Wealth Inequality in America

The Scarlet Pimp said:

except that i've witnessed the classroom mentality that the teacher described. i've seen students not doing assignments, and i've heard students almost bragging that they'd already forgotten everything they were taught.

Click to expand...

I was not saying that the attitude does not exist. I was saying though that the education system (and thus the teachers) is responsible for it. The kids didn't just drop from a lab tube into the class you witnessed. The kids have been spending have their lives in school until that day - and when one spends half his life on a mud hole, one tends to become a ...

BLIXX said:

This is false prima facie, since hundreds of thousands of instances can be detailed in which student x in classroom b, with teacher a, has excelled; whilst student y, in the same classroom, with the same teacher, has failed.

Click to expand...

Different students have different ways of learning. Some will find listening enough, others need something more visual, then there are those who prefer practical work, and when the teacher only uses one method to teach, then what do you expect? Not everyone goes through the same learning process. Learning is such a personal thing, that teachers really need to offer more than just one way of explaining/teaching things.

Sometimes those who excel are those who take more initiative because they know they can learn it but they just have to look at it from a different perspective. Not everyone knows they can do this.

ShadeDream said:

Different students have different ways of learning. Some will find listening enough, others need something more visual, then there are those who prefer practical work, and when the teacher only uses one method to teach, then what do you expect? Not everyone goes through the same learning process. Learning is such a personal thing, that teachers really need to offer more than just one way of explaining/teaching things.

Click to expand...

You are not incorrect. At least not per se incorrect when considering your specific example of a linear teacher. That being said, for your argument to have weight more generally, you'll need to now explain how it does not reduce to absurdity; because, and for your argument to be True, it necessitates as many means and modes of teaching as there are students...

Standardization is part of the educational schema. Some are suited, some are not. Which is not to say that further experiments in educational diversity ought not be attempted. My worry is that the talented get missed in an effort to accommodate students that are not teachable. And yes -- some students are simply not teachable, for the reasons they are not, whatever those reasons may be.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S educational system was exponentially more standardized in the days of dirt schoolroom floors, penny pencils and chalkboards; and, the students learned better and at a higher caliber over the course of their educational career. Things have gone from bad to worse, and America wants to solve the problem by throwing Ipads at kids; better computers... There's something going on, mate. It's complicated, no doubt; and it is not always the teacher. I would be sold bold as to say it may rarely be the teacher.

BLIXX said:

You are not incorrect. At least not per se incorrect when considering your specific example of a linear teacher. That being said, for your argument to have weight more generally, you'll need to now explain how it does not reduce to absurdity; because, and for your argument to be True, it necessitates as many means and modes of teaching as there are students...

Click to expand...

I can understand this but I'm not going to make any further explanations as in order to do so I would have to think it through more thoroughly to be happy with what I write. All I can say is that it is not necessary for there to be as many means of teaching as there are students. It's all about the approach you take with the students. But most importantly the student has to pay attention and has to want to learn, which isn't always the case.

My worry is that the talented get missed in an effort to accommodate students that are not teachable. And yes -- some students are simply not teachable, for the reasons they are not, whatever those reasons may be.

Click to expand...

Define what you mean by non teachable. In my opinion the non teachable are those who don't care, those who don't really want to learn, and those who don't even try.

The truly talented ones are usually the proactive ones, those who take the initiative to look into things in more detail, those who don't wait for others.

But then again it depends on what you mean by "talented".

The fact of the matter is that the U.S educational system was exponentially more standardized in the days of dirt schoolroom floors, penny pencils and chalkboards; and, the students learned better and at a higher caliber over the course of their educational career. Things have gone from bad to worse, and America wants to solve the problem by throwing Ipads at kids; better computers... There's something going on, mate. It's complicated, no doubt; and it is not always the teacher. I would be sold bold as to say it may rarely be the teacher.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe that's because back in the days there was rigor and teachers wouldn't allow their students to sit on their heads. Nowadays teachers can't do shit or else they will get sacked or sued. Back in the days, if students acted like some of them do now, they'd get beaten. There are those who use violence towards teachers, both mental and physical, and guess what, nothing is done to them. You know why? Because no one gives a fuck and because of the way things work. There's so much more to this, but there's simply no point in getting into it.

And when I make my replies I'm not only looking at the US, I'm in the UK, but I'm looking at things from various perspectives. Countries in Eastern Europe are more strict with their education and achieve much better results then countries like the UK. That doesn't mean anything in particular but generally what students in the UK learn at the age of 18, most of the Eastern European ones already know at 16. Obviously there is much more to this then just that, but rigor and attitude towards learning has a lot to do with it.

@BLIXX im too tired for a full answer atm. What jazzc said applies as a partial answer.

