I do. I still subscribe to your ideals or at least mostly follow them. But for lack of playing such games, I saw my children’s opportunities slip away.
>> But for lack of playing such games, I saw my children’s opportunities slip away.
Examples? I most certainly don't play these games and believe my kids are further along in developing the most valuable, lasting characteristic: grit. So many things in life require you to grind, and the only way to gain this is to practice.
Children were passed up for elementary school admissions. Whereas the schmoozers and their kids got in.
I can’t provide proper education and practice. There is no grit or grind. They’re just falling further and further behind the ones who actually got access to good schools and teachers.
One who tested highly gifted (145 IQ) after years of educational neglect now tests at 120. It’s pathetic. And even if I spend all my time and money I cannot reverse the decline.
from my understanding of educational outcomes, the BIGGEST factor in a child’s success in school is their home life. At least for K-12. Multiple studies come to this conclusion.
Obviously “home life” encompasses many things like parental involvement, stability of family relationships, socioeconomic status, etc. And it’s not the only factor of course.
So the question is hardly uncalled for IMO. Could have been worded in a less accusatory tone though! The person was pretty rude.
Because I can’t access good schools and teachers. Because I didn’t schmooze to the admissions directors and other gate keepers.
I should’ve worn better clothes, driven a Porsche, and displayed the right shibboleths. Except that even now I’m too immature and stupid to know what they are.
>Except that even now I’m too immature and stupid to know what they are.
This is the bigger problem, not the type of car or clothes you drive. I dress like a schlub and drive a Toyota and don't feel any of the social pressures you're talking about. I think it's in your head.
>145 -> 120 IQ decline
You're also putting way way too much emphasis on this test. The methodology of IQ tests is also entirely questionable. I'd hardly be judging myself as a parent based on this.
It may be, but it also could be the community/town he lives in. I certainly do know schools where you need to play games to get admission, and dressing like a schlub would exclude you (which is fine, given I have alternatives - he perhaps doesn't).
> The methodology of IQ tests is also entirely questionable. I'd hardly be judging myself as a parent based on this.
Fully agree on ignoring the IQ (why would one even get it tested?)
However, I suspect he does see other signals of decline, and sees those who went to the school achieve more.
My kids are not that old, so it hasn't come to a head yet. I presume you're talking about school performance - particularly closer to high school?
At the same time, we may need to adjust our baseline on what we call "opportunities".
I've lived in other countries, and one of the nice things about the US is how uncompetitive school is. One could (and likely still can) get into a decent "average" university without much difficulty. In other countries, not so. You could be in the top 10% academically and end up in a really low quality university. I would understand playing such games there.
We are being vague here about "quality" and "average", by in the US, about 15% attend 2-year junior colleges, and about 50% attend 4-year colleges.
About half of those 4-year college students are earning degrees that are mostly filler and would be 2-year colleges plus remedial and/or fluff courses. USA has a very weird college industrial complex.
China, meanwhile is undergroing a massive push to send a majority of the population through some form of college or another.
>I've lived in other countries, and one of the nice things about the US is how uncompetitive school is. One could (and likely still can) get into a decent "average" university without much difficulty. In other countries, not so. You could be in the top 10% academically and end up in a really low quality university. I would understand playing such games there.
The difference is you're going to pay nosebleed prices or take out extortionate student loans in the US.
Yes, but you get to go. In plenty of other countries, there are far fewer seats than students graduating from high school. Being merely above average means no college degree.
(Well, except they also have private schools, but the cost to income ratio is much higher there than here).
> Private 4-year college per year in US costs more the median family income per year
Yes, but it's easier to get into a public university in the US.
In those countries, it's the reverse. Very hard to get into a public university. Private ones mostly exist not for quality, but to cater to rich folks who could not get into a public university.
Which means that in those countries, unless you're quite rich, your only chance is to study like crazy to get into a public university. And by crazy - I know people who didn't do anything but study in the last two years of high school. As soon as they get home from school they'd hit the books, taking breaks only for food. The entrance exams would require an intense amount of memorization.
A random data point: In one country, to get into an MBA program, the entrance exam would ask number theory problems. Not because it's at all related to MBA - they just need to make it harder to filter out more candidates - they simply don't have enough seats.
As for the ratio, I'm sure it's several multiples of the median, because the median is almost poverty level. But it's not a relevant metric, because most of those folks don't even get to finish high school - their economic conditions make them quit to work - the family needs money.
Opportunities to be among the insufferable nepo baby cohort?
The most revealing example of this was when I found out how many of UK's 'elite' school children were molested, grew up and proceeded to do everything they can to make sure their children attend these very same 'elite' schools.
If it’s your first time going to Italy you absolutely should visit Venice. The crowds are unpleasant, but so what?
Are you going to avoid Rome too? Only go to little provincial villages?
Why should you absolutely visit Venice? It's not just the crowds that are unpleasant, you are actively contributing to a problem.
No, you don't have to avoid Rome — it's not as bad as Venice, and can support more people — but plan ahead and don't just do a tour of all the 'must see' highlights. Look into the off season if you are a history buff with a hyperfocus on Rome — you won't be able to finish your list otherwise due to all the pointless waiting around.
And yes, visit provincial villages and eat in an authentic Italian restaurant where tourists are mostly other Italians. Experience the difference. But you are not limited to villages. Italy is huge, and there are a lot of cities with remarkable museums, world-renowned festivals, great cuisine, and where your money is more than welcome and your stay won't be marred by extreme crowds and pushy con artists in faux Roman gladiator gear.
