[chongli]

and more like probably the right thing to do over all

It’s only the right thing if you assume equity as a starting position though. We already know, rather robustly, that the weakest and most disruptive students can consume far more than their share of limited resources and produce correspondingly limited outcomes.

Another theory goes that we should provide more resources to the best and brightest students so that they go on to become great leaders and experts in their fields and then improve society for everyone. This may be called the “rising tide lifts all boats” theory. It was the predominant one in the US for much of the 20th century and earlier, and it arguably led to the US’s position as a global leader in science, technology, and industry.

[sangnoir]

> Another theory goes that we should provide more resources to the best and brightest students so that they go on to become great leaders and experts in their fields and then improve society for everyone.

I'd call it "trickle down" theory. Or "horse-and-sparrow theory" (feeding a horse a huge amount of oats results in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat)

[chongli]

I'd call it "trickle down" theory. Or "horse-and-sparrow theory" (feeding a horse a huge amount of oats results in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat)

What you’re missing here is that we’ve been sold on this idea of “one size fits all” education as the only just model. This means forcing the weakest, most disruptive students up to a standard (especially in math and science) they can’t realistically meet. Instead of allowing these kids to find their true calling in some skilled trades such as plumbing, electrical, welding, or construction, we force them to go to university where they’re guaranteed to fail (or drop out trying). And in the process we saddle them with a mountain of student loans!

[com2kid]

This has been the strategy used by families around the world for thousands of years.

Have some kids, pick the one that seems like they'll be the most successful, put all of the family's limited resources into that one kid. If that kid goes on to become successful, they are expected to help lift up the rest of the family.

Another view is that I've paid back in taxes alone, many multiples of what my education cost the city.

> feeding a horse a huge amount of oats results in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat

Yeah well the current strategy being employed is starve all the horses and leave the bodies in the field to rot.

The harsh truth is bell curves exist. Some people are just better are things than others.

Imagine a scenario with three classrooms:

One classroom is full of kids who can be taught 3 years of a subject in one year

A second classroom has kids who can be taught 1 year of a skills in a subject in 1 year.

The third classroom is kids who are remedial and if great effort is put in, they'll be taught one year of skills in two years.

The no-shit-sherlock strategy is to assign a teacher to each classroom.

What we are doing instead is one of two strategies:

1. Mix all the students together, and watch as the kids who would be advanced drop out of school due to boredom, and the kids who need remedial help drop out because they aren't learning anything.

2. Fund classroom 2 as normal, take resources that would've been spent on classroom 1, and give it to classroom 3, causing incremental improvements, and again failing the kids who would be in classroom 1.

Both strategies are downright stupid and inefficient.

Not only that, these strategies also cause funding problems. Now the parents of kids who would have been in classroom 1 pull their kids out of school, causing a reduction in funding for everyone. Next, parents who would have kids in classroom 1 don't even move to the city, causing a reduction in the overall economy for the city, so now there is even less money for social and academic programs to help disadvantaged students.

To be clear, I'm not naming the subject here because students should be independently evaluated on each subject. Someone may need remedial math help but be great at writing.

[sangnoir]

Barrels of ink have been used to debunk various flavors of Social Darwinism by better thinkers and writers than I.

I wouldn't commit a kid who struggles with math in 3rd grade to a life in the trades. I suppose HN has an over-represention of former gifted student commenters- but being intelligent doesn't make one better than others, or better suited for greater expectations, more deserving of resources, or more likely to succeed. Intelligence is just one aspect out of the many you can measure a human by - resilience, resourcefulness, grit, propensity to self-destruction, proneness to addictions, self-delusion, confidence, being an insufferable dick, laziness, are among the things I've seen people exhibit to their own detriment (or success) - regardless of what their baseline intelligence was. Society does better when it nurtures all the positives, and not just putting all eggs in the "very intelligent" basket.

The smartest students I knew are doing very mundane jobs that can be (and are) done by far less smarter folk - the one in academia is trying to leave. I'm less smart, but I pay more on taxes than most of them - one exception is the executive at a dating app. She's probably a genius as she never had to study at all: but that's not exactly a role that moves society forward, is it?

Edit: oh, and Elon Musk was a B student.

