equality, excuse of jealousy

[Agathon]

We just have to decide whether we want schools to do their job of selecting and promoting the best candidates, or if we want them to graduate rich kids with lesser talents.

[Pekka]

GePap, so what's wrong with that?

And in here, you get to see the last years exams most times from the internet for free anyway. It's not a huge secret. You have two books to read for example. I don't see how it is unfair if someone has the chance to go to prep course, and someone has to actually .. read the book!

If you can't handle the books as good as the ones going to classes, I see absolutely no problem. Why don't they just think 'well I just have to do better than this, I failed, it wasn't enough! Next time I will bring my A game!' instead of 'yeah well rich kids gets in that's how it always is, I won't even bother next time'.

Besides, it's not 'only rich kids, no poor ones here'. They range from few hundred euros to maybe thousand euros a max. That's a lot of money, but it doesn't exactly say 'rich people only!'.

Most of the people don't even go to prep classes anyway. So, if you focus on the fact that you didn't get in because rich kids got fancy classes, then it's fooling yourself because there were tons of people who didn't go and got in, plus tons of people who were in those classes and still didn't get in.

[Pekka]

Plus here in most schools, they are not aptitude tests like SATs etc.. they are focused on the subject you want to read and get in. For example if you want to study the law, the questions will be from that area etc. Books will be announced good time before the exams. Everyone has the same books and same exam. Only scores count. If you fail, then you fail, simple as that.

It's like we should take income for people and let the lesser income people in more easily, because well, they aren't rich.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
GePap, so what's wrong with that?

And in here, you get to see the last years exams most times from the internet for free anyway. It's not a huge secret. You have two books to read for example. I don't see how it is unfair if someone has the chance to go to prep course, and someone has to actually .. read the book!

Again, and this is something you missed: people miss the fact that there is an art to test-taking itself: tests are designed in specific ways, and if you know the way the test was written, you know how to understand the question.

If you can't handle the books as good as the ones going to classes, I see absolutely no problem. Why don't they just think 'well I just have to do better than this, I failed, it wasn't enough! Next time I will bring my A game!' instead of 'yeah well rich kids gets in that's how it always is, I won't even bother next time'.

Again, prep classes are not to bone up on the material, but on test traking skills- big difference.

Besides, it's not 'only rich kids, no poor ones here'. They range from few hundred euros to maybe thousand euros a max. That's a lot of money, but it doesn't exactly say 'rich people only!'.

This is the one valid arguement you have, it seems to me.

Most of the people don't even go to prep classes anyway. So, if you focus on the fact that you didn't get in because rich kids got fancy classes, then it's fooling yourself because there were tons of people who didn't go and got in, plus tons of people who were in those classes and still didn't get in.

I assume you are against affirmative action- yet the fact is most applicants aren't minorities, so if some white kids gets bumped, most likely it was becuase they were not good enough- not becuase someone else got a minor advantage..correct? See how that logic fails to work? At least, from someone with your positions?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Pekka

It's like we should take income for people and let the lesser income people in more easily, because well, they aren't rich.

No it's not. THE POINT OF SUCH TESTS IS TO SELECT THE BEST STUDENTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PARENTS INCOME!!!

That implies that there is justification for measures against those who seek to gain an advantage that is not based on natural talent.

It has little to do with fairness and everything to do with efficiency.

If you are going to let money make a difference then why not just let rich parents bribe the examiners? The result would be the same and it's the result that matters - that's why we have exams.

It's not like this is a new problem. Parents always want to give their children some competitive advantage. While that seems a good idea from each individual's point of view, it's bad for everyone since we end up with less talented people getting in.

[Pekka]

I mean sure it can be sad for some people that they can't go and they would really want to, but hey read the books, it's that simple. If they are not smart/talented/lucky enough to get in even if the other ones parents were rocket scientists and teaching their kid every day, then hey, you don't deserve it.

If I was to run 100 meters, and the other kid got all the fancy equipment for training and all, and lesser body fat and wins me, I can't say 'well he won me because he's rich kid with fancy training equipment'. People should stop blaming others for their own failures. I really think that. You gotta be the top dog to beat the other ones. It's a competition, not a privilidge. I can't choose to be Donald Trump. I have to work for it and only few people ever succeed in it, but I don't go blaming on them for my own shortcomings. That's just bad sportsmenship. And the people who succeed, they should feel good about it too, because they are winners. Poor people can be winners too, money doesn't say if you're winner or not. But winning your personal goals, that's winning.

