Hypothetical question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The discussion of the APS gifted program (or lack thereof) got me wondering about a hypothetical question regarding education.

Let's say you had a button. If pressed, this magic button would, at no cost to the school system or anyone else, increase the academic achievements of the current top 10% of students by a significant amount (say one-half to a full standard deviation). This would show up in grades and test scores, but it would represent real increases in skill and ability as well. Pressing the button would have no impact on anyone other than the top 10%.

Would you press the button?

No.
How about we press a similar button for the bottom 10% instead?
What a perfect example of why the stark disparities are perpetuated - focusing on what the top is missing rather than actually providing what the bottom requires.

Don't fight the hypothetical, as they say in law school. I'd gladly press the button for the bottom 10%. But in the original question the button does nothing to anyone outside the top 10%. It doesn't stop anyone from directing existing resources towards students achieving less.

Basically it's a solution that improves overall outcomes without narrowing the distribution of outcomes. To put it another way, if you had a tool which cost nothing, improved lives, but wouldn't actually close the disparities you're concerned about, would you deny those people the chance to improve their lives?

Are the lives of those 10% significantly hampered or awful? We're assuming the top 10% here are doing find and living good quality lives.
If we're talking a poor town where the top 10% is still well below average achievement, then sure I'd press the button. But we're talking about Arlington. the top 10% in Arlington are performing at least average if not well above average state-wide and nationwide. I'd prefer to direct the magic of the button in a direction that would make a bigger significance for society -- more significantly improving the lives of average and below average folks does more to improve the community and society overall than giving the highest achievers even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

Read the first post. Assume it costs nothing.

Nothing costs nothing. Everything has a tradeoff. Making the top 10% more advantaged is a tradeoff for helping the bottom 90%. They shouldn't get extra because they are already there......

[Anonymous]

I hope the parents of the gifted kids in the other threads are looking at the responses here. It's good to know that a significant number of parents don't think it's worth any effort at all to improve smart kids' performance, even if it comes at no cost to anyone else. Your kid's job is to sit down, shut up, and not be a bother while they do more test prep for the kids who aren't passing yet.

You're on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

You're refusing to engage the hypothetical, which shows you either don't understand it, or you're pretending not to. The hypothetical was that this button represented a non-zero-sum intervention and it can't be redirected to someone you deem more deserving. The only choice is to use it or not, and it has no impact on your ability to direct other resources towards students you think are more deserving. Hit the button and some people are better off but no one is worse off. Don't hit the button and no one is better off. Would you still refuse to hit the button?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

You're refusing to engage the hypothetical, which shows you either don't understand it, or you're pretending not to. The hypothetical was that this button represented a non-zero-sum intervention and it can't be redirected to someone you deem more deserving. The only choice is to use it or not, and it has no impact on your ability to direct other resources towards students you think are more deserving. Hit the button and some people are better off but no one is worse off. Don't hit the button and no one is better off. Would you still refuse to hit the button?

I understand the proposal.
The discussion that ensues in answering the "why" or "why not" in a hypothetical by nature goes broader.
No, I don't see the need to increase the disparities and advantages for the top 10% just because you can without any impact whatsoever on anything but the top 10%, notably when that top 10% is quite capable of pursuing more on their own.

[Anonymous]

Hell yes - press the button!

There is a benefit to improving the education levels of the gifted students. Often these are the people who later make electric cars, cancer meds, iPhones, etc. Society needs this, and the way to get kids to that level is to educate them appropriately from an early age.

The unfortunate reality is we spend lots and lots of money trying to close the gap. And we do not have enough money left to provide an appropriate education to the top one percent of children.

While the children will be fine without the higher education in the long run, society loses the benefit of their genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. In the hypothetical, there is no cost to anyone else, so why not?

Because it isn't necessary. The top 10% don't NEED the boost.
Just like the top 1% don't need a tax break.

So, you would refuse to help anyone, at zero cost to anyone else, just because those kids don’t deserve it because they’re already smart? Do people not see how insane that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

You're refusing to engage the hypothetical, which shows you either don't understand it, or you're pretending not to. The hypothetical was that this button represented a non-zero-sum intervention and it can't be redirected to someone you deem more deserving. The only choice is to use it or not, and it has no impact on your ability to direct other resources towards students you think are more deserving. Hit the button and some people are better off but no one is worse off. Don't hit the button and no one is better off. Would you still refuse to hit the button?

I understand the proposal.
The discussion that ensues in answering the "why" or "why not" in a hypothetical by nature goes broader.
No, I don't see the need to increase the disparities and advantages for the top 10% just because you can without any impact whatsoever on anything but the top 10%, notably when that top 10% is quite capable of pursuing more on their own.

This means your answer to the question is “no.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell yes - press the button!

There is a benefit to improving the education levels of the gifted students. Often these are the people who later make electric cars, cancer meds, iPhones, etc. Society needs this, and the way to get kids to that level is to educate them appropriately from an early age.

The unfortunate reality is we spend lots and lots of money trying to close the gap. And we do not have enough money left to provide an appropriate education to the top one percent of children.

While the children will be fine without the higher education in the long run, society loses the benefit of their genius.

I think we should press the button regardless of if society benefits, but because each child deserves a chance to make the most of themselves, as an individual. Our policy should be how to help make the most of every student, even if that requires differentiation. Schools exist to teach kids, not benefit society. It’s good that society benefits, but a child is an end in themselves, not a means to some other end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

You're refusing to engage the hypothetical, which shows you either don't understand it, or you're pretending not to. The hypothetical was that this button represented a non-zero-sum intervention and it can't be redirected to someone you deem more deserving. The only choice is to use it or not, and it has no impact on your ability to direct other resources towards students you think are more deserving. Hit the button and some people are better off but no one is worse off. Don't hit the button and no one is better off. Would you still refuse to hit the button?

I understand the proposal.
The discussion that ensues in answering the "why" or "why not" in a hypothetical by nature goes broader.
No, I don't see the need to increase the disparities and advantages for the top 10% just because you can without any impact whatsoever on anything but the top 10%, notably when that top 10% is quite capable of pursuing more on their own.

This means your answer to the question is “no.”

I know that.

[Anonymous]

The greatest indicator of academic success is parental GAF. No amount of money can help students overcome a family attitude of “school doesn’t matter”. (Maybe one in a million, and that’s why they make movies about it — because it’s so rare it makes you feel good.)

How ridiculously unfair to deny resources to high achievers because a chunk of the population doesn’t know what good parenting looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the parents of the gifted kids in the other threads are looking at the responses here. It's good to know that a significant number of parents don't think it's worth any effort at all to improve smart kids' performance, even if it comes at no cost to anyone else. Your kid's job is to sit down, shut up, and not be a bother while they do more test prep for the kids who aren't passing yet.

You're on your own.

Yeah, this thread is disheartening. In a hypothetical with no cost to anyone, people still don’t want some kids to have things that would make their lives better. I appreciate this is a hypothetical and not how life works but not helping kids just because they are already performing well? It just feels mean spirited

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The top 10% already have an advantage over the other 90%. Would not make sense to put further funds to a group that is already at an advantage.

DP. Do you not see that our society benefits when we raise the proficiency of the smartest people in our country?

Do you not see society benefits exponentially more when we raise the proficiency of the lowest performing people in our country?

No. The upper 10% intelligent people are far more Important to modern society than the bottom 10%. If you don't agree then you're either ignorant or have some biased perspective to further an agenda. The lower 10% can easily be replaced with immigration as well.

[Anonymous]

Assuming those top 10 percenters stay in the community, I would push the button because they would benefit the community using their skills and training.