I just want to say that there is no such thing as an "unteachable" student. Unless a student is a clinical retard he is teachable. Lack of interest doesn't make him unteachable. Lack of interest comes in most cases from what I said previously - he was turned into a zombie over time and ended up hating everything about school and learning - and what jazzc said as a summary.

I am willing to bet that if you bring me a not very intelligent 16+ year old student I can teach him SEO or web development or programming. Why those? Because those are things I am very good at. Most teachers are not very good at what they teach, they are just mediocre at best. So give me even a slightly slow student and I will teach him those. As a matter of fact if you give me 25-30 students I could teach them all without having a problem from the fact they have different IQ and backgrounds. As a matter of fact I would capitalize on that. I would likely not have 100% success rate. Maybe some % would have very little interest to learn what I teach even after I do my "magic". Maybe some % will not learn very well - but they will learn to be above a 7/10 grade and they will know way more than what they would from a standard class. And I would "convert" most students who are not interested into excited or at least interested enough to pay attention and give it a chance. Even more I'd probably pull this off in record time.

Feel free to believe otherwise but personally i'm almost completely sure I'd pull this off because I can actually think of how I'd do it and why i'd do it like that and why it would work. What, when, where, why, how - if you have the answers to these questions when you do something, you have the solution. "Mommy why is the sky red during sunset?" asks the child ... and mommy gives dumb answer instead of a much saner "I don't know" and child learns a stupid, incorrect thing because mommy didn't knew about light wavelengths, light particle sizes and absorption in atmosphere.

As a teacher, first thing you absolutely must do is tell the students WHY they might want to learn what you teach them. Absolutely no teacher ever told me this. Never. Not a single teacher. Tell them why - that is how you spark interest and get them excited. Tell them an awesome story. Blow their mind. You can't just start teaching them like you can't just put your dick in a girl's pussy. You need a prelude, you need to take your student from "meh" to "i'm gonna change the world" and your girlfriend from "i'd eat some chocolate" to "i'm gonna suck you dry and fuck you like there's no tomorrow".

madoctopus said:

As a teacher, first thing you absolutely must do is tell the students WHY they might want to learn what you teach them. Absolutely no teacher ever told me this. Never. Not a single teacher. Tell them why - that is how you spark interest and get them excited. Tell them an awesome story. Blow their mind. You can't just start teaching them like you can't just put your dick in a girl's pussy. You need a prelude, you need to take your student from "meh" to "i'm gonna change the world" and your girlfriend from "i'd eat some chocolate" to "i'm gonna suck you dry and fuck you like there's no tomorrow".

Click to expand...

This is so true. I never liked being told what to learn, especially when teachers weren't able to answer why we're learning it or even why/how it would be useful.

@Shade and Mad

Yeah, unfortunately I don't have the time to type it out either; such that the matter is 'solved' Socratically, anyway.

However, based on you guys' premises (Mad's in particular), I do know what the bottom of you're argument(s) look like when boiled-down; and, how they must conclude, and what must be deduced from them, therefore. Here's what it/they look like:

• If it is always the fault of the teacher when a student fails, then it is never to the students credit when the student succeeds.

Logically, you guys' locus of ultimate responsibility is the terminus ad quem and terminus a quo of numerous argumentative inconsistencies.


We humans simplify our placement of blame; we like to make pariahs of people and outcasts of groups, in so doing satiating our ability to solve problems efficiently. Which is ironic, because it is our inner-chimp that creates pariahs and outcasts, not our higher-order minds. Our higher-order minds, not so incidentally, being the only aspect of our species that makes us in any way special.

BLIXX said:

• If it is always the fault of the teacher when a student fails, then it is never to the students credit when the student succeeds.

Click to expand...

Not really, that's not what I have in mind, especially not the "always".

The idea that you gain wealth based on your production or how hard you work is only a fraction of the truth. Money can be leveraged, which is 90% of how the rich get richer. It is rarely proportional to effort.

With the whole credit crisis in 2008 - largely from banks scrambling to cover losses from their own bad bets - banks have added more restrictions on who can get loans for what. The average person's chance to get credit to leverage his own meager wealth is even more difficult nowadays, while the rich are taking advantage of 0% interest loans from the government.

@BLIXX not really. And is not that i blame teachers because it is easy to blame them. I blame them because they prove how corrupt and unskilled they are. A teacher specializes in teaching others something. In practice however he is not a specialist in the course he teaches and he is not a specialist in human psychology and pedagogy either. Moreover, it is corrupt because he will do all he can to protect his position of authority and the system he is part of instead of trying to do the right thing. He also not only conforms to a broken teaching approach but he enforces it and points a finger at anybody who tries to escape it. People by default are creative and smart. They become retarded zombies because they are educated like that. This education doesn't come just from teachers but from the whole environment they live in at school and in life.

