Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Given the test-driven nature of modern education in the US, having 1000 kids that can just read at grade level is better than having 985 kids at grade level, 5 below, and 10 above. Any resources spent on the latter would be better spent on the 5 that are below grade level.


We need to empower geniuses if we have any hope of progressing our knowledge as a species. This means a chief priority should be to find and pay special attention to geniuses regardless of social class.

That doesn't mean there is a false dichotomy where we can't also achieve baseline literacy for all; that's a complex sociological problem which might take a genius to solve.


I think this argument presupposes that denying resourcing for the 10 will definitely improve the success of the 5.

Personal side note; I’ve tended to find that exceptional people are more productive with the resources given. So I find it hard to believe the inverse would also be true.


I think I misstated my argument. :-)

The way schools are currently measured, the 5 are very, very important and the 10 are completely irrelevant. The only judgement is how many of the students are below the appropriate skill level. I don't believe anyone even measures how much in advance of the skill level students at or above the minimum are.


How can you determine if the students learned anything without testing?


How do you know a prospective employee is worth hiring without testing?


Indeed. That's why they get tested.


Would you hire them based only on a competency test?

This is how schools are judged: what proportion of their students pass a minimum competency test.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: