|
|
|
|
|
|
by kenjackson
1594 days ago
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this is common at a lot of top schools. The emphasis is less on teaching and more on weeding out. The thing that makes this so disappointing is the end product at the high end isn't much improved. But we miss out on the breadth of teaching across a wide spectrum of people. The example given of not supplying answers to study questions is a classic example. Or asking questions on tests that students have never even remotely seen before (all that's really testing is if students have some tangential information that allows them to connect the dots). Part of the problem is that we rarely (even from elementary through secondary school, much less university) hold teachers accountable for teaching. And I don't mean unreasonably accountable. I'm not trying to fire a bunch of teachers, but I do want teachers to really want kids to learn the material above all else. |
|
|
I think this can't be overstated.
It means that these elite schools (where the elite go, and where they are recruited from) largely filter for people who are great when they enter the school, and not much else.
Potential for greatness through learning doesn't matter much then, does it? Between the economic filtering for admission and courses like these that will favor students that arrive with a bunch of training you're much more likely to receive of your parents are wealthy, these schools mostly seem to aid the elite at preserving the status quo...