The Great Debate

[Philosophyking87]

Many people are currently debating this issue. What do you think?

 

[Cognisant]

YouTube- ‪MICF - The Great Debate 2009 - Janeane Garofalo's Speech - 1/1‬‎

 

[Ermine]

I think it would be better for there to still be tuition, but make scholarships more readily available. I definitely believe that everyone should get a higher education if they want to, but too many people just go to college to party. Tuition in a way makes higher education even more valuable.

So if it were my decision, I'd keep the tuition (the staff/faculty need to be paid), but make scholarships available for anyone who qualifies. There are also a lot of methods to make tuition lower. For example, I get to go to a 4 year college for a community college price partly due to the fact that school is in session almost all year round. There is also no official sports team, just intramurals. This also lowers the cost significantly. Things like that can make a big difference.

 

[Da Blob]

Higher education should be limited to those with higher intelligence levels. Dumbing down the curriculum serves no good purpose and when everyone , rich or poor, dumb or smart, has a college degree or even the opportunity to buy one, it becomes a relatively worthless piece of paper...

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I went with of course not and find myself agreeing with Da Blob on this one. Not everyone is cut out for higher education and for some people it should occur a little later in life rather than right out of regular school. I'm all for scholorships for the poor yet gifted and don't think being rich and dumb should get you in either. Money has to be involved somehow but it can't be a buy your way to success proposition either.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I went with of course not and find myself agreeing with Da Blob on this one. Not everyone is cut out for higher education and for some people it should occur a little later in life rather than right out of regular school. I'm all for scholorships for the poor yet gifted and don't think being rich and dumb should get you in either. Money has to be involved somehow but it can't be a buy your way to success proposition either.

Exactly. This is — essentially — the dilemma. However, while I notice the seeming conflicting goals which you seem to wish to achieve (as most people), I think Da Blob's points are a bit weak, for a number of reasons (although I'm open to the possibility that they aren't as weak as think they are).

Higher education should be limited to those with higher intelligence levels. Dumbing down the curriculum serves no good purpose and when everyone , rich or poor, dumb or smart, has a college degree or even the opportunity to buy one, it becomes a relatively worthless piece of paper...

First. If higher education were only limited to those of higher intelligence, would not this constitute a form of discrimination? On what basis could such discrimination be based? I don't think that's an easy issue at all. Second, free higher education doesn't necessarily imply the lowering of the curriculum. The same reasoning behind health care reform works here. Quality isn't much lower when there's more availability; there simply aren't people left without education or health insurance. Third, what's so special about a degree in the first place? A degree only reflects the amount of knowledge someone has learned, not that they are necessarily more qualified or a higher quality worker. Thus, how can we truly judge individuals on the basis of degrees if there are many people who aren't necessarily a) harder workers, b) exceptionally intelligent, or c) exceptionally talented who do manage to attain degrees because they have the money to pay their way through higher education? If anything, degrees have only become a means of unfounded discrimination. If this is the case, why should we wish to carry on that horrible tradition? I think it'd make more sense to start viewing degrees in a more natural light, away from this superficial value which has been placed on them lately. More attention should be placed on the individual and their particular attributes, not the degrees they managed to acquire. Thus, I find your point of view limited and weak. But feel free to argue otherwise.

Additionally, wouldn't more people with degrees be more beneficial, if it means there are more people with higher knowledge? Is not an educated population the ideal? Instead of looking toward the value of a degree, we should look for an educated workforce and population. In my opinion, it would be truly ideal to have as many people as educated as possible. Hence, it makes no sense to put a price on education and withhold it from certain individuals, considering the inherent existence of socioeconomic inequality present in every society.

And to get back to IB's post:
I think it's a very weak point to say that some people just aren't cut out for higher education at younger ages, and as such, should be incapable of learning when they wish to learn, but instead should wait until later in life. I find this kind of unnecessary exclusion to be appalling. If someone wants to learn, they should have the right to make that attempt, imo. How can we discriminate on such grounds as wealth and who is or isn't cut out for it? Because that's all this sort of exclusion does.

