Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca  It should be "human capital". The screening process at least cheapens the value of education. For example, if education is purely screening orientated there should be no public sector subsidies (as they will only cheapen the value of the certificate, given subsidies will be used by lower ability youngsters to "pretend" that they are high ability) |
Simple example of that, a friend's daughter goes off to college and fails nearly everything, ends up taking remedial classes for the first year.
He says, "but she was on the honor roll". Yes, along with most of the graduating class of her high school. Seems that the only ones NOT on the honor roll were those who were on the
high honor roll, or special ed. But they graduated with high artificial scores that led the parents to believe their children were doing well. The under-educated are seldom aware that they have been handed a second class skill set. Standards need to be raised across the board, and as much funding and attention given to high achievers as low achievers. Average achievers are doing OK for the most part.
But, what you said about education playing no roll in improving ability, I have to disagree. All the natural ability in the world means little if the child doesn't obtain a base of knowledge as a springboard.
What gripes me the most is that a lot of very talented kids are excluded from the superior education they need. I know several people who "look" dumb, but once you engage them in conversation, you know immediately that looks are deceiving. They were probably never considered for extra help by their teachers, school counselors, etc. They end up in blue collar jobs, where excellence is seldom rewarded.
We need better screening, and once a gifted child is identified, give them the extra attention they deserve.