That aside, courses are in many places enforced. I other words I have to learn math, physics and mechanical engineering even if i am not interested in those but just in mechanical engineering and about plants because i am fascinated how plants "build" themselves up. The way a creative person thinks (his default state) is so amazing and unique that trying to restrict him into a given set of topics (which even worse are taught in a particular way that lacks logic) will destroy any chance of him to be formidable, because it destroys the very foundation of his creativity.

A student who does great owes a great deal to his mentor. Notice I say mentor not teacher. A mentor is somebody with flexibility, who only slightly "touches" the student to help him find his own balance. He does not use a hammer to transform him fundamentally. He just offers bits on input to help the student move forward in whatever direction the student wants and most importantly at his own pace. When you have a great mentor like that, yes you owe him a great deal of what you achieve. But it is finally your achievement because it was your unique way of seeing things that got you there.

The point of blame is in fact counter-constructive in any area not just teaching. It is not a matter of pointing fingers and calling out the guilty what I am doing (even though superficially it looks so). Bottom line is teachers have a certain form of plasticity in the way they teach. They agree to adhere to a standard of teaching which is broken. Also there isn't a standard that works because any standard by definition is broken since it is inflexible. To teach something you do not need money and you do not need material resources. Those can be very handy but are not the core requirement. The core requirement is that as a teacher you have passion for the topic you teach and that you are a specialist in that topic. Another one is to accept that some students don't give a fuck about it and let them find what they love instead of shoving classes they hate down their throat. The whole thing goes significantly more complex and a certain equilibrium of factors must be achieved in order to efficiently and effectively teach something.

That being said, I come back to the "teachers are corrupt" part because it is a central pillar of the problem with education. Teachers posses, enforce and expect to have a position of superiority over the students. This is both implicit (teacher knows more, is older, etc) and explicit (he can give you a bad grade and fuck you up). A position of superiority, in order to be constructive must come with responsibility and skill. In other words, having a boss who is skilled and responsible will bring growth, having a retard with an attitude problem will bring involution. Also the position of superiority must be received/voted for either consciously or not by those below (the students). In other words it is like respect. You can not get it, it is given to you. Since power corrupts and very very few human beings/teachers can sit on their throne without abusing their power, this power should not be available to them. It is very easy to do that and even more importantly it brings improvements in other areas as well.

In other words, a teacher should not have any sort of power over a student. A student should always be in a position to quit or not be interested in a certain class. Also, grades should have no value except as an indicator for the student about his own personal progress and there should be an indicator about his progress compared to others and his progress compared to himself previously. It should not be officially recorded as a means to qualify or disqualify the student when applying to a job or as an indicator for a 3rd party that the student has a certain skill in that field. As you see this is fundamentally different than the current system where grades and diplomas (another form of grade) can be wings or chains and many times they do not properly reflect the skill of the student in a practical area.

So you take all the power from the teacher so he does not have the possibility to abuse it. The teaching-learning system should be like sex - both parties must want it and it must satisfy both parties. How do you achieve that? By not imposing things on the student (as a teacher) or the teacher (as a student). There must be a situation where no party has any explicit power over the other. Otherwise it is like having sex because if you don't you get a beating or get thrown out of the house to live on the streets. Note that I am not saying the power should be given to the student. That would be equally bad, probably worse because it would produce chaos.

If there are no grades how does somebody hire you? The same way they do now: they test you. Which is the only proper way since grades or diplomas are no guarantee of your actual skill.

Can this or something better be implemented top-to-bottom or is it individual-dependant and can only work bottom-to-top? Well, I think it can. But we get back to the corruption part. They would loose certain things (power, control) so obviously they won't give it away. Remember the system is the sum of its parts not a 3rd party thing. Also everything must be arranged in such way that it is "painful" to be destructive and "pleasant" to be constructive. Now it is the opposite. In other words you need an incentive to do it right both as a teacher and as a student and a penalty if you do it wrong. Now you have a lot more to win by abusing your students or throwing mud at your teachers.

Which brings me at the core aspect about my view - why teachers are to blame: it is their job to teach efficiently but their intention is different. It is not merely a coincidence that the educational system is broken, it is the obvious effect that arises from the intent(s) that powers the system. Cause and effect not cause and coincidence.

I haven't yet read the reply above as I need to get some work finished, but I just wanted to throw in that I've always questioned teachers. I questioned them in the sense that if they're clever then why are they teachers? Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, there are teachers that enjoy doing what they do, they are dedicated towards it, and those are the ones that are great at what they do, but the majority of teachers are teachers because they had nothing better to do. I used to be surprised when I was younger, okay maybe not surprised but I realized that knowledge means nothing if you don't know how to use it.