Hence, while it might seem as though there is a conflict here, there really isn't. I see the reasons against free higher education as lacking — they just don't seem to hold water. That there are very capable and brilliant people out there who struggle to find the means to achieve a higher education, who might feel that they shouldn't have to beg and scrape for scraps (scholarships) is very appalling. Imagine what those individuals have to offer. Know what a disgrace it is to true merit-based consideration (especially that which doesn't ignore the influence of social factors). And ultimately, it is undoubtedly true that those with money shouldn't be able to simply buy their educations. However, if we aren't going to adopt free higher education, this is the inevitable result: those with money will only continue to buy their way through life without much work, while the poor struggle. The rich and less gifted will end up with decent jobs while the poor and gifted can possibly end up jobless, untrained, relatively ignorant, uneducated, and unproductive. In my opinion, the lack of free higher education only harms people, and an entire country and people, rather than helping it. It's discriminatory and its exclusion leads to a less educated population, whereas the social ideal is always an educated population, as Jefferson once expressed. For what? For the superficial value of a degree? So we can continue to judge individuals, and discriminate against people who aren't born into wealth? I think everyone should have the chance — the freedom of opportunity — to pursue an education, as knowledge is, in my opinion, as vital, basic, and fundamental to humans beings as water, and I don't see how people can put a price on it and sell it. There are ways of doing things, mostly through taxation. It is only that we are afraid of socialism here in the western hemisphere. Yet, I only see this as a horrible mind-numbing, progression-halting, ideological mental roadblock which holds us back from creating more venues of opportunity for people, with which they can find more meaning in their lives and feel good about themselves. Instead, we render a decent education exclusive and force those not willing to accept inherently inequality to go out and work cheap jobs, which is ultimately a form of social slavery.

I think there's plenty more reasons — which are actually valid, when critically analyzed — for free higher education than against it.

 

[Yasmin]

I think that before we even begin to consider giving higher education to everyone, we should assess its value. Consider a few reasons many individuals chose to enter higher education: a diploma, a better understanding of their field, or the invisible one, knowledge with no relevance to their future careers.

The superficial value of diplomas has certainly been addressed, but I don't believe it's been given quite the amount of attention it deserves. It is, possibly, the number one reason anyone enters higher education. The general agreement today is that more education inherently leads to better workers, and thus, those that receive diplomas after completing higher education are decided to be more qualified than those with lower levels of education, rather than assessing the quality of the education or the competence of the individual. While this is an already narrow view of seeing things, it is complicated further by the fact that the number of people going into higher education is growing. In fact, I personally don't know of a single classmate that does not intend to go to college (granted, I do hang out with over-achievers and those that test of above-average intelligence, but it's still a lot of people). People don’t really choose to enter college for the sake of learning or becoming a better rounded person. Few would cite their goal in life as being able to learn and understand as much as possible, the overwhelming majority are just searching for a comfortable living.

A few months back my English teacher presented his class with a few articles about higher education and intelligence. They could basically be summed up into saying: the IQ necessary to be successful in college as at least 110,115. The average IQ is what, 100? Not everyone is cut out it. It’d be nice to say everyone is equal, but we’re not. We should all be doing what we are capable of, and sometimes, that’s less than somebody else. Look at a regular high school education, everyone has access to it, and it’s standards are ridiculously low because it is designed so that everyone capable. This again brings us back on being selected by are level of education; if everyone have access to higher education then we will be holding everybody to a standard that not everyone is capable of achieving.

Incidentally, that same English teacher asked us to read Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell during the year. He devotes quite a few chapters to discussing why intelligence does not guarantee success, posing the point that having a lower IQ, does not necessarily make a person less competent for anything.

Allowing higher education to be a place of higher intelligence isn’t necessarily discriminatory. If anything, not doing so might be discriminatory. Those of lower intelligence would be provided with education that challenges them, and those with higher intelligence would be forced to work below their skill.
Quite frankly, I don’t think higher education should be necessary for everyone, at all. It takes 12 years to graduate from high school, why do we need to add 4 more? Why should anyone be required a full 16 years of full time formal education? There are certainly people that would go through that because they love learning, and maybe even a few more in complicated careers, but everyone? I agree everyone should have basic literacy in English, History, Science, and Math, as well as an understanding in their chosen field, but why can’t this be achieved in High School?

