first of all, how old are you exactly? i doubt you would be starting out "decades late", that's just crazy talk. nowadays most people don't settle into a career path until they hit their mid 20's or later anyway. as far as establishing real relationships with people, that's a bit tougher, but if you put yourself out there you'll find it's a lot easier than you think to make friends or find a romantic partner or whatever your intentions are, no matter what age.Not sure how flushing 1000-1400 dollars a month rent down the toilet would improve the quality of my life any. There still wouldn't be anyone around to take care of my mother, so I'd still have to show up here every day to do that. I haven't seen or talked to my stepfather in many months at this point. I'd still have to handle my mom's civil suit for her (spent 7 hours the other day sorting papers on the floor of my mom's lawyers office because he can't hire anyone worth a shit to run his office well enough to handle the case.)
I'd pretty much be fucked no matter what I did, so I might as well just stay here. I plan on killing myself as soon as all of this nonsense is over anyway (read: not anywhere close to imminently.) I am literally staying alive solely out of pure guilt over who would take care of my mother and her bullshit. Starting off decades behind in terms of establishing real relationships with other people or working seriously on a real career is not, in my mind, preferable to just being dead. My outlook might change by the time I'm clear of all of this, but I seriously doubt it.
No, top 10% means you are top 10%. Top 10% only sucks when you have an incredible cushion of retards below you filling out the ranks. The reason top 10% sucks in WoW arena is because 95% of the players just sign up to get their 3 matches in or whatever and don't give a fuck. The top 0.5% are really the top 10% of those who care, most likely.It's kinda like WoW arena or any ladder system in any current competitive game: Top 10% means you still suck.
Only the top 0.5% of WoW arena players even got the Gladiator title, they were clearly a cut above the Duelists, which went down to 3%, and having a Duelist title meant you were bad, and 3-10% were Rivals, and you know Rivals weren't even one step above random Brazilians.
It's just the way Bell curves work. The top 10% of a Bell Curve isn't actually that far from the mean.
Says life sucks because live with mom who takes over lifeNot sure how flushing 1000-1400 dollars a month rent down the toilet would improve the quality of my life any. There still wouldn't be anyone around to take care of my mother, so I'd still have to show up here every day to do that. I haven't seen or talked to my stepfather in many months at this point. I'd still have to handle my mom's civil suit for her (spent 7 hours the other day sorting papers on the floor of my mom's lawyers office because he can't hire anyone worth a shit to run his office well enough to handle the case.)
I'd pretty much be fucked no matter what I did, so I might as well just stay here. I plan on killing myself as soon as all of this nonsense is over anyway (read: not anywhere close to imminently.) I am literally staying alive solely out of pure guilt over who would take care of my mother and her bullshit. Starting off decades behind in terms of establishing real relationships with other people or working seriously on a real career is not, in my mind, preferable to just being dead. My outlook might change by the time I'm clear of all of this, but I seriously doubt it.
It works great because their minimum standard of education is higher than our average standard of education. Ditto for Japan.No, top 10% means you are top 10%. Top 10% only sucks when you have an incredible cushion of retards below you filling out the ranks. The reason top 10% sucks in WoW arena is because 95% of the players just sign up to get their 3 matches in or whatever and don't give a fuck. The top 0.5% are really the top 10% of those who care, most likely.
In my high school, the honors/AP track was populated by basically the top 10% plus another 5% or so. All of them were smart but you had a very distinct divide between the "actually smart people" and the people who work harder. Thats fine, it takes both. Your arguments are unpersuasive because you're essentially saying "only the top 2% are worth getting special treatment, the rest of these knuckleheads are basically all the same, and none of the tracking systems help ONLY the top 2%, so its a waste and unfair to the folks who don't get chosen to be in the top 10-15% track, because it might be done on a racist or classist basis. So, to be fair to everyone, no tracking!" Thats not a good argument.
And you didn't address why Germany's tracking system (which is ludicrously harsh) works great, but any tracking system period here in the US doesn't.
