Right, but people will call nearly anything elitism these days. The reason schools don’t offer accelerated learning programs for students who aren’t challenged by the average coursework is because people were calling that type of thing elitist.
Instead, now we put the upper quartile in the same classes as the lower quartile so that nobody receives the particular level and kind of attention that they need, and everyone is held to “average” whether they’re predisposed to be above that expectation or below it.
If someone is talented at a sport, people shower them with praise and give them full rides to college. If someone is talented at math or writing, people tell them to be a team player and stop surpassing their peers by so far. Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
When I was applying for financial aid I kept being told “We don’t offer merit-based scholarships. Everything is need-based and you’re considered for it automatically. No need to apply for one.”
There might be some for STEM fields, but rarely a full ride. More like a $1000 discount on your tuition each semester, which leaves you with only about several dozen thousand of debt by the time you graduate…
Except these programs are literally known to be abused by the elite for their benefit. It’s not elitist to want evidenced-based support for low income high achieving kids, and for that support not to be diverted to upper-middle class kids who don’t need it.
Merit based and sports scholarships are well-known to be specifically designed to attract upper middle class kids because of the benefit they have of tutors, coaches, and extensive personalized guidance through their entire schooling. Actually this is the exact reason top universities prefer need-based financial aid; they don’t need the extra money merit-based scholarships are known to bring. Low income kids tend to struggle navigating admissions systems and financial aid on their own in general, and these particular programs, especially the sports scholarships, don’t make themselves very accessible to prospective applicants.
I haven’t seen whatever studies have been done on accelerated learning programs, so I don’t know if they help/hurt anyone conclusively, but I will say from personal experience being both included and excluded from them, I absolutely hated them from both angles. If you test into them, you’re doing extra work and being segregated (with a target on your back for bullies) from your classmates. If you don’t test into them, but you learn at a faster pace than the average, you’re literally gatekept from the advanced material even if you want to learn it. I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
Just because merit-based scholarships are abused in the current system to disproportionally benefit the privileged doesn’t mean the concept of merit-based scholarships is flawed as a whole. Our system is caste-based and everything is designed to give the advantage to the oligarchy and their offspring. Pointing out that that includes how financial aid is divvied out isn’t much of an argument against financial aid, in my opinion.
Also, arguing that merit-based scholarships can’t benefit the students from low-income families is kinda fallacious, and very patronizing. Bright minds can come from low-income households. And those minds should receive merit-based scholarships, even if the way “merit” is determined needs to change.
And I never said we should get rid of need-based scholarships. I think those should be available for everyone who can’t afford tuition and fees (including dorm, books, meal plan, etc.) as long as they meet the minimum requirements for attendance (sorry, but if you can’t even write complete sentences then that needs to be remediated before you attend college. That’s not elitist (although I have seen people say that it is), it’s just a basic standard).
But in addition to need-based, there should be full rides available to the brightest minds in each field. And I don’t care if they have to take scholarships away from athletes in order to make it possible. College is about education, ffs, they should prioritize academics. They shouldn’t be profiting off of the exertions and injuries of their unpaid student athletes anyway.
Maybe the top 5% of every major, not based on standardized testing but maybe grades and a written essay, or each department could offer an entry test catered to their subject to determine internally who the top 5% first-years are. If someone receiving one drops below the top 10% at any point in their studies, they lose the scholarship and it goes to the next best in that subject for their year.
Like, there’s a way to do it without just subsidizing the tuition for the already-wealthy. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And no, lumping the highest achievers and the lowest achievers into the same class does not benefit anybody, the teachers included. And it only further advantages the wealthy who can afford to send their children to private schools where they actually receive the particular kind of attention they need. Forcing everyone else into gen pop at public schools is a disadvantage, both for the higher quartiles and the lower quartiles.
Q2 and Q3 can be considered average and take up the largest part of the bell curve. They can all be in the standard classes and receive the basic level of attention and education. Q1 and Q4 both need smaller class sizes with different kinds of attention in order to thrive and achieve their fullest potential.
The top quartile needs more challenging coursework and a faster pace where they can cover more ground each year and be more advanced subjects by year 12. They also need closer mentorship where they can be encouraged to ask deeper questions and investigate answers and a level that would be unnecessary and cumbersome to the average student.