Excuse any typos, I haven't the patience to edit this.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

And to get back to IB's post:
I think it's a very weak point to say that some people just aren't cut out for higher education at younger ages, and as such, should be incapable of learning when they wish to learn, but instead should wait until later in life. I find this kind of unnecessary exclusion to be appalling. If someone wants to learn, they should have the right to make that attempt, imo. How can we discriminate on such grounds as wealth and who is or isn't cut out for it? Because that's all this sort of exclusion does.

I was referring to those who go to college right out of high school because it has become expected and not about those who still wish to learn. If it was a matter of simply still wishing to learn, college enrollment numbers would decrease rather than increase. Society, family puts expectations on youth that just aren't reasonable.

Yasmin brings up the problem you're not addressing: Where does it stop? Why not have everyone do post-graduate schooling, get their masters, get multiple degrees and so on? There are some who are addicted to school and if allowed would never leave. They'd be well educated burdens on society.

Public education wasn't always K-12 (or it's equivalent) as it is today and perhaps there will come a day when a 13th and 14th year are added but there will still be a higher education gap as it were. So this is where your questions come into it, basically summed up: How do we figure out who should get what?

Perhaps we should formulate a new system entirely instead of working within the old...

 

[Latro]

In short: at least one of the separations we have now will always be there, short of a complete overhaul of the basic principles of the system. The only question is where it will be. At this point it is actually shifting upward, I think, with various factors leading to having a Bachelor's degree or higher being rather normal (I think the numbers in the US were around 30%).

 

[Philosophyking87]

People don’t really choose to enter college for the sake of learning or becoming a better rounded person. Few would cite their goal in life as being able to learn and understand as much as possible, the overwhelming majority are just searching for a comfortable living.

Exactly. And this is the problem. College shouldn't a means to merely a comfortable living. It shouldn't have this superficial value. Or, at least it shouldn't be limited to either of these two things. If some people wish to overlook comfort for the general acquisition of higher knowledge, regardless of their socioeconomic background, they should have that choice. Thus, we ask ourselves: are we really willing to put the general selfish happiness and comfort of the most fortunate members of our society above, as a priority, and ahead of the fact that many people wish to learn more who cannot? Is not an educated population the true social ideal? On what grounds should we place the wishes for comfort, luxury, and financial bliss of some selfish people above the value and meaning everyone finds in knowledge, in general? I don't see any, and I highly doubt these are such grounds at all, or ever. Hence, college has obviously gone astray in America. It's nothing more than false value, first-come-first-serve, buy-your-way-through-life, I am just going to college so I can revel in selfish happiness bullcrap. What a shameful pity.

They could basically be summed up into saying: the IQ necessary to be successful in college as at least 110,115. The average IQ is what, 100? Not everyone is cut out it. It’d be nice to say everyone is equal, but we’re not. We should all be doing what we are capable of, and sometimes, that’s less than somebody else.

I agree and disagree. I agree that IQ plays a role in who may or may not actually thrive in higher education (as it requires a bit more brain power to actually take in a lot of that information). However, even if some people simply don't have the mental power to make it through college, how can they be denied the opportunity altogether? I don't think it necessarily logically follows that since someone might have a harder time that they shouldn't be given the chance altogether. Again, people shouldn't be completely equal, in the sense that we all have the freedom of result; however, we should all have the freedom of opportunity, and if you truly understand what I'm saying, then you'll notice just how powerful a thought it really is. What it means is monumentally significant. We should all be able to try, even if we're not all going to win, essentially.

If not, we run the risk of having many potentially brilliant people, who weren't raised into wealth, who will possibly either a) find it very difficult to actually educate themselves in this rigid high-tuition playground, or b) notice the pointlessness of the inequity and simply give up, possibly working low-paying jobs instead. Imagine how many brilliant individuals who were raised in poor socioeconomic backgrounds there are out there who aren't contributing much to society simply because higher education is so exclusive to those with money? Sure some people can talk about grants, loans, and scholarships, but it's ultimately all boils down to the fact that some people shouldn't have to seek grants, pay off giant college loans, or essentially beg wealthy people for scraps, like slaves. Charity is a horrible notion; no one should need charity. And that's a sign of the horrible state of things in America. Charity is essentially a major aspect of this country's workings.

