> Smart people generally learn easier and an hour of teaching them creates a bigger difference than an hour of teaching someone less smart.
While in principle I agree with this, I think there are many other factors that figure into a student's success in school that his "intelligence." Students may have different aptitudes for different subjects, care more about certain things than others, or have access to better resources.
> So, if we allocate the same resources to the smart and the less smart, we're creating inequality.
This assumes that both the smart and less smart students both pay attention diligently for the one hour session.In reality, when confronted with a topic that is trivial for them, a smart student will often learn the concept in twenty minutes and spend the next forty minutes sitting there bored. In contrast, the less smart student, assuming they care, will have the full hour to learn the material and ask any questions they have. In the end, they will both have learned the same amount. For this reason, education can be said to be equalizing.
> Is a smart person slighted by getting less attention in school? I would argue no.
I would argue that there's no moral distinction between paying more attention to a less smart person or slighting a smarter person. Are you punishing them for being born smart? Restraining the potential of smart kids in order to make society "more equal" seems quite unfair to me.
> In this case, "advantaged people" doesn't mean economically advantaged, but intellectually advantaged
Except that there's a remarkably strong correlation between the two.
Do note the difference between "giving someone less free stuff" and "punishing someone". Schools do not prevent students from seeking other educators.
Any mass-production or limited-resource system will be relatively more beneficial to someone than someone else, and there are many incompatible but defensible ways to measure benefit.
Yes, I agree, there is an important distinction between those two things. However, schools still aren't providing each student an opportunity to reach what their potential allows. From my personal experience as a student, I learn new things in many of the classes that I take, yet the information is taught at such a slow pace that it become mind numbingly boring. By forcing smart students to be in classes with their less intelligent peers, schools are imposing a ceiling on what level these students can reach. Even after being a year ahead in nearly all of my subjects, I still feel like I could be so much further than where I am today if I had had better, faster-moving instruction in elementary and middle school.
>Schools do not prevent students from seeking other educators.
Except to the extent that locking the student in a jail for 6.5 hours every weekday would be considered preventing the student from seeking other educators.
Schools do not prevent students from seeking other educators.
Being a farmer now, I feel I missed out on a lot of education because of school. Planting and harvest season in my part of the world is May and September/October. Having grown up on a farm, there were lots of opportunities to learn, and I took in what I could, but many years of learning were wasted because of the requirement I be in the classroom during these key times of year.
On the other hand, I spent my summers and weekends learning about technology, how to program, etc. It didn't come with the same timeframe limitations so I was able come away with a much greater understanding. With that, you are right that you can always seek education, but sometimes school gets in the way. That is a problem.
While in principle I agree with this, I think there are many other factors that figure into a student's success in school that his "intelligence." Students may have different aptitudes for different subjects, care more about certain things than others, or have access to better resources.
> So, if we allocate the same resources to the smart and the less smart, we're creating inequality.
This assumes that both the smart and less smart students both pay attention diligently for the one hour session.In reality, when confronted with a topic that is trivial for them, a smart student will often learn the concept in twenty minutes and spend the next forty minutes sitting there bored. In contrast, the less smart student, assuming they care, will have the full hour to learn the material and ask any questions they have. In the end, they will both have learned the same amount. For this reason, education can be said to be equalizing.
> Is a smart person slighted by getting less attention in school? I would argue no.
I would argue that there's no moral distinction between paying more attention to a less smart person or slighting a smarter person. Are you punishing them for being born smart? Restraining the potential of smart kids in order to make society "more equal" seems quite unfair to me.
> In this case, "advantaged people" doesn't mean economically advantaged, but intellectually advantaged
Except that there's a remarkably strong correlation between the two.