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

[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.

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.

No, no - what you do is ensure for example with education that people have equal access to resources, this means tuition and so on. No one would be allowed to buy in a better education, for example sending their kids to Eton. As for healthcare, in the UK there is very little that someone can get privately that they cannot get on the NHS, In fact the NHS also happens to have to sort out the mess that these private hospitals manage to make in cases

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

I am arguing for equal distribution of opportunity, not wealth here. You just have to make sure there are some things money can't buy...

[odeon]

If you don't have equal distribution of wealth, you won't have equal opportunity. And if you define things money can't buy (like the important ones, such as houses, transportation, etc), you risk collapsing the economy.

Like I said, dream on.

I won't bother to reply further on your educational dreams. As a rejected teenager's wet dream it might suffice but for those of us with some experience there are just too many if's and but's.

[Christopher McCandless]

If you don't have equal distribution of wealth, you won't have equal opportunity. And if you define things money can't buy (like the important ones, such as houses, transportation, etc), you risk collapsing the economy.

Like I said, dream on.

I won't bother to reply further on your educational dreams. As a rejected teenager's wet dream it might suffice but for those of us with some experience there are just too many if's and but's.

The only areas you do not allow people to cheat on is education and health - the other stuff follows naturally. You are ensuring that all people enter society as adults with the best opportunity they can each have. No need to mess with the economy beyond killing off a couple of markets here and there.

[odeon]

Again, dream on. And have a plan B ready.

[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.

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.


 

what he said.

you might have a head full of vague notions Hadron, but forecasting and logistics really isn't your thing. You'll make a great NuLabour politician some day.

[TheoK]

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.

Order in schools is not a left-right issue in Sweden. Everyone agrees that the teachers shall take care of it, though it's not happening.

[TheoK]

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.

 

[TheoK]

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.

[TheoK]

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

 

[odeon]

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.

Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.

Tell the audience how you would do it.

[Christopher McCandless]

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.

Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.

Tell the audience how you would do it.

You first - its not like you have not been asked.

[odeon]

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.

Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.

Tell the audience how you would do it.

You first - its not like you have not been asked.

OK--assuming that you actually asked me to tell you why I don't think equal distribution of wealth is possible.

It's basic human nature, really. Most people don't want to part with their earthly possessions. In fact, quite a few are prepared to fight for them. It's all over the news, with stories of break-ins, shooting intruders and the like, as well as apparent here, in quite a few recent posts about gun control.

As westerners, I'd say that the average member on this board has more than the average person on Earth but I have yet to hear of anyone here planning on sending a fair share of those possessions to the less fortunate in, say, Somalia.

Feel free to prove me wrong and send your computer to someone there.

Your turn. Tell me why equal distribution of wealth is a practical possibility. Furthermore, tell me how to do it and live to see the next day.

[Christopher McCandless]

Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.

"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.

Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.

Tell the audience how you would do it.

You first - its not like you have not been asked.

OK--assuming that you actually asked me to tell you why I don't think equal distribution of wealth is possible.

Ha - though I never advocated it if you had read my post.

It's basic human nature, really. Most people don't want to part with their earthly possessions. In fact, quite a few are prepared to fight for them. It's all over the news, with stories of break-ins, shooting intruders and the like, as well as apparent here, in quite a few recent posts about gun control.

As westerners, I'd say that the average member on this board has more than the average person on Earth but I have yet to hear of anyone here planning on sending a fair share of those possessions to the less fortunate in, say, Somalia.

Feel free to prove me wrong and send your computer to someone there.

Your turn. Tell me why equal distribution of wealth is a practical possibility. Furthermore, tell me how to do it and live to see the next day.

"So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?"
That question - you never said what you would do here.

[Phlexor]

I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.

Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here 

[Christopher McCandless]

I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.

Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here 

Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.

But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.