Honestly this just makes me think that schools and universities should be shuffling their staff and teachers to keep one or the other school from becoming “the good one” that becomes a magnet for nepo babies and tomorrow’s burnout cases.
That level of direct competition is just gonna lead to people who are NOT able to work cooperatively or really trust anyone.
Plus breaking up the nepo clubs is important for keeping the social ladder at a reasonable angle to climb, college should be everyone’s chance to make important connections, not just for the Ivy League alums’ kids while everyone else gets told it’s about getting the piece of paper and having lots of free pizza while you’re doing it.
The brutal, national, standardized exam is what you get when you eliminate all the other barriers to going to university. It means every single student is in competition with one another to get accepted.
Shuffling staff around between schools just sounds like a great way to drive all the best researchers to the private sector while driving all the best teachers out of the profession entirely. Forcing people to move around to different cities for their job means you are selecting heavily for a particular “nomadic” type of person without any attachments to the local community. Sounds absolutely awful to foist that on educational institutions who really ought to be in the business of fostering community.
I mean that’s easily fixed by just shuffling teachers within commuting range and also only doing the shuffle every 4 years or so for kids to maintain consistency while reaching the stages of development.
Of course there could also be a higher payed tier that can get shuffled further afield for those fresh faced youngin teachers that haven’t settled down yet.
I think you’re still going to alienate teachers with that kind of shuffling. People form relationships with their colleagues. This is especially the case at universities where your coworker may be one of a handful of people on the planet who actually understands your research.
But also I think you may overrate the impact of teaching skill on student outcomes. Universities barely teach their students at all. Apart from lectures, they assign course work and conduct examinations. By far the majority of learning in university takes place alone, when the student engages with the course work. It’s often the case that students will pass a course with a decent grade having never attended a single lecture.
The truth of the matter is that most of the value of a highly selective university is the selectivity. There’s nothing that makes a teacher look brilliant more than having brilliant students. The top schools like Harvard could honestly eliminate lectures entirely, just keeping coursework and examinations, and their students would still be the most sought after.
If it’s not universities, they will meet in country clubs and summer parties. No suggestions for how we short-circuit this entire process but something fundamental about how our society works will have to change for all children to have equal or near-equal levels of opportunity
Seems like a great recipes for more private schools. If a local public school isn’t any better than anyone else’s why would the wealthy send their kids there?
A variation of that is currently each community decides how much to spend on their future. Some people choose to live in communities that spend less, while others move to the best school district they can afford. Why would someone who cares about their kids’ education want anything to do with “mediocre “ schools
Maybe initially but over time forcing the kids to spread out is going to break down those more entrenched dynastic networks, because those kids might just decide to settle down where they end up, meaning their connection to the network is effectively severed unless they eventually decide to go back.
Here’s your proposal in a nutshell. “Can we have the rich and powerful impose laws on the rich and powerful to reduce the benefits that will have for their children?” And even if we could do that, you completely ignore the option of them just hiring tutors to train their kids (which is already done by some).
Not saying your goals are bad, perhaps a little misguided, and rely on the people that would be negatively impacted (by their perception) to make it happen.
I mean stanger things have happened in political history, every amendment to the US constitution that expanded the right to vote was passed by a country of leaders elected before those expanded rights went into effect, meaning the wider voting pool would inherently risk negatively impacting them even insofar as having to spend the time and energy campaigning to the newly enfranchised.
Taking for granted that the rich and powerful can never be made to accept changes wich negatively impact their wealth and power is a dangerous game of giving in to the most advantageous form of cynicism to the rich and powerful, the kind where you stop expecting anything of them and stop pushing for accountability when they fail those expectations.
Honestly this just makes me think that schools and universities should be shuffling their staff and teachers to keep one or the other school from becoming “the good one” that becomes a magnet for nepo babies and tomorrow’s burnout cases.
That level of direct competition is just gonna lead to people who are NOT able to work cooperatively or really trust anyone.
Plus breaking up the nepo clubs is important for keeping the social ladder at a reasonable angle to climb, college should be everyone’s chance to make important connections, not just for the Ivy League alums’ kids while everyone else gets told it’s about getting the piece of paper and having lots of free pizza while you’re doing it.
The brutal, national, standardized exam is what you get when you eliminate all the other barriers to going to university. It means every single student is in competition with one another to get accepted.
Shuffling staff around between schools just sounds like a great way to drive all the best researchers to the private sector while driving all the best teachers out of the profession entirely. Forcing people to move around to different cities for their job means you are selecting heavily for a particular “nomadic” type of person without any attachments to the local community. Sounds absolutely awful to foist that on educational institutions who really ought to be in the business of fostering community.
I mean that’s easily fixed by just shuffling teachers within commuting range and also only doing the shuffle every 4 years or so for kids to maintain consistency while reaching the stages of development.
Of course there could also be a higher payed tier that can get shuffled further afield for those fresh faced youngin teachers that haven’t settled down yet.
I think you’re still going to alienate teachers with that kind of shuffling. People form relationships with their colleagues. This is especially the case at universities where your coworker may be one of a handful of people on the planet who actually understands your research.
But also I think you may overrate the impact of teaching skill on student outcomes. Universities barely teach their students at all. Apart from lectures, they assign course work and conduct examinations. By far the majority of learning in university takes place alone, when the student engages with the course work. It’s often the case that students will pass a course with a decent grade having never attended a single lecture.
The truth of the matter is that most of the value of a highly selective university is the selectivity. There’s nothing that makes a teacher look brilliant more than having brilliant students. The top schools like Harvard could honestly eliminate lectures entirely, just keeping coursework and examinations, and their students would still be the most sought after.
If it’s not universities, they will meet in country clubs and summer parties. No suggestions for how we short-circuit this entire process but something fundamental about how our society works will have to change for all children to have equal or near-equal levels of opportunity
We could stop funding schools based on the income level of the community in which it is located.
This is the reason that there are good and bad schools. As always, poor children get the short end.
Seems like a great recipes for more private schools. If a local public school isn’t any better than anyone else’s why would the wealthy send their kids there?
A variation of that is currently each community decides how much to spend on their future. Some people choose to live in communities that spend less, while others move to the best school district they can afford. Why would someone who cares about their kids’ education want anything to do with “mediocre “ schools
Maybe initially but over time forcing the kids to spread out is going to break down those more entrenched dynastic networks, because those kids might just decide to settle down where they end up, meaning their connection to the network is effectively severed unless they eventually decide to go back.
Here’s your proposal in a nutshell. “Can we have the rich and powerful impose laws on the rich and powerful to reduce the benefits that will have for their children?” And even if we could do that, you completely ignore the option of them just hiring tutors to train their kids (which is already done by some).
Not saying your goals are bad, perhaps a little misguided, and rely on the people that would be negatively impacted (by their perception) to make it happen.
I mean stanger things have happened in political history, every amendment to the US constitution that expanded the right to vote was passed by a country of leaders elected before those expanded rights went into effect, meaning the wider voting pool would inherently risk negatively impacting them even insofar as having to spend the time and energy campaigning to the newly enfranchised.
Taking for granted that the rich and powerful can never be made to accept changes wich negatively impact their wealth and power is a dangerous game of giving in to the most advantageous form of cynicism to the rich and powerful, the kind where you stop expecting anything of them and stop pushing for accountability when they fail those expectations.
Estate tax reform and/or UBI