An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth, it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.
As with all things human it's a continuum and the education system (at least as it existed when I went through it which was to be fair decades ago) wasn't always great at getting that message across.
I had a friend in my year, bright enough but where he excelled was in putting in the work, he studied harder for GCSE's (our secondary school educational qualifications) than basically anyone I've ever met studied for anything.
I still frequently outscored him on tests/coursework and did in final exam results and I did basically no work beyond reading the books and homework was an alien idea, the only real differences between us was I read for fun outside of what was assigned by school and I had a much better memory where he ground away at the assigned material but reading for fun would simply not have occurred to him.
Sadly an exam usually only captures a single metric, the final score - it in no way captures the effort put into that score and it's really not fair (in a general sense) that two people can get the same score and put in wildly disparate levels of effort.
But there isn't a Universal Law of Fairness, he had a stable loving home with two parents and I did not, that wasn't "fair" either but I realised early sometimes life simply isn't.
Though stepping out of structured education into post-secondary education where you had to actually study came as a spectacular shock to the system because I had no framework to build on - having coasted my entire way through school putting in minimum effort.
I had a similar experience in mediocre exurb HS. Was top 5% or whatever of my class without really studying or even handing in completed homework.
Good friend in most of the same classes as me would often ask me for help on questions, but he just worked so much harder. He has a very intense father who obviously was on top of him about stuff. But putting in the effort to be top 1% instead of top 5% while also being a varsity football player got him into an Ivy, which was great for him. In some sense the system worked.
> An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge.
How about some tweaks, then?
Here's the problem as I see it. People seem designed to work together, but school isolates everyone. The people who are natural leaders, natural persuaders, natural consensus-distillers, natural "dig deep into a hard problem to solve it" people SHOULD NOT need to wait until 22 fucking years old to discover that "the hard way" at "real work"!!
There were SCANT FEW group projects when I grew up, but they all stick out in my memory because it was suddenly abundantly clear who was better at what and that we had to work together! And the best part is that riding coattails becomes immediately noticeable and socially punished.
We need MORE experiences in school where people actually NEED to use their gifts to succeed TOGETHER. Exactly like at a job in real life! But their parents apparently won't have that!
This is a very difficult discussion, especially considering there are many countries and many schooling systems, but you have to admit there are common failings across systems.
> the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle
Sorry, I think I miscommunicated what I wanted to say, which is I know for a fact that there were people in my HS class that put in a lot more effort than I did, yet got worse grades, even in subjects (like literature) they cared about more than I did. In retrospect I kinda feel sorry for them and envious of them at the same - they got a lot more out of that class than I did by making effort.
> You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth
I think this the issue of what they call the 'skills-based' education system. The 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' type shows which translate well across cultures really show a trend - kids and teens are taught and tested on an immense breadth of subjects, most of which will be quite useless and forgotten, not only by adulthood, but by the time they graduate. The reason final exams tend to be 'skill-based' are to paper over this fact. Most kids don't really remember much about the composition of the water table, but can write an essay. Smart kids are usually better at writing essays, than not so smart ones given an equal amount of practice. So basically they force you to learn stuff you're not interested in, are liable to forget and won't matter in terms of your future, even in the scope of the narrowly defined schooling system.
> it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
This is what's not really true imo. It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. They're just conditioning you to the fact that your prime waking hours will be essentially thrown away for most of your adult life (for most people).
If you can do that, and you live in an okayish country, you can get through life doing alright by doing that, so by that definition its true.
But the only people who are rewarded by the (academic) purpose of the schooling system, are the ones who excel at core subjects. If you're a gifted artist, but suck at math, you'll likely not enjoy being in the system.
Most people, dumb or smart, could likely end up in the same place in life playing video games in their youth, instead of going to school.
> It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out.
According to John Taylor Gatto's research, the US school system was explicitly designed from inception to be just that. I haven't looked into it beyond his words, but he seems to have actual quotes and notes from the people at the origin.
First of all, mathematics is about so much more than the area of a triangle etc. that any analogy based on such simple things is overwhelmingly likely to be too simple to be of value.
Secondly, there is no truly objective truth to the area of a triangle. At bottom, this “truth” is simply “everyone is convinced, and for good reason”.
Without persuading other people of the “truths” that you discover, there is no real mathematics.
> Without persuading other people of the “truths” that you discover, there is no real mathematics.
Why? If I sat around and studied math by myself and discovered something true yet not yet known but didn't share it, it's still true. Are you saying I didn't "do math" because I didn't share the result? Math exists on another plane and it has 'truths' that we haven't discovered, yet are still 'true', no?
No, they're saying that what is true in mathematics is contingent, not absolute. It all depends on which set of axioms use, what assumptions you make.
The area of a triangle doesn't have 1 unique formula, it has many, depending on the system you use. A triangle in plane geometry has a different area than a triangle in spherical geometry, and different again in hyperbolic geometry.
When you get to studying the geometry of manifolds, you realize the area of a triangle can be any damn thing you want, depending on how you construct the manifold you embed it in.
Bullet journals are the opposite of a fad that fetishizes perfect notebooks. Proper bullet journals are very pragmatic.
Some people then add layers of fetishizing to that, because humans gonna human, but the actual idea itself doesn’t deserve to be tarred with the same brush.
Okay, well I don't mean the sense of a perfect notebook that's pristine, so much one that is a panacea for one's knowledge-management needs. Like any productivity trend, it seemed like the bullet journal method inspired a cottage industry of influencers with their bespoke variants and people sharing their journals for the sake of it and heck I'd argue that if there are merchandise- pre-bulleted notebooks sold in stores- then your framework has become a more consumer-driven than pure productivity. But that's no better or worse than GTD, or Zettelkasten for that matter.
> Your comment is below the intellectual and interpersonal standard that makes HN a good place to be.
You should install an extension and tag certain accounts. You'll notice it's the same people doing it for years (and also constant 2 months old accounts, but that's a different issue).
I wrote a TUI to search for words/phrases in a crossword dictionary. I’ve never written a reactive TUI before, and never written Go either. I was very happy with the assistance rendered by ChatGPT.
Of course, it was great to have exactly the features I want, and I enjoyed learning some new things.
I think seeing superiority or obnoxiousness in the comment you replied to was a pretty large reading error on your part. The tone was sympathetic to people whose inboxes receive more than they can handle.
The last sentence of your comment sounds quite condescending.
The part of their comment I quoted is not particularly subtle in my opinion. It undercuts the superficially "sympathetic" tone. If they actually intended it to be sympathetic they should be more careful in their phrasing. I'm skeptical.
GP post is correct; you are reading way too far into it. Zero superiority intended.
I'm stating it as a style of how I manage my inbox. It's not some big achievement on my part. It's how I stop from feeling overwhelmed by my inbox. Everyone else can do whatever they want.
It's not like I'm that loyal to Gmail. But I've yet to find an alternative that replaces this functionality that I've become accustomed to. It's why I'm asking so many questions of people in this thread.
And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.
reply