Elite schooling [MLIR vs St Jimmyz] Commentary Thread

[Каие]

Link to the Debate.

Any comments and discussion/arguments go here.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

MLIR's argument is weak...

[Каие]

Innit what a nub.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Innit what a nub.

first proper debate, you can't begruge me that! I'll probably ruin it by getting drunk on monday and posting a load of bollocks.

[Каие]

I am only kidding, and now look forward to your drunken rant. I haven't had a good laugh for time.

[Senno]

I am always happy to see new debaters here in the Fight Club.

[Saint_jimmyz]

And this debate is a first for both of us!

[Viking Prince]

Senno has been walking the streets and propositioning --- That is how I turned up here. Sounds like he is at it again with the Electorisl College.

I am looking forward to this debate. I have my thoughts and they are split between the two positions. Good luck to the both of you. Go get 'em!

[Morkonan]

Link to the Debate. Any comments and discussion/arguments go here.

An interesting approach taken by both participants. However, I feel both arguments ignore the central premise concerning Western "education" and specifically public education altogether.

Public education is an economic need established by the State. It arose as a consequence of Industrialization. Public education was developed in order to keep the State's human capital from degenerating into wrench-turning-factory-monkeys in response to warnings such as Adam Smith prognosticated in his "...on the Wealth of Nations."

Public education is designed to counter the influences of large scale industrialization on a State's human capital. Prior to industrialization, most producers of goods were considered "skilled" or their jobs required significant knowledge and expertise. However, with Industrialization, much of production was seen to be done instead by machinery. The consequences, felt by some including Adam Smith, was that factory workers would not be a skilled labor force adding to the value of a State's human capital but, instead, be turned into wrench-turning monkeys by the complete uninvolvment, detachment and low-skill necessities of their job. Simply put, automation and machines make people stupid because they don't have to have any refined skills and their jobs are boring and mundane.

Thus, public education was born.

However, higher education has always existed. True, it was the province of the wealthy and affluent but, that wasn't always so. However, what has always been true is that this form of education has had consistent results over time with attendees becoming "accomplished" in whatever it was determined their studies valued.

Here's the major problem: What people interpret Public Education to be and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Public Education was only instituted as a way to mitigate the loss of value of a State's human capital. It was NEVER originally intended to drastically increase the value of the State's human capital in a similar fashion as "Elitist" schools have been doing since the beginnings of recorded history.

The problem is one of expectations and, worse, of reducing expectations in institutions of higher learning when attempting to comply with these false beliefs held by the public. If people actually knew what it was they were dealing with, then they could more accurately compare approaches and criticisms and improve both systems.

"Elitist" institutions produce, on average, better education because that is what they were originally designed to do. They are not designed to simply mitigate the bad influences of Industrialization on a State's human capital. If we want to change this and get similar results with non-elitist education, we MUST change the way it is structured and must re-align its performance requirements to reflect this new goal.

[Saint_jimmyz]

That is exaclty why I strongly disagree with the UK governments approach to elitist education, and the way they have assimilated them into comprehensive schools, thus destroying the quality of education given.

[Morkonan]

That is exaclty why I strongly disagree with the UK governments approach to elitist education, and the way they have assimilated them into comprehensive schools, thus destroying the quality of education given.

I admit to not being familiar with the UK's system of education. But, I'm familiar with the principles it was founded under that are shared with most Western public education systems. Given that, I think I would agree with your sentiment.

In order for Public Education to comply with the public's desire, fueled by an incorrect idealism regarding the purpose of the system, it must be restructured to comply with these new expectations for which it is currently unsuited. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily in keeping with the system's original purpose of protecting the value of the State's intellectual (human) capital in the most efficient manner possible.

Times have changed, somewhat, as higher-tech industrial jobs require more education and, more importantly in the eyes of Adam Smith advocates, active participation and intellectual involvement by the worker. Specialized training inside the industrial setting takes place more frequently which acts as a slight buffer against the degradation of worker skills and intellect and enhances their value to the State.

However, the Public Education system founded to mitigate the effects of industrialization has not changed to any significant degree in regards to its purpose. It is frequently still a "puppy mill" system, churning out people who have pieces of paper that prove they showed up to some school for a certain number of years and very little else.

"Elitist" education (If I am familiar with how others here have used that term.) does not base itself on rubber-stamping certifications regarding education. If the public wishes such a value placed on Public (government sponsored) higher education that it commands the same respect given to those graduates of "Elitist" institutions, the it is their education system that must change and not that of the institutions they idealize.

