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.
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.