Spin off of "Teenagers" - Better Ways to Provide for Everyone

[Deleted User 1990]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

[SallyMae]

I am not necessarily disagreeing

BUT is it that people really just do not want to work OR is it because even if they worked (referring back to the original post) they will still would not have enough money to walk around the fair and buy their kids things or take the trip to Disney.

I will never doubt there will always be the mentally ill or just “bad” personality disorder who are “lazy”, but many people do not want to work because the return on their time investment when the social media give this odd perception of wealth among so many….I personally would not keep my intense work schedule if it did not have what I perceive as a lucrative income.

It’s hard to want to be abused in the service industry or teaching or even factory work, and still just be scraping by financially. If their quality of life could be a bit comparable to the one on “free benefits” I mean, I don’t really blame them.

I think you are absolutely correct that many don't want to work in horrible bottom-economy jobs because they do not seem very worthwhile. Why give your whole life over for the benefit of another if you can't even get a basic life from it? What's needed here is not just social aid - we need to make good jobs for living wages available for everyone who wants them.

Sure, not everyone will want to work harder to get more, but most people do. That's plenty. If a few people are "lazy" and don't try to reach their potential, so what? It's their loss, their missed opportunity to make the most of themselves. It doesn't hurt the group. "Lazy people" exist for a reason - they often come in handy.

[SallyMae]

I don't know if this is what you're thinking but your post makes me think of the show The Orville (very similar premise to Star Trek) and one episode in particular. On this episode it was talked about how they determine "wealth" in a society where all needs and many wants are produced automatically. Wealth isn't determined by how much you have, but rather by how much you contribute to society as a whole. Because even in a society where everyone has a machine that you can just say "beef wellington" and it gives you beef wellington or "grey t-shirt size L" and it gives you a t-shirt, you still need people to do things for society. So those that make the effort to get the education to do something for society are seen as wealthy, and those who put forth no effort at all and just want to sit at home and do nothing are seen as poor. And so each person's individual wealth status is dependent solely on their own will to do something. They truly have no one to blame but themselves if they are "poor".

Seems like the right kind of society to live in to me, but I think it would take a lot for us to get there because besides the technological advances (which seem to move faster than society anyway) we as a people have to completely change the way we think about things and the way we see things. And society tends to be really slow and really resistant to changing their way of thinking.

Great point Traci, I think non-monetary utopias in the Star Trek/Orville model get a lot of things right. The needs of all are met, but people still act just like people everywhere - some work very hard to outshine others, most people like to contribute in their way, and the highest achievers are rewarded with respect and authority.

Humans will probably always arrange themselves hierarchically. But you can get the most out of society by making the hierarchies open and upwardly mobile, where rank relates to achievement and anyone can rise to the top.

[LiveWhatULove]

It's what I bolded, absolutely. If people could work the job they want to work instead of working the job they feel like they have to work in order to survive, then a very large percentage of people would still work in some capacity. We humans aren't built to want to sit around and do nothing, but current society has warped our views and made us jaded to that point of striving for nothing. Imagine if education was free and basic housing was free and anyone who wanted to be a doctor could go get that education and become a doctor regardless of what background they came from. And during the process they wouldn't have to worry about affording housing while getting the education and they wouldn't have to worry about how to pay off those massive student loans. How many more and better doctors would we have in society? And then imagine is someone who works hard at being a doctor and someone who works hard at being a factory worker are valued EQUALLY among society because they both WORK HARD. We would have enough people wanting to do all the jobs that need to get done for society to function.

I hear you.

I struggle to imagine all jobs paying similar and how that would ever be feasible. Hierarchal social classes are so engrained, I cannot even think outside that box.

It’s just such a big concept..

Which is why it will take us a long time to get there? Will we be there in say 200 years? Maybe, maybe not. But I would hope that we are at least well on the path by then. Progress continues. We look back 200 years and think how brutal and barbaric it was back then. In 200 years from now they will say the same about us.

I do like the optimism, and I am just conversing, not disagreeing, but my thoughts.

On this topic, things have NOT changed that much in the past 200 years. Classism remains. Yes, overall poverty is less & our social programs are improved. But the cycle of wealthy get wealthier and the poor stay poor, has not really changed all that much. Your example of physicians shows how it has actually gotten worse, as they used to make a decent, livable wage, but now they have designed a system using political influence & making policies to assure their income is in the top 2-5%. The AMA will lobby hard for decades to avoid changes that would threaten that income. Another example of change — factory workers, the previous generation of auto-factory workers, could make 6-figure benefits and lucrative retirement benefits. Many of those industries have now closed and majority of unions have been unable to negotiate 6-figures.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the US, I think there is great opportunity for financial success, but it’s not an equal chance and there are still huge occupations disparities, which I am not sure can ever be changed.

[Anonymous 5]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

[Deleted User 1990]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I didn’t read about it, I’ve attended both. ( 6 high schools overall)

In a good school I needed to study extremely hard to pass geometry with a C
In a “bad” school I literally was handed geometric shapes and told to color them in as a geometry credit.

[WellPreserved]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Are you talking about college prep schools which are private or public schools which are well funded?

In either case, I disagree.

[Traci_Momof2]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I think it depends on the state too. My kids are in school in Arizona. I have teacher friends who work in Arizona and Nevada (and yes let's note that we are talking about two states that are very often in the bottom rankings for education). What I know from my friends is that teachers are largely left to their own devices to come up with the curriculum. There may be some loose, high-level guidance but that's about it. Also, teachers in my low-income area are encouraged to basically bend over backwards to get students to pass with things such as accepting late work (with no points deducted for lateness) and constantly offering alternatives to earn points to pass. I've also personally seen and heard stories where students really should have been failed and repeated a grade but the schools move them on to the next one anyway.

It all happens around here and I bet that students in high income areas in Phoenix or Flagstaff are working harder to pass the same classes than the students in this area.

[Deleted User 1990]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Are you talking about college prep schools which are private or public schools which are well funded?

In either case, I disagree.

I’ve been to them all… College Preparatory, Regular Public, Charter and homeschool…

I’ve been to super funded public schools and underfunded schools.



Biggest lesson I took away from it all is that kids will typically live up to their expectations. Whatever those expectations may be…

[WellPreserved]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Are you talking about college prep schools which are private or public schools which are well funded?

In either case, I disagree.

I’ve been to them all… College Preparatory, Regular Public, Charter and homeschool…

I’ve been to super funded public schools and underfunded schools.



Biggest lesson I took away from it all is that kids will typically live up to their expectations. Whatever those expectations may be…

Okay. My experience was limited as I went to private elementary which was a feeder to area private prep schools which were feeders to elite colleges/universities. But my son went to private school, under-funded public school and was homeschooled. My experience and experience with him was not that low funded public school classes were easier than prep school (Biology 101 was basically the same) but rather prep schools offered more educational supports, lower teacher/student ratios, better equipment for labs, access to computers, more prep for tests (like SATs), better academic counseling, more advanced/specialized classes (i.e., AP or IB), more summer programming like internships and study abroad, and more opportunities for extra-curriculars all of which made for a more robust college application and guaranteed success.