[Saint_jimmyz]

In the UK there are a few remaining 'Grammar schools' still open, ones that have been around for years. They are still government funded, but entry is not granted on location but by academic achievement. Every year a test is taken by the brighter pupils in the rough area. The top 100 students, for my school, that take this test are granted a place at the school. As a result of this procedure, the standard of pupils and therefore of the overall enviroment of the school lead to very high results. Although schools such as mine still aim to get that 'piece of paper', the vast majority of the pupils will end up with a piece of paper with a dozen A's or A*'s on it. To put that into perspective, the national average is 66% of pupils with 5 or more A*-C grades.

Here in the UK we do not have the equivalent of an Adam Smith, but we have the great social reformers of the 19th century such as Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the first people ever to suggest, in the UK at least, that poverty is not the fault of the individual. While Adam Smith focused on the nationas workforce as a whole, our reformers looked at ways to improove basic health and education, and so free education, medical checks and schools meals were introduced, as well as early forms of benefits, suc has National Insurance against Illness and Unemployment. Your explanation of the public schooling is accurate and relevant to the UK, although very few people are aware of it, as we have not had anyone study this and petition the government to change things. In other words, we have not had an Adam Smith here.

I agree with your point entirely, and + rep for explaning your views so clearly.

[Morkonan]

In the UK there are a few remaining 'Grammar schools' still open, ones that have been around for years. They are still government funded, but entry is not granted on location but by academic achievement. Every year a test is taken by the brighter pupils in the rough area. The top 100 students, for my school, that take this test are granted a place at the school. As a result of this procedure, the standard of pupils and therefore of the overall enviroment of the school lead to very high results. Although schools such as mine still aim to get that 'piece of paper', the vast majority of the pupils will end up with a piece of paper with a dozen A's or A*'s on it. To put that into perspective, the national average is 66% of pupils with 5 or more A*-C grades.

Here in the UK we do not have the equivalent of an Adam Smith, but we have the great social reformers of the 19th century such as Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the first people ever to suggest, in the UK at least, that poverty is not the fault of the individual. While Adam Smith focused on the nationas workforce as a whole, our reformers looked at ways to improove basic health and education, and so free education, medical checks and schools meals were introduced, as well as early forms of benefits, suc has National Insurance against Illness and Unemployment. Your explanation of the public schooling is accurate and relevant to the UK, although very few people are aware of it, as we have not had anyone study this and petition the government to change things. In other words, we have not had an Adam Smith here.

I agree with your point entirely, and + rep for explaning your views so clearly.

(My apologies on the delay in response.. Holiday season and all that.. I quoted your entire post because I believe there are many great points there that I probably did not cover sufficiently. The differences and especially the similarities (in philosophy) between US and UK education systems is very intriguing.)

I think it is important, as you have also noted, to understand the foundations of a system before one can suggest improvements. My major complaint with many proposals for improving public programs (government funded efforts) is that they rarely show an understanding of why such programs exist in the first place. It is akin to trying to make an automobile tire out of a loaf of bread - It doesn't work very well but, some people think it looks good and that is good enough for them.

I am unfamiliar with the system in the UK however, your description sounds somewhat similar to some education programs in the U.S. Yet, there are rarely publicly funded schools that specialize in generally gifted students and advanced undergraduate education. Most public systems have a "Gifted Program" where students who excel in academics take "Advanced Placement" classes within the same public school as other students. There are also "Magnet Schools" that draw their students from large areas for specialized education programs. These schools are focused on specific areas such as the Arts, Sciences, etc. However, "Science" specialized Magnet Schools do not seem to be as prevalent as "Arts" education which, IMO, is somewhat counterintuitive to the whole process. I'm not degrading the Arts at all. I think they're completely necessary and beneficial. I just don't like the disparity in representation.

Most "elite" education systems in the US revolve around the concept of privately funded schools. These "Private Schools" typically have more advanced classes but, I do not believe their general student population shows a greater ability at excelling in academics simply because of their school's curriculum. Simply put - They have some great programs. Yet, individual student performance is not necessarily guarranteed to be better than that of public schools. (There are some very "Elite" private schools that DO show exceptional results. These are not the norm for most.) In general, it is my opinion that privately funded education has the best chance of succeeding in producing exceptional students simply because that is what it is designed for. There are also religiously focused private schools designed to insert religious instruction into the curriculum because such instruction is not supported by the US in public institutions. But, unless they are also designed to excel, they will not have any more success at academics than publicly funded schools.

Your mention of social reformers is very significant and I think that needs to be examined as well. The State's role in this is mainly concerned with aggregate results- The State addresses those areas of concern only when they reach a point where they may have harmful effects relating to broad sectors.