If I said "innate intellectual ability" at the beginning, I apologize. Innate ability is probably mostly irrelevant. Its actual academic performance that matters, and thats what Germany tests for to track people. Whether that performance comes from how involved their parents are, their socioeconomic standing, or innate ability (or a combo of the three) doesn't and shouldn't matter. If we are going to track on anything it needs to be actual performance.It works great because their minimum standard of education is higher than our average standard of education. Ditto for Japan.
It's also not even slightly comparable because of the amount of inequality in our society versus theirs. The root causes for the tracks we in the US put most kids on has almost nothing to do with their innate intellectual abilities and almost everything to do with a) how involved their parents are and b) their socioeconomic standing, of which both of those things are highly correlated themselves.
My point about 90th percentile students boils down to the fact that I could make nearly ANY 30-70th percentile first grader into a 90th percentile student by the time they reached high school, with the proper resources. In the end, the only thing 'special' about a 90th percentile student in many cases is the track they were put on.
Academic performance is actually not very well correlated to performance in the marketplace. The correlation is actually shockingly poor. The other problem with your logic is that the tracks start when kids are really young, where it's hard to measure actual performance, and instead kids get tracked based on standardized testing, which really just shows who's best at taking tests.If I said "innate intellectual ability" at the beginning, I apologize. Innate ability is probably mostly irrelevant. Its actual academic performance that matters, and thats what Germany tests for to track people. Whether that performance comes from how involved their parents are, their socioeconomic standing, or innate ability (or a combo of the three) doesn't and shouldn't matter. If we are going to track on anything it needs to be actual performance.
Not so much Japan, because Japan's education system is basically just a better, fairer version of our own, because we set it up for them post WW2.from what i've read japan(asian countries in general) have a huge problem because they can train their kids efficiently but they have to send them to western schools to learn how to think for themselves.
So Mist, what is correlated to performance in the marketplace?Academic performance is actually not very well correlated to performance in the marketplace. The correlation is actually shockingly poor. The other problem with your logic is that the tracks start when kids are really young, where it's hard to measure actual performance, and instead kids get tracked based on standardized testing, which really just shows who's best at taking tests.
Quality of education, number of years of education. Even then, there's huge degrees of variance.So Mist, what is correlated to performance in the marketplace?
I think if you put an average kid in a class with the top 10%, yes peer pressure will cause him to perform better. This is fine.Quality of education, number of years of education. Even then, there's huge degrees of variance.
For ~100 years scientists have been studying kids and trying to predict future workforce performance. That's the entire reason why the original IQ tests were developed.
Behaviorists found the correlations lacking, and the whole process largely bullshit, and have many times run experiments putting 'average' students in A track courses starting in middle school, and lo-and-behold, most times they rise to meet or exceed their new peers.
Exactly, you would have to raise the standards up to around what we currently expect of the 75th+ percentile in order to prevent the scenario in your second line. You still have the oldest measure in the book, grades, to incentivize and differentiate the 90th percentile kids from the 50th percentile kids.I think if you put an average kid in a class with the top 10%, yes peer pressure will cause him to perform better. This is fine.
What happens when you put the top 10% in the class with everyone else? Peer pressure will cause them to perform worse, on the same theory. How is that a good thing?
Earlier you said Germany's educational standards are simply higher than the ones in the US, even in their lowest tracks. Why can't we raise the standards? Aren't we effectively lowering the standards to the lowest common denominator by de-tracking?
Because we have a do-nothing congress, states that want to fund everything BUT education, teachers unions filled with lazy educators, and a large percentage of the population that believes any attempt at federal education reform is some kind of government mind control agenda. Education in this country is fucked from both sides.Why can't we raise the standards?
In other first world counties it has been changed, but they do not have the level of inequality we do. So given the current economic makeup of America, no, it can't. What we CAN do is raise standards across the board and raise both the minimum and median tracks up to something more acceptable for a first world country.Do you believe that that is a thing that can be changed?