"But what about the poor, Sir? What? Well, hell, just give them some scraps to keep them happy so that they can get a decent education and slave away making things better for us, which ultimately means MORE PROFIT. You see? Charity is all we need, my dear boy."

Obviously, there are problems with the way things work, currently, on a principled, philosophical level. Yet, no one seems to notice or care.

Look at a regular high school education, everyone has access to it, and it’s standards are ridiculously low because it is designed so that everyone capable. This again brings us back on being selected by are level of education; if everyone have access to higher education then we will be holding everybody to a standard that not everyone is capable of achieving.

This is a stupid point (and pardon my choice of words and honesty here). High school may be accessible to all and does have ridiculously low standards, so that everyone can get by. However, I think it's more to do with all of the problems I'm address than because it's so accessible. How? Well, high school is basically seen as a fundamental, necessary aspect of someone's education. It's basic. If you don't have a high school education, you really don't know much of anything and aren't useful in any real way, most likely. Thus, employers don't want someone who doesn't at least have a basic diploma. And now they want a lot more than that. Hence, society's ridiculous expectations as to how much someone should learn by a certain age in order to qualify for a certain job. This is the problem driving the lower standards in high schools. In order to help get everyone educated, we're willing to lower the standards so that everyone can get by and basically sink or swim in the world of work. If we weren't trying to get everyone a basic diploma as easily as possible so that more people can get basic jobs, what other reason would account for lower standards? I don't see any.

At any rate, high schools are obviously lower in terms of standards for practical reasons. We want more people to have the basics (and many employers aren't satisfied with anything else). Hence, the superficial value of a degree is the true culprit, here. People want a little paper that says you've learned, whether or not you really did. And to that end, we want every high school stupid to have this stupid little badge of nonsense so that they can flash their little superficial degree of value at employers and get basic jobs.

If higher education were accessible to more people, and funded through progressive taxation (as it is currently done in many successful Nordic countries), it wouldn't necessarily boil down to what is happening in high schools (but then again, considering what I've been saying, maybe it might). The entire point of making higher education accessible to more people would be to provide the freedom of opportunity. This means A CHANCE, in basic English. Now, giving people a chance doesn't necessarily mean WE NEED EVERYONE TO SUCCEED. And this is a crucial distinction, here. If the point of giving people access to higher education is only for a chance at success (which they may not have now, considering how expensive intuition is), then there really is no reason to assume that standards will easily drop because most people who attend aren't graduating. The point wouldn't be to make everyone a college graduate, but to at least give more people the OPPORTUNITY, because this would potentially lead to more people walking around with a higher level of education (considering there are many smart people now who are currently simply too poor to attend higher education, as I already said). This is the epitome of social equality, in the sense of freedom of opportunity, which is a freedom not entirely valued here in America, which is an utter shame. Now, some people may see this is as a waste of time, if not everyone is graduating, but it's necessary. To do otherwise is to withhold from people the mere chance of success, the entire opportunity altogether. Now, why should we simply deny certain people basic opportunity? Because they're poor? Do all intelligent students from poor families make it up the ladder? Nope. Hence, the stupidity of limiting college admissions to those with money, based on a plethora of philosophical reasons.

Thus, since higher education access isn't about making everyone successful (unlike high school), because higher education isn't consider a basic necessity in order to get a basic job, but a decent job, I really don't think quality and standards will simply plummet overnight, if higher education were made more accessible. It would only mean more people trying to educate themselves. And I think that's a helluva lot more important than a stupid piece of paper that says someone is educated. True education is infinitely more important than a stupid superficially valued degree. And the more people walking around with a true education, the better off we all are. Seriously. I want to live around people who know as much as they can know, because they weren't held back and had more opportunity. I want to live in a society full of people who have educated their minds on a higher level because they weren't held back or excluded based on considerations of wealth.

Although, like I said, if employers and whatnot start demanding higher education for basic jobs (which could easily happen in the future, as jobs become more complex and the amount of knowledge needed to do them increases), then perhaps higher education will lower standards so that more people can get jobs, just like high school. However, if that ever happened, there'd be LEVELS of higher learning. A basic level and other higher levels that are extremely difficult. Then, we'll just have this same process again. Lower levels of higher education would be accessible to all, like high school, and basic, so that therefore they'd have low standards. Higher tier higher education would be accessible to all, but not everyone will succeed. Hence, the same process we're speaking of now.