The bottom quartile need a slower pace, simpler subjects, and a teacher who can take the time to ELI5 everything, often multiple times. The rest of the students shouldn’t be held back to the level these students can achieve, and it’s unfair to these students to expect them to keep up with the pace of the average student.
And expecting teachers to juggle all three types of student in one class with 30-40 students in it is unfair as well. You don’t have to convince me that society needs more respect for teachers, needs to pay them better and hire more, or even needs to fund higher education so that more people can afford master’s degrees in teaching (thus expanding the pool of available teachers). I already believe all that, and pretending that that somehow contradicts my arguments for merit-based scholarships and accelerated learning programs, is kinda disingenuous.
But:
I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
No, I disagree with that. Those are necessary steps, yes, and should absolutely be taken. But that alone won’t “allow for more individualized learning” if you still lump every student into the same classes. Teachers need to be able to cater their lesson plans to the abilities of their students, and that becomes impossible when you lump all four quartiles into the same classes. Part of “respecting teachers” means giving them the freedom to do that by placing students according to their abilities. Also, by hiring more teachers you make it possible to have smaller class sizes, particularly for the upper and lower quartiles which need specialized attention.
I was one of those “gifted children” according to every assessment I was subject to.
In my shitty crab bucket of an ex-mining town, “no child was left behind”. Meaning, every “top set” class has two or three knuckle dragging cunts whose every waking thought appeared to be “How can I be as much of a disruptive prick as possible?”
This led to 90% of our lessons being taken up by the poor teacher having to basically babysit three animals intent on destroying equipment and furnishings while we taught ourselves.
These dickhead should have all been in a remedial class together, where they could be taught at a level they all understood, with a length of 2"x2" as far as I give a fuck.
Edit: Those of us that didn’t give a shit about fucking football, or in fact were different in any way, shape, or form, had a huge bullseye already painted on us. Having the bullies in all of our classes just made it worse, there was no escape.
Right, but people will call nearly anything elitism these days. The reason schools don’t offer accelerated learning programs for students who aren’t challenged by the average coursework is because people were calling that type of thing elitist.
Instead, now we put the upper quartile in the same classes as the lower quartile so that nobody receives the particular level and kind of attention that they need, and everyone is held to “average” whether they’re predisposed to be above that expectation or below it.
If someone is talented at a sport, people shower them with praise and give them full rides to college. If someone is talented at math or writing, people tell them to be a team player and stop surpassing their peers by so far. Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
At least that is not true.
'The rest of it is, highschools are an enforcer of conformity and woe be to anyone that bends the curve.
When I was applying for financial aid I kept being told “We don’t offer merit-based scholarships. Everything is need-based and you’re considered for it automatically. No need to apply for one.”
There might be some for STEM fields, but rarely a full ride. More like a $1000 discount on your tuition each semester, which leaves you with only about several dozen thousand of debt by the time you graduate…
Except these programs are literally known to be abused by the elite for their benefit. It’s not elitist to want evidenced-based support for low income high achieving kids, and for that support not to be diverted to upper-middle class kids who don’t need it.
Merit based and sports scholarships are well-known to be specifically designed to attract upper middle class kids because of the benefit they have of tutors, coaches, and extensive personalized guidance through their entire schooling. Actually this is the exact reason top universities prefer need-based financial aid; they don’t need the extra money merit-based scholarships are known to bring. Low income kids tend to struggle navigating admissions systems and financial aid on their own in general, and these particular programs, especially the sports scholarships, don’t make themselves very accessible to prospective applicants.
I haven’t seen whatever studies have been done on accelerated learning programs, so I don’t know if they help/hurt anyone conclusively, but I will say from personal experience being both included and excluded from them, I absolutely hated them from both angles. If you test into them, you’re doing extra work and being segregated (with a target on your back for bullies) from your classmates. If you don’t test into them, but you learn at a faster pace than the average, you’re literally gatekept from the advanced material even if you want to learn it. I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
If you want to do further reading, there’s a lot of very passionate people who have dedicated themselves to this topic for decades. This is a slightly outdated, but seemingly comprehensive report I just found online, section 5 is specifically on systemic admissions hurdles for low income kids: https://www.jkcf.org/research/true-merit-ensuring-our-brightest-students-have-access-to-our-best-colleges-and-universities/
Just because merit-based scholarships are abused in the current system to disproportionally benefit the privileged doesn’t mean the concept of merit-based scholarships is flawed as a whole. Our system is caste-based and everything is designed to give the advantage to the oligarchy and their offspring. Pointing out that that includes how financial aid is divvied out isn’t much of an argument against financial aid, in my opinion.