And I'm not comparing this situation to for example the US where the tuition fees are high. I'm not saying the system there is unfair, but I think some people maybe don't have the same chances, or working harder means really working super hard, and still can come short even if they work very very hard. So I'm not saying this and thinking the US.

[Japher]

Is educational success suppose to be based on natural talent, or on actual work?

I know guys who get perfect scores on standardized tests, go to school at the best colleges, and then flunk out because they are too lazy to do any of the work.

Since when did money = education? You can give the dumbest guy all the money in the world, but that still won't make him smart!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Pekka
I mean sure it can be sad for some people that they can't go and they would really want to, but hey read the books, it's that simple. If they are not smart/talented/lucky enough to get in even if the other ones parents were rocket scientists and teaching their kid every day, then hey, you don't deserve it.

There are only a certain number of places. It's a zero sum game.

When will you understand that this isn't about fairness, but about efficient distribution of natural talents?

That's all exams are, a way of sorting people out into career paths where they will best contribute to the general welfare. If we stop doing that, what's the point of the exams? They're supposed to ensure that idiots don't go to university (and they often fail) and that the best people do. Sending dumb rich kids to university is wasting human capital.

You haven't answered the question. If it's OK for people to buy their less talented kids expensive books, what's the difference between that and bribing the examiners?

Remember all that matters is that we want the best people get in. In the case of the expensive books as well as the case of bribery, that doesn't happen.

[Pekka]

GePap, you have to realize that I'm speaking of my perspective as coming from Finland.

I know that exams are art too, but we don't really have much multiple question exams. They are VERY rare. Usually they are essay types. If you handle the area, you know how to answer. There is no mathematics to this.

And even if there is, if you're smart, you hack it. YOu can get the earlier tests anyway and answers to them. SO there you go, practice practice practice.
If truly deserve the spot, then you can handle it.

When I read material, I always think of what would the questions be, what's relevant and what is not. THis is as good as exam training anyway. You can make your own exams. What is more likely asked, that they might have a clue, but that's only cheating, if you study the area good and know your stuff, you get in if you are not having a bad day or being unfortunate in some other way.

So yes, you will know how the test will be. You can get the earlier tests.

When only the scores count, I see no reason for any kind of action. There should be NO actions taken.

[Pekka]

Agathon, I'm not arguing with you Why are you putting all the caps, I agree with that! That's what I'm saying.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher
Is educational success suppose to be based on natural talent, or on actual work?

Exams are supposed to sort out those who have both capacities from those who have only one or neither. If you don't have some degree of both, you are screwed. I know some people that worked a hell of a lot harder than I did, but just weren't good enough. It's the result that matters - we don't give people grades to be fair or to make them feel good, but to give other people a reasonable idea of who's better at what.

Allowing people to effectively cheat frustrates the whole purpose of the exams.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Is educational success suppose to be based on natural talent, or on actual work?

I know guys who get perfect scores on standardized tests, go to school at the best colleges, and then flunk out because they are too lazy to do any of the work.

Since when did money = education? You can give the dumbest guy all the money in the world, but that still won't make him smart!

Well, since the legacy system, or since if your parents give a college 1 million, yeah, thier kid will get in...

Educational access should be universal, to ensure that everyone develops to thier full potential. Actually, the US does a great job specifically becuase of the state university systems.Success will be based on talent and work- I worked far less than many of my fellows, and did better than of them due to talent. But I knew people with less talent and who worked harder who did better than I. there is no formula to success in education- the question is one of access to higher education being equal.

Also, to end a misconception- education is NOT about being smart, or making someone smart. Education is about giving you information and skills you can use. I know a lot of welle ducated idiots.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Pekka
Agathon, I'm not arguing with you Why are you putting all the caps, I agree with that! That's what I'm saying.

If you agree with me, then by the mysterious force of logic, you should agree that such books should be banned and that anyone caught using them should be disqualified.

Moreover, that extra tutoring, if there is any at all, should be distributed in our society on the basis of merit and not on the basis of one's parents' income.

I PUT IT IN CAPS COZ I LIKE SHOUTING!!!!!

[Pekka]

Agathon, you are repeatedly getting me wrong. I'm exactly saying this is not about equality, or fairness. It's about the scores!

[Pekka]

Agathon, No I don't agree. They are private businesses that gives the extra prep. It's business. They have no obligation of teachging everyone. If gov feels like they should give everyone EXTRA prep, then sure. But until that, they shouldn't be banned. It's about the scores like I said. Who does best gets in, no matter how he got it if it was honest.