blast from the past - new info on a bad teacher I hate, decades later

[Christopher McCandless]

We have compulsory school duty for 9 years in Sweden, so I think the teachers should take care of the little beasts. If they make it voluntarily to go to school it's another thing.

Once again, you have shown yourself to be VERY far to the left of my "political" position and I am considered to be quite liberal in most of my views by my own countrymen.

Obama is ideologically closer to our right wing parties in Europe, than our left wing ones. At least in his policies anyway. Might be something to do with the religious right boneheads that dominate US politics.

[Pyraxis]

governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.

Whaaat? Do you not see the complete contradiction this poses? 

[Christopher McCandless]

governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.

Whaaat? Do you not see the complete contradiction this poses? 

There is no contradiction - unless you don't know what a strong meritocracy is.

[Pyraxis]

What is a strong meritocracy?

(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)

[DirtDawg]

... if?

[Christopher McCandless]

What is a strong meritocracy?

(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)

There is a brilliant explanation in Stewart White's book Equality, however I can give you a concise one. Meritocracy is about fair distribution of opportunity, namely to make sure that everyone has equal chances. "Weak" meritocracy ensures that people are given equal chances when applying for a job, position or whatever you would regard as an opportunity - however this essentially only applies at the point of application, so past experiences and opportunities would not be counted in this. "Strong" opportunity extends effectively to when someone is born, ensuring that everyone is given the same chances, so the same education, healthcare, work experience and other opportunities, there is no option for people to buy advantage, as they currently do. Basically it ensures that those who are naturally the brightest rise to the top, if implemented properly removing ones social ability to cheat the system. Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.

[duncvis]

Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.

That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.

[Christopher McCandless]

Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.

That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.

It costs very little to do it on a basic level - banning choice in education is very easy and cheap to do. It could even be done to a large extent by manipulating the university admissions system.

[duncvis]

do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme. In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself. I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?

[Christopher McCandless]

do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme.

Rather interestingly, these bussing schemes exist in rural areas and the areas that still operate the 11+ system.

In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself.

Actually they tried this social experiment in the US to some extent, bussing in black kids into the subarbs and vice versa. It ended up working out really well. Outside of the rural areas, i.e. the cities, redistribution of pupils would merely mean putting them on the underused bus networks. It would cost very little in practise.

I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?

It shows them that they have a chance, which is more than a start. But in addition I would obligate parents and single parents on the benefits system to be doing something with their time, if they are not working they could be learning. This would then at least mean their offspring are not left behind, even if they were in the first place.

Of course I am not going to pretend that we will get a perfect system. However I feel we can get an awful lot nearer there than we currently are, in a very feasible fashion.

[DirtDawg]

do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme.

Rather interestingly, these bussing schemes exist in rural areas and the areas that still operate the 11+ system.

In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself.

Actually they tried this social experiment in the US to some extent, bussing in black kids into the subarbs and vice versa. It ended up working out really well. Outside of the rural areas, i.e. the cities, redistribution of pupils would merely mean putting them on the underused bus networks. It would cost very little in practise.

I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?

It shows them that they have a chance, which is more than a start. But in addition I would obligate parents and single parents on the benefits system to be doing something with their time, if they are not working they could be learning. This would then at least mean their offspring are not left behind, even if they were in the first place.

Of course I am not going to pretend that we will get a perfect system. However I feel we can get an awful lot nearer there than we currently are, in a very feasible fashion.

QFI!

UnFUCKINGbelievable, Hadron.

This is quoted mainly for its idiocy.  (QFI)

For one thing, every assumption you have made is a false interpretation and every outcome is a dreamworld fantasy.


 

[DirtDawg]

Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.

That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.

"When I look into the sky, I see PIE!"


 :lol:

[odeon]

I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed"  or  "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again"  or  "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."

The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.

Considering the percentage of NTs in society, having the rules favour them shouldn't be a surprise, even to you.

Quit blaming your laziness on everything else.

[odeon]

What is a strong meritocracy?

(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)

There is a brilliant explanation in Stewart White's book Equality, however I can give you a concise one. Meritocracy is about fair distribution of opportunity, namely to make sure that everyone has equal chances. "Weak" meritocracy ensures that people are given equal chances when applying for a job, position or whatever you would regard as an opportunity - however this essentially only applies at the point of application, so past experiences and opportunities would not be counted in this. "Strong" opportunity extends effectively to when someone is born, ensuring that everyone is given the same chances, so the same education, healthcare, work experience and other opportunities, there is no option for people to buy advantage, as they currently do. Basically it ensures that those who are naturally the brightest rise to the top, if implemented properly removing ones social ability to cheat the system. Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.

Dream on.

There is no way for this to work in Real Life (TM). For one thing, people are not the same so an education that works for one person doesn't work for another. The healthcare that is fine for individual A sees individual B to her grave. Et cetera.

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

[Christopher McCandless]

I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed"  or  "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again"  or  "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."

The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.

Considering the percentage of NTs in society, having the rules favour them shouldn't be a surprise, even to you.

Quit blaming your laziness on everything else.

Thankfully it takes very few people to destroy a system. Really we should be working to bring it down.

As for my laziness - totally irrelevant here. However I am going to say that I should not have to work to learn their game - really my time would be much better spent destroying it. Given half an opportunity, I will do precisely that.