Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:China and Russia aren't going to hold back their best and brightest. If we want to remain globally competitive, neither should we.
Plus, unless you intend to force all kids to attend public schools that will teach everyone the exact same thing, you're just going to encourage wealthier people to put their kids in private school or to homeschool. This will increase the achievement gap.
Most of the top math students in America are Asian.
Which is what leftists want because they hate the US.Anonymous wrote:No matter the virtue of the motive, closing the achievement gap from the top down will be extremely harmful to the United States as a whole and will make this country less competitive internationally.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why not send the low achievers to 3rd world countries? USA for academic high achievers and rich only. Let's do some smart immigration that works both ways. Valuable humans coming to US, waste of space humans leaving US?
That is awful! And how Canada does it!!
You are not seriously suggesting we lower ourselves in the US to such despicable measures as someplace like, Canada ?!??
Anonymous wrote:Why not send the low achievers to 3rd world countries? USA for academic high achievers and rich only. Let's do some smart immigration that works both ways. Valuable humans coming to US, waste of space humans leaving US?
Anonymous wrote: The tall kid was raised well nourished by their parents. The short one is short due to food poverty. The government intervenes early and gives the kid the food their parents couldn’t/wouldn't provide .
Now BOTH kids receives what they need to thrive to their full height potential.
Prince Harry flunked his A- levels. Despite having the most privileged education available in England, as a prince, there was a point of diminishing return where Harry’s inherit intelligence and work ethic could no longer be improved by outside resources.
The goal of equity should be that every kid’s maximum potential is reached, meaning that a poor kid with greater potential will outperform a richer one with lower potential. We are not there yet, hello lax bros on Wall Street.
We get it, you're a Marxist.Anonymous wrote: The tall kid was raised well nourished by their parents. The short one is short due to food poverty. The government intervenes early and gives the kid the food their parents couldn’t/wouldn't provide .
Now BOTH kids receives what they need to thrive to their full height potential.
Prince Harry flunked his A- levels. Despite having the most privileged education available in England, as a prince, there was a point of diminishing return where Harry’s inherit intelligence and work ethic could no longer be improved by outside resources.
The goal of equity should be that every kid’s maximum potential is reached, meaning that a poor kid with greater potential will outperform a richer one with lower potential. We are not there yet, hello lax bros on Wall Street.
Of course resources were taken from the taller kid. In the first panel, everyone is given resources equally. In the equity panel, the government has used a Marxist system of resource redistribution to reallocate resources so that the taller kid is dragged down and the shorter kid is dragged up.Anonymous wrote: ^ Resources wasn't “taken” from the tall kid since it was never there's to begin with. Public education is literally the government’s responsibility.