot of things, but it's not impossible to get a general sense of someone's ability in a particular field.

> What you are dismissing as "flowery language" appears to be a different epistemology from yours. I cannot reconcile "there is a wide range in between" with these concrete categories you are giving.

Think about it like this: there is a color gradient that transitions from blue on the left, to purple in the middle, to red on the right, smoothly. If I point to the leftmost part of the color gradient and ask people what color it is, they would say "blue". Likewise for the right, they would say "red".

In the middle it gets a little more tricky. If start on the left and move in a touch, most people will probably say blue. Move a bit further and some people might say purple, and others blue (would anybody say red? probably not). Move further and now you're in pretty solid purple consensus territory, though you might get the odd person claiming red or blue. You get what I'm trying to say.

There absolutely are children who are "blue" or "red". There aren't a lot, but they are there. Most are purple, and sometimes you can get a sense for whether they're more bluish-purple or reddish-purple. The analogy isn't perfect, because ability is a multidimensional and complex but I think it applies fairly well if you limit your gauge of "red" or "blue" to particular subject matters.

I agree with your assertion that you can't know _everybody's_ category with complete certainty. There are some whose ability or lack of is very apparent, and others that require a bit more inspection.

> You can imagine measurements that provide information about those categories (no one seriously believes a test could directly detect such a thing, however).

A test is one way to help gauge it. But some people are poor test takers. A test doesn't account for someone not sleeping well the night before, or having recently experienced something traumatic. Tests can't effectively differentiate between rote memorization and real understanding, in a lot of cases. You need a good educator to provide a bit more context if you _really_ want to know.

And that's really what it comes down to. Context is everything here. A letter grade can't really tell you if a student is overwhelmed or unmotivated.

I think, when it comes to grades and tests, the outliers I described above will average out over time. A percentage grade alone is not sufficient to provide good direction for a child's education, but a low grade does a pretty decent job of letting you know that something is going wrong.

[gugagore]

> There absolutely are children who are "blue" or "red". There aren't a lot, but they are there. [...] The analogy isn't perfect

It is perfect. Color, as you're using it, is a phenomenon of human perception. Different people have different color categories altogether [1]. Think of it this way, there is no spectrum of EM energy that is red or blue. But you can get a bunch of people to agree on naming some spectra "red" or "blue" based on how they appear. How do you do that? You teach people those categories. That's culture. We uphold these color categories with TV shows, toys, etc. I think there's a lot of use in categories like "red" or "blue". I find relatively less benefit in categories like "genius".

Let's see, you (paraphrasing) say "it's nonsense not to sort students" and also say "most students are purple, so how do we sort them?". It's my turn to be blunt: I see no coherence in what you're saying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao_(color)