37 replies to this topic

[Melchoire]

What if someone gets a C. He normally would be able to attend a community college but now he can't because only A's are admitted. This widening the gap. A middle is required to close the gap.

I used A's hypothetically. Besides different courses require different grades for admission. Getting 90+% in Math is easier than getting 90+% in chemistry(generally).

[A Silent Soliloquy]

I used A's hypothetically. Besides different courses require different grades for admission. Getting 90+% in Math is easier than getting 90+% in chemistry(generally).

So you propose people who get A's and people who get C's go to the same schools and the same programs?

[Melchoire]

So you propose people who get A's and people who get C's go to the same schools and the same programs?

Listen you presumptuous prick, I'm saying that the admission grade for chemistry would be much lower than for regular math because it's more difficult.

[Sweeney]

Play nice, kiddlywinks.

[ShadowLink64]

Play nice, kiddlywinks.

Oh how I love not being a part of the moderating staff anymore. I can argue along with everyone else now!

Personally, I would sleep better at night knowing that the people designing bridges and skyscrapers stuff came from reputable schools. If everything was all standardized, not only would it be more difficult to ensure that the standards remain consistent over time (or else we will begin graduating incompetent people), but it would cost a LOT of money to ensure that the same quality of education can be obtained from other institutions. So in this sense, I still agree with the system where some schools are better than others.

However, I think the availability of these schools should be there for those who deserve to attend them (which I think is the point you were trying to make). When I heard about the tuition waiver they have at the Ivy League schools (for those under $60k/yr income), I realized that this availability also exists to a certain degree. There could always be improvement though.

[pyke]

Oh how I love not being a part of the moderating staff anymore. I can argue along with everyone else now!

Personally, I would sleep better at night knowing that the people designing bridges and skyscrapers stuff came from reputable schools. If everything was all standardized, not only would it be more difficult to ensure that the standards remain consistent over time (or else we will begin graduating incompetent people), but it would cost a LOT of money to ensure that the same quality of education can be obtained from other institutions. So in this sense, I still agree with the system where some schools are better than others.

However, I think the availability of these schools should be there for those who deserve to attend them (which I think is the point you were trying to make). When I heard about the tuition waiver they have at the Ivy League schools (for those under $60k/yr income), I realized that this availability also exists to a certain degree. There could always be improvement though.

Such as free school, but tougher admittance?

[A Silent Soliloquy]

Listen you presumptuous prick, I'm saying that the admission grade for chemistry would be much lower than for regular math because it's more difficult.

This just proves your intellect.

I was referring to the fact that your standardized school has only one level of education. Now if two people wanted to become engineers and the national standard was a requirement of a C. Now people that get A's B's and C's all attend the same program. What was the reward of the hardworking A students?

[Melchoire]

What was the reward of the hardworking A students?

You get to graduate at the top of your class(or at least high) in college and become a better competitor when you apply for a job...

[A Silent Soliloquy]

You get to graduate at the top of your class(or at least high) in college and become a better competitor when you apply for a job...

So then what is the benefit of standardization if there is still a discernable difference between students? Why not let the more intelligent students have access to a larger repertoire of knowledge?

[Melchoire]

So then what is the benefit of standardization if there is still a discernable difference between students? Why not let the more intelligent students have access to a larger repertoire of knowledge?

Everyone has the same repertoire of knowledge as long as they qualify, that way no one gets less education but they still have to compete at the same level. They can still get jobs just not as good ones. There's gonna be a hell of a lot more highly skilled workers in your country because they all had the chance to study with a top-grade curriculum. Then your income becomes more proportional to your education and hard work, and that's the way it should be.

[ShadowLink64]

Such as free school, but tougher admittance?

Pretty much. I think the most significant point of having these "higher-up" establishments is to give education to the best individuals and it should serve that purpose, regardless of financial barriers. Therefore, those who deserve to attend them should be able to attend them. Tougher admittance would probably arise as a consequence of making the education more financially accessible since there would be a lot more applications to go through.

The only problem is that the school needs to be funded somehow, and with tuition being subsidized somehow, I could see taxes climbing a lot.

[pyke]

Pretty much. I think the most significant point of having these "higher-up" establishments is to give education to the best individuals and it should serve that purpose, regardless of financial barriers. Therefore, those who deserve to attend them should be able to attend them. Tougher admittance would probably arise as a consequence of making the education more financially accessible since there would be a lot more applications to go through.

The only problem is that the school needs to be funded somehow, and with tuition being subsidized somehow, I could see taxes climbing a lot.

Or they could take tax money of of wastes of money

[A Silent Soliloquy]

Everyone has the same repertoire of knowledge as long as they qualify, that way no one gets less education but they still have to compete at the same level. They can still get jobs just not as good ones. There's gonna be a hell of a lot more highly skilled workers in your country because they all had the chance to study with a top-grade curriculum. Then your income becomes more proportional to your education and hard work, and that's the way it should be.

Thats not correct. What about people who dont get into university? Now that there's no lower colleges they're basicallly screwed. Why should everyone have the same repertoire of knowledge? We're not all equal, thats life.