Limited resources necessitate compromise. We'll happily spend millions of dollars on a new wing to our schools to puff up our numbers for education spending, but we won't actually spend it on reducing class sizes or making sure teachers have the materials they need to teach their lesson plans -- even when those lesson plans are mandatory. How many teachers are required to supplement their supplies out of their own pocket? And that's before you consider the starting salary of an entry level teaching position.
How do you expect us to nurture young genius when we're not even willing to make sure that every child gets a minimum standard in education? Should we let some kids slip through the cracks and not get an adequate education at all so we can nurture another potential genius? How do you know that the kids slipping through the cracks aren't themselves potential geniuses? How do you choose?
Once again, that's not even remotely what I said. Nothing in my comment suggested I think we should ignore the nurturing of genius, all of it was a criticism of the way we prioritize spending in education. In the best scenario we make sure that genius is nurtured without abandoning less fortunate kids, but that's not the world we live in. So we do our best to try to meet the education needs of students whether they're more fortunate or less.
Sorry to say, but genius is nature. You can only raise someone so high and to be so smart, but for true genius on the orders of magnitude like Archimedes (as a classical example) you won't get it without genetics. Random chance. The true tragedy is that society, today, eliminates any chance of an Archimedes by stomping on him at every opportunity.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my reply to you. In fact, one of the last points I raised was the fact that you can't predict who is or isn't a genius, and the more kids slip through the cracks of education raises the likelihood that you're letting another genius go without support.
This is not a problem of "only so many resources". This is a problem of quite deliberately preventing people from rising to their natural aptitude. Not allowing them to skip grades, or even get into university if they're too young. If you just happen to not like the fact everyone around you is a fucking moron, you will be aggressively punished for this too. Modern society does not allow for eccentricity, and there has been no genius in history who had anything pleasant to say about normal people.
Really? That's how you think our education system works? What precisely leads you to the conclusion that we're trying to discourage exceptional people in order to promote a level homogeneity? Education isn't an exact science, and everyone learns in different ways. For example, my wife can listen to someone talk and retain most of what's explained to her even when the topics are covered randomly. However, I can't do that. I usually need to sit down and perform the task myself before I retain it.
These differences in learning styles complicate the process of education. Einstein was considered a dunce by his teachers because he didn't benefit from their traditional teaching methods of rote and recitation.
The only thing I expect is for society to get out of the way of genius. Not try to flatten them as we currently do.
And what do we do with the rest of humanity who aren't geniuses but are still capable of a minimum standard of education?
Boethius seems to think that every genius should be nurtured and the rest of us morons can just fend for ourselves. I'm arguing that education benefits everyone and where possible we should enable our teachers to give students the personalized attention they need to reach whatever potential they're capable of.
Limited resources necessitate compromise. We'll happily spend millions of dollars on a new wing to our schools to puff up our numbers for education spending, but we won't actually spend it on reducing class sizes or making sure teachers have the materials they need to teach their lesson plans -- even when those lesson plans are mandatory. How many teachers are required to supplement their supplies out of their own pocket? And that's before you consider the starting salary of an entry level teaching position.
How do you expect us to nurture young genius when we're not even willing to make sure that every child gets a minimum standard in education? Should we let some kids slip through the cracks and not get an adequate education at all so we can nurture another potential genius? How do you know that the kids slipping through the cracks aren't themselves potential geniuses? How do you choose?
You choose, of course, is the right answer. George Washington Carver was not nurtured, nor was Albert Einstein.
Once again, that's not even remotely what I said. Nothing in my comment suggested I think we should ignore the nurturing of genius, all of it was a criticism of the way we prioritize spending in education. In the best scenario we make sure that genius is nurtured without abandoning less fortunate kids, but that's not the world we live in. So we do our best to try to meet the education needs of students whether they're more fortunate or less.
"How do you expect us to nurture young genius"
That is exactly what you said.
Taken out of context and read without charity. It's like you were looking for something to complain about.
Wow. It was in context, and no. I do believe you want people to be educated.
Not if your takeaway was that I disregard the need to nurture genius.
[This comment was removed]
Your message was that you can nurture genius. I question who nurtures and what.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my reply to you. In fact, one of the last points I raised was the fact that you can't predict who is or isn't a genius, and the more kids slip through the cracks of education raises the likelihood that you're letting another genius go without support.
Really? That's how you think our education system works? What precisely leads you to the conclusion that we're trying to discourage exceptional people in order to promote a level homogeneity? Education isn't an exact science, and everyone learns in different ways. For example, my wife can listen to someone talk and retain most of what's explained to her even when the topics are covered randomly. However, I can't do that. I usually need to sit down and perform the task myself before I retain it.
These differences in learning styles complicate the process of education. Einstein was considered a dunce by his teachers because he didn't benefit from their traditional teaching methods of rote and recitation.
And what do we do with the rest of humanity who aren't geniuses but are still capable of a minimum standard of education?
Boethius seems to think that every genius should be nurtured and the rest of us morons can just fend for ourselves. I'm arguing that education benefits everyone and where possible we should enable our teachers to give students the personalized attention they need to reach whatever potential they're capable of.
I hope some day to be smart enough to write something as eloquently and poignantly explained.
That is a worthy and just cause.
[This comment was removed]
Well, I'm glad you're here to tell us everything we know is wrong. Good talk.
[This comment was removed]
Not to add gasoline to the fire, but we seem to be ok in determining if a fetus is viable or not, but that doesn't apply after that?
Life is a chance, a gift and a treasure. It appears to be rare in the universe and we relish in snuffing it out in wars, convenience and amusement.