[chongli]

being intelligent doesn't make one better than others

The only issue here is with the attitude that a career in the trades is somehow inferior to getting a degree. It is not. I have many friends and family who work in the trades. They are intelligent, hard-working, resourceful people who take tremendous pride in the quality of their work. They both produce and repair useful things (houses, cars, factories, and countless other pieces of equipment). They are the backbone of our society.

They also happen to earn a lot more money than many other people I know who have degrees and work those "mundane jobs" you mentioned. Why? Because there's a huge shortage of labour in the trades and people who enter that career have far more bargaining power than they did back in the early-mid 20th century. It's also reflected in the way we simply don't build the way we used to. China built an incredible high speed rail network all over their country in just a few decades at minimal cost. The US can't even manage to build one high speed link between San Francisco and LA without spending more than the GDP of most countries on the project while facing countless delays.

It's one of our greatest shames that we in the West have developed such an elitist culture that we look down on the people who build things.

[sangnoir]

> The only issue here is with the attitude that a career in the trades is somehow inferior to getting a degree

I made no such claim - the word I used (commit) was chosen with care, and is neutral.

> They also happen to earn a lot more money than many other people I know who have degrees and work those "mundane jobs" you mentioned.

While trades are a decent choice; let's not overly romanticize them. The ones making decent money are those who are self-employed (basically effectively consultants) and those in unions with a monopoly (like the longshoremen). The working stiffs aren't doing that great, especially if the work is hard on the body, then it means their career is going to be much shorter than the average desk jockey, and they will have considerable health costs later.

[com2kid]

The trades cover a wide range of fields, from car mechanics to people using CNC machines to roofers.

Is the roofer going to suffer a lot later in life? Yes. Is the CNC operator going to have problems down the line? Probably not.

> The ones making decent money are those who are self-employed (basically effectively consultants) and those in unions with a monopoly (like the longshoremen).

Most office workers outside of tech are not doing so great either in regards to pay. Customer service roles are even worse.

[com2kid]

> I wouldn't commit a kid who struggles with math in 3rd grade to a life in the trades.

Students should be re-evaluated every year. I've been at the bottom of classes and the top of classes in the same subject!

Also as others have pointed out, please stop crapping on the trades. I've met plumbers who are damn good at math calculations (needed for complex hydroponic heating systems!). Not to mention plenty of people in the trades learn to run their own businesses, with all the different skills that requires.

> but being intelligent doesn't make one better than others, or better suited for greater expectations, more deserving of resources, or more likely to succeed.

I didn't say any of that.

I said that right now schools are allocating 0 resources to students who are gifted, which is just as messed up as allocating 0 resources to students who need extra help. And as a reminder a child can be in both groups at the same time.

[sangnoir]

> Also as others have pointed out, please stop crapping on the trades

I never "crapped" on the trades like you imagined I did, they are a perfectly fine career choice.

[com2kid]

You said

> I wouldn't commit a kid who struggles with math in 3rd grade to a life in the trades.

Which has a lot of implications:

1. That someone who is bad at math has to go into the trades, ignoring that many trades require quite a bit of math and that plenty of college degree programs hardly require any math at all 2. That kids are being told in 3rd grade that they have to go into the trades based on math scores, as if that is some sort of "punishment". I know you said that you used the word "commit" to be neutral, but it is less than neutral when used in comparison to the unspoken alternative of non-trade jobs which are silently implied (in the very least through the American cultural lens) to be "better".

Also you didn't reply to the actual meat of my comment:

1. Schools have cut funding to gifted programs, denying resources to students who need them 2. The same students can be gifted in one area and behind in another, meaning resourcing isn't some binary "lift these students up and put these students down" decision.

Also I'd add that gifted programs typically require very little additional funding, if any. In a large district a gifted program just takes a bunch of students out of other classrooms and puts them into a classroom together. There is no additional cost for teachers, it is just a shuffling of what classroom students are in.

This means aside from the incremental cost of bussing students to a school with a gifted program classroom, there isn't even a resourcing issue for gifted programs!

The choice isn't "gifted programs or remedial education programs". That entire narrative is not based in reality and it only exists to cause arguments between different advocacy groups.

[jltsiren]

That approach eventually failed, because the great leaders and experts went on to improve the society for themselves, at the expense of everyone else. Focusing on those who would be successful anyway made sense when the middle class was still expanding. Then the expansion stopped, social mobility decreased, and the zero-sum aspects of the society became dominant.