Thus, how can we be so dense? None of this is too difficult to understand. I'm not a genius, by any stretch. I'm smarter than a lot of people, but this is child's play. So I don't really think your points hold water, when critically scrutinized.

Allowing higher education to be a place of higher intelligence isn’t necessarily discriminatory. If anything, not doing so might be discriminatory. Those of lower intelligence would be provided with education that challenges them, and those with higher intelligence would be forced to work below their skill.

That makes absolutely no sense. Being provided with difficult education material is somehow possibly discriminatory, in your opinion? No. Discrimination involves EXCLUSION, never inclusion. If people of lower intelligence were given the opportunity to study difficult material, they wouldn't be discriminated against; they simply wouldn't be cut out for it. They're not being forced to learn this material; again, it's simply an optional choice, a chance, an opportunity, and nothing more. And if intelligent people were forced to learn less complex information, even they wouldn't be discriminated against. Again, discrimination is to look at someone's characteristics and exclude them from something. What are intelligent people, in this case, being excluded from for being smarter? Nothing. They simply aren't going to learn material on their level (if you assume that standards will actually be lower, which as I just explained isn't entirely likely, but just a dumb American fear).

So sorry, but that last part made absolutely no sense. It's discriminatory to exclude people from something based on certain aspects of themselves which they cannot control. Intelligence cannot be controlled (largely) and is similar to being born with a certain color of skin. To judge people based on such considerations is obviously discriminatory. However, to give people the chance to study harder material which may lower standards that affect intelligent persons, is not discrimination. This is a horribly misunderstanding of what discrimination is in the first place. And, in fact, I'll go one step further. I'll assert that reserving higher education to only the wealthy is also discriminatory, as we all come from various socioeconomic backgrounds (most largely out of our control). Do we CHOOSE who raises us? Do we CHOOSE what household we're born into? Do any of us CHOOSE what school we will attend as children? Largely, we don't make any of these choices. They are natural things that happen to us as we grow, and much of it is largely out of our own personal control. Psychologically, sociologically, and socioeconomically, this is true. Thus, for some people to be excluded from college on the basis of socioeconomic differences is discriminatory, just as would be the consideration of one's intellect.

Thus, I leave off with the acknowledgment that America is full of discriminatory practices, on many levels, and it pains me to know that in a country where people are already discriminated on the basis of socioeconomic differences, some people would also want them discriminated on the basis of intelligence. HORRIBLE. Have a nice day.

 

[Yasmin]

Exactly. And this is the problem. College shouldn't a means to merely a comfortable living. It shouldn't have this superficial value. Or, at least it shouldn't be limited to either of these two things. If some people wish to overlook comfort for the general acquisition of higher knowledge, regardless of their socioeconomic background, they should have that choice.

The point that I'm trying to make is that very few people are ever concerned that that choice exists. The general acquisition on knowledge isn't a common goal. We are not a society of learning. It's unfortunate, but honest. Think about the time, we, as a country spend watching TV, or movies, reading trashy novels, gossiping, aimlessly searching the internet, or examining the newest scandal. That's American culture, working as little as possible, for the most reward, so we can sit down and entertain ourselves. I think you're over-estimating the competency of people in general. People are dumb. Sure, it is a sad fact that those that are not aren't given the opportunity to pursue what interests them, but you're asking to provide everyone with something that almost no one wants.

Thus, we ask ourselves: are we really willing to put the general selfish happiness and comfort of the most fortunate members of our society above, as a priority, and ahead of the fact that many people wish to learn more who cannot? Is not an educated population the true social ideal? On what grounds should we place the wishes for comfort, luxury, and financial bliss of some selfish people above the value and meaning everyone finds in knowledge, in general? I don't see any, and I highly doubt these are such grounds at all, or ever. .

Making a comfortable living isn't the selfish happiness and comfort of a few fortunate members of society. The need to feed, shelter and clothe oneself is in everyone. Ultimately, a person is going to feed themselves before they go and buy a book. It's a matter of acquiring basics before moving towards luxuries. Think before we had farming, when individuals were always gathