Hypothetical question

[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?

I want my bridges designed by the best architects, the top 10 percent types.

[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.

People just need to get out of their dogmatic ways and reform the school system. We have the technology to personalize children’s education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People just need to get out of their dogmatic ways and reform the school system. We have the technology to personalize children’s education.

The solution is NOT more edtech. The use of iPads and educational apps is part of the problem. High achievers need actual discussion, not to prove they can finish all of Lexia and Dreambox in a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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:

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.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People just need to get out of their dogmatic ways and reform the school system. We have the technology to personalize children’s education.

That's what APS has been proclaiming to do these past several years (personalized learning). That's what the iPads were to facilitate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People just need to get out of their dogmatic ways and reform the school system. We have the technology to personalize children’s education.

That's what APS has been proclaiming to do these past several years (personalized learning). That's what the iPads were to facilitate.

I don’t think they’ve tried to make that argument for some time now, but if I’m wrong please say so. Lexia, Dreambox and reflex math are all grade-level locked. You can’t advance beyond what they teach in class, and the gifted Ed coordinators make very clear gifted kids don’t ever learn anything that isn’t part of the grade-level curriculum already.

[Anonymous]

This is a stupid hypothetical. Sure press the button. It’s still a stupid hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet you also roll your eyes when your child’s teacher says they’re failing.

[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?

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.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

[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?

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.

Who do you think the lower 10% generally IS?

Generally, the lower 10% are not legal immigrants. This includes many people from Latin America. To say that is to debase, minimize, and group together a diverse population of people.

Plenty of US citizens in that bottom 10%.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

FWIW I would push the button in all of those, without question. If there are no downside how is this a hard decision at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

FWIW I would push the button in all of those, without question. If there are no downside how is this a hard decision at all?

The purpose of the hypothetical is to show how many people care more about the relative distribution than anything else. They would rather the entire population were dumber and lower-achieving so long as there's less difference between the top and the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting hypothetical.

It would be even more interesting to put spins on it.

-OP's scenario but you know a member of that 10% will cure your grandchild's rare disease

-OP's scenario but the button only works on members of the 10% who are not wealthy

-OP's scenario but it only works on the top 10% in a community that is not your own

It's important to think of it from different angles to tease out where the biases and insecurities lie that are leading to the knee jerk reactions.

FWIW I would push the button in all of those, without question. If there are no downside how is this a hard decision at all?

The purpose of the hypothetical is to show how many people care more about the relative distribution than anything else. They would rather the entire population were dumber and lower-achieving so long as there's less difference between the top and the bottom.

I agree that is what OP intended, but I don’t think that’s what it is actually showing. My read is that most of the people saying no were fighting the scenario NOT answering the question as written. I think it’s two groups talking past each other.