A conflict of interest sometimes is represented by Social Reforms. Many misunderstand what the role of "Social Reforms" actually are. As callous as it may seem, social reforms are oftentimes not for the sole benefit of the population no matter how much a government official or politician insists they are. The State is not induced to make social reforms until a sufficiently large portion of the population will be adversely effected if it continues its complacency. However, that is not to say that making spontaneous, and practically meaningless, social reforms do not have a benefit. The perception of the State being a "good steward" of its people is extremely valuable and always encouraged. So, many times we see government programs that "sound great" but they really don't do much of anything.

I think government leaders should understand exactly what it is they are working with when proposing reforms. That crosses all international boundaries in any representative political system where the public makes demands. All too often, the public has an incorrect view of government programs which is a perception that is solely constructed by politicians to fuel their own interests. Public education, for instance, is not a system where the State provides an education with an interest solely in the individual's personal well being. It serves a function that is economically necessary and is constructed to perform in the broadest manner possible, achieving the best possibilities for generally "average" results.

If someone wants exceptional education, they must seek it out. Otherwise, their selection will be limited to by what the State is only mandated (by economics and political philosophy) to provide which is an education that is only generally suitable for the State's purposes in providing stability and workforce capital.

It's a purely practical point of reasoning and not meant to be political in nature. It's simple pragmatics - What people often perceive is not what actually exists despite the repeated urgings of those (politicians) who wish to take advantage of their ignorance.

Thanks for the +rep hit! The gift itself bestows honor upon the giver. /bow

[Beiss]

All I know is I would have been better off in a school where people didn't let me behave as I did. I learned how to read at age 4, and I never did any homework, and never studied for any tests for the first 9 or so years of school. When studying finally became necessary in order to pass the tests, I had already become an old dog and now I'm in therapy for learning how to sit down and do my homework. So instead of being able to use my talent effectively I'm forced to fight a battle with my own mind every time I open a schoolbook. The battle usually ends with me sitting on forums instead of doing whatever I was supposed to do.

Naturally, I'm not suggesting there should be special schools for rich people. I only wish I wouldn't have had to spend the 3 first years of school waiting for my classmates to learn how to read. Unfortunately, in my country, being better than others is frowned upon and the weak are always prioritized over the understimulated. What the people in charge in my country don't understand is that bright kids are as frustrated about their situation as the less gifted. They want to put us all in the same bag and only help the slow ones keep up, never the fastest to reach their full potential. They also want us all to go to universities, and the result is (not "will be") and oversaturation of well-educated young people where the PHD's are fighting for the qualified jobs and the "masters of science" are fighting for a chair at the supermarket registers. And it's such a waste, and a disaster for the nation's economy.

But my point has already been made, it seems. I only wished to give an opinion based on experience.

[Saint_jimmyz]

Where do you live? Apart from the later life points, you have described how I used to feel until I got into my current school, a selective grammar school. I am predicted A's and A*'s in all of my GCSE exams, unlike my friend who was more talanted than me, but did not enter, and is predicted B's and A's in all of her exams.

[Beiss]

I live in Sweden. We don't have your system, unfortunately.

[Saint_jimmyz]

Unfortunately our system is nearly gone, thanks to a socialist government. There are still a few grammar schools left, and they all offer extraordinary education to ensure their survival.

[Beiss]

We never had a system like yours, I think. But I've heard people discuss it. It's too late for me, unfortunately, but maybe my own kids won't have to suffer as I have.

[Saint_jimmyz]

The original, oldest grammar schools like my own were created by monks in the 12th/13th century, and newer ones have been created in the intervening yeares until the 19th century, when the government started turning them into public comprehensives.

[Musthavename]

The state system works fine for those that can adjust to it. I'm glad I went through it instead of a grammar school, and now, i'm in a good University (Bath) doing my degree. 4As at A-Level, 4A*,4A,3B at GCSE (those Bs were in Eng, Eng Lit & French, subjects i've hated to the core). If you can work through it, it still functions perfectly well. It may not be as good, but if you're bright, you should get through it, unless you're in a "poor" area with bad schools, which would be one that wouldn't have really had a grammar school in the first place. Most of my friends either scored fairly highly or scraped through. The ones that only scraped through were lazy (i.e. didn't do half the revision I did, didn't spend half the time on work I did). It wasn't bad teaching, they were just lazy.

However, just to add something to it, first evening at Uni, everyone proceeded to ask what type of school people had come from. The vast majority had gone through grammar schools / sixth form. Maybe me and my friends are just exceptions? And people say that we simply had a good state school, only I had one that was high up in the tables. All my other close friends, went to a typical, mid-table school, and those that put in the effort came out of there perfectly fine.