Also, arguing that merit-based scholarships can’t benefit the students from low-income families is kinda fallacious, and very patronizing. Bright minds can come from low-income households. And those minds should receive merit-based scholarships, even if the way “merit” is determined needs to change.
And I never said we should get rid of need-based scholarships. I think those should be available for everyone who can’t afford tuition and fees (including dorm, books, meal plan, etc.) as long as they meet the minimum requirements for attendance (sorry, but if you can’t even write complete sentences then that needs to be remediated before you attend college. That’s not elitist (although I have seen people say that it is), it’s just a basic standard).
But in addition to need-based, there should be full rides available to the brightest minds in each field. And I don’t care if they have to take scholarships away from athletes in order to make it possible. College is about education, ffs, they should prioritize academics. They shouldn’t be profiting off of the exertions and injuries of their unpaid student athletes anyway.
Maybe the top 5% of every major, not based on standardized testing but maybe grades and a written essay, or each department could offer an entry test catered to their subject to determine internally who the top 5% first-years are. If someone receiving one drops below the top 10% at any point in their studies, they lose the scholarship and it goes to the next best in that subject for their year.
Like, there’s a way to do it without just subsidizing the tuition for the already-wealthy. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And no, lumping the highest achievers and the lowest achievers into the same class does not benefit anybody, the teachers included. And it only further advantages the wealthy who can afford to send their children to private schools where they actually receive the particular kind of attention they need. Forcing everyone else into gen pop at public schools is a disadvantage, both for the higher quartiles and the lower quartiles.
Q2 and Q3 can be considered average and take up the largest part of the bell curve. They can all be in the standard classes and receive the basic level of attention and education. Q1 and Q4 both need smaller class sizes with different kinds of attention in order to thrive and achieve their fullest potential.
The top quartile needs more challenging coursework and a faster pace where they can cover more ground each year and be more advanced subjects by year 12. They also need closer mentorship where they can be encouraged to ask deeper questions and investigate answers and a level that would be unnecessary and cumbersome to the average student.
The bottom quartile need a slower pace, simpler subjects, and a teacher who can take the time to ELI5 everything, often multiple times. The rest of the students shouldn’t be held back to the level these students can achieve, and it’s unfair to these students to expect them to keep up with the pace of the average student.
And expecting teachers to juggle all three types of student in one class with 30-40 students in it is unfair as well. You don’t have to convince me that society needs more respect for teachers, needs to pay them better and hire more, or even needs to fund higher education so that more people can afford master’s degrees in teaching (thus expanding the pool of available teachers). I already believe all that, and pretending that that somehow contradicts my arguments for merit-based scholarships and accelerated learning programs, is kinda disingenuous.
But:
No, I disagree with that. Those are necessary steps, yes, and should absolutely be taken. But that alone won’t “allow for more individualized learning” if you still lump every student into the same classes. Teachers need to be able to cater their lesson plans to the abilities of their students, and that becomes impossible when you lump all four quartiles into the same classes. Part of “respecting teachers” means giving them the freedom to do that by placing students according to their abilities. Also, by hiring more teachers you make it possible to have smaller class sizes, particularly for the upper and lower quartiles which need specialized attention.
I was one of those “gifted children” according to every assessment I was subject to.
In my shitty crab bucket of an ex-mining town, “no child was left behind”. Meaning, every “top set” class has two or three knuckle dragging cunts whose every waking thought appeared to be “How can I be as much of a disruptive prick as possible?”
This led to 90% of our lessons being taken up by the poor teacher having to basically babysit three animals intent on destroying equipment and furnishings while we taught ourselves.
These dickhead should have all been in a remedial class together, where they could be taught at a level they all understood, with a length of 2"x2" as far as I give a fuck.
Edit: Those of us that didn’t give a shit about fucking football, or in fact were different in any way, shape, or form, had a huge bullseye already painted on us. Having the bullies in all of our classes just made it worse, there was no escape.