[stale2002]

> . How did you already learn the material outside of class? Better education at home.

You are basically saying if someone is more educated, that they will do better in education.

Yes, that's the point. The more time and effort someone spends in their education, the better they will do in education.

[lostcolony]

No. I am explicitly pointing out that even if you learn everything taught in class 100%, and get perfect grades in it, you may not be eligible for some advanced classes. It requires outside investment. And then the advanced classes give you a leg up in terms of college admissions if GPA is a guaranteed entry point.

That means the grade inflation of AP classes just serves as an indirect proxy for money, rather than a reasonable consideration for class performance, knowledge, aptitude, or any such thing.

[stale2002]

> It requires outside investment.

So if you engage in more and better education, above and beyond the education that one is engaging in school, then that person will be better at education?

Yes, of course.

Just like if someone practices basketball, outside of their school team, and hires a basketball tutor, then they would become better at basketball.

Obviously, if someone spends more of their own time on something, anything, whether it is education, or basketball, or whatever, then they would become better at that thing.

The only question now, is why would that possibly surprise you, that people who go above and beyond whatever everyone else is doing, would become better than everyone else at that thing?

[karpierz]

The investment GP is talking about is money.

[stale2002]

Buying an expensive basketball coach will probably make you better at basketball.

Why would that surprise you?

[vt100]

The "outside investment" is just time and effort. There is free access to information via public libraries, the internet, youtube, mathworld, etc.

[lostcolony]

Yeah, if kids all have equal time outside of school (because poor kids have the same workloads at home as rich kids), equal access to resources (because poor kids have equal access to computers and internet access as rich kids), and we're relying solely on the kids motivation (rather than parents who can supply time to engage with their kids education, unlike the kids whose parents are working multiple jobs just to make ends meet).

If all that's true, then yeah, it's just the kids' choice of how they spend their time and effort, and NOT a proxy for wealth. But I don't think all of that is true.

[dahfizz]

> It requires outside investment.

> That means the grade inflation of AP classes just serves as an indirect proxy for money,

So you think poor people just don't work hard enough? Only rich people care about their future and are willing to put in the effort to better themselves?

Sounds like some conservative propaganda to me....