My commute is every other week, so it's not terrible. I drive to SJ Sunday night, stay in a hotel that's 5 minutes from my office, then drive home Friday afternoon.
It averages 3.25hrs one way, or about 13 hrs/month, given my every other week schedule. It's a little tiring, but doable.
Super commuting is a thing since this whole RTO shit show happened. A lot of companies use it as excuse to lay-off.
As someone who does it, it depends on motivations. If the paycheck you bring in with the commute is more than what you’ll make by getting a new job, your kids are semi independent, your partner can hold the fort down Monday to Friday it’s doable.
I think it's inaccurate to call it a dumbing-down. It's more correct to label it as the largest stratification of education we've ever seen.
The smartest kids are smarter than ever before. They're absolutely rocking the house. The problem is that the "middle class has been gutted". Kids who were kinda smart, or kinda dumb, are now lumped in with kids who probably need Individual Education Plans (IEPs). This lowers the educational standard for almost all students - though of course the most well-off among us (educationally, rather than monetarily) are not only not suffering, they're thriving.
Only if they’re wealthy or get extremely lucky and live near a randomly good school. By many metrics I was the smartest in my class, but my family had little money and lived in a rural area with a single underfunded school. I spent my days in class with kids that were still struggling to sound out “cat” in third grade. A few times a week I got to spend an hour in “gifted” class but that was mostly art projects, nothing that would help make up for the rest of the day being wasted.
That is provably incorrect, as since Victorian times people lost around 14 to 23 IQ points on average. Notably, the corrected scores have continued on a downward trend for the past century.
People are not getting smarter, as recent events have shown. =3
Sadly, this may be coming to NYC. In principle, I am all for trying to improve the baseline, but you cannot sacrifice better students to do that. Not only is it silly (how would this sacrifice exactly benefit worse students?), but unjust. Furthermore, education begins at home. Parents are the primary educators of children, not necessarily academically, but in the broader "life" sense. If the home environment is not conducive or supportive of education at school, you will be facing a very uphill battle.
The dumbing down of education goes further than what you note, though. Think of classical education and the formation of the human person (I'm not talking about "Dead Poets Society" ersatz, but the real deal). Think of the principles behind the trivium and quadrivium. In the best case, we are producing superficially technically savvy barbarians. Schools are effectively savage factories, and universities are laughable and should be ashamed of calling themselves universities.
Sam is loyal and devoted to Frodo, but there is zero romance between them. I don’t see how one could read that in the book. Sam even marries Rosy and has umpteen children.
Is Gollum gay for Frodo because he caressed his knees while on the path of Cirith Ungol?
I can't help but agree having read the books umpteenth times... even in retrospect I find it more likely that Tolkien added Rosy into the narrative simply to make it clear that Sam was a heterosexual and that Frodo was merely an asexual eccentric like Bilbo.
I don't think there is any problem or harm in reading them as bi or gay, but I'd love to read a better case for Tolkien having written them with that intention. Am I forgetting any character(s) from The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales that were more obviously coded as gay or any other statements by Tolkien that would point to this as even a remote possibility?
I suspect Tolkien’s primary motivation in Sam marrying Rosie was a literary device to evoke a return to normality and the settled constancy of the shire, rather than explicit signalling that Sam was heterosexual. I can see what you mean though, and actually your point about Bilbo and Frodo sort of gets to the same place (their disordered lives vs the order of marriage) but I think it’s maybe a case of applying a modern interpretation to something that doesn’t need it.
Heterosexual succession (or, rather, the succession driven by the family unit) was (and still is!) a driver of “ordered society” and given both Bilbo and Frodo subverted this because of Tookish events (Bilbo driven by, and Frodo basically suffering the fall out from) Sam marrying Rosie is effectively the natural end point of things. He is able to marry her because of what came before, and their marrying is a signal that those times are over.
I’m going to have to re-read Tolkien now. I haven’t since I was 15, and this thread made me realise I ought to pay it another visit!
Or just because math is awesome and knowing more is just great knowledge to obtain.
For some reason people think having an education is only valuable if it is traded for money. For example I think an educated wife and a mom who never earns a single dollar from an employer is incredibly value to her family.
I hope my daughters get a robust liberal arts education and then just get married young and have kids and be homemakers.
I hope they’ll have more options than I did. I never wanted to be a SWE working in social media, but grad school in pure math showed me I wasn’t good enough. A common story.
your kids will have amazing opportunities just because you are obviously a kick ass parent. but I don’t think squeezing two years of math in 6 months will do anything
As a bright student who was never challenged in K-12, I can unequivocally state that this ultimately hurt me in the long run. I seriously didn't know how to study and didn't care to try learning when I actually needed it in some of my undergrad courses.
For example, when I took trigonometry in high school I did none of the homework, showed up to the tests and aced them. That led me to getting a C in that class (kindly the teacher advanced me to pre-calc, but forced me to retake trig as well). That's basically the attitude I had throughout high school and undergrad. I'm positive I could have amounted to more earlier in life (only years later did I return to academia to earn my PhD in CS after tiring of industry).
You can't forget the projects that are supposed to teach you that you're really gonna regret it if you don't have good study habits that you skate through fine without developing those habits. Causes all future teachers to lose credibility.
same-ish for me but times are different now. kids these days have all the knowledge in the world at their fingertips and it is really up to the kids (with a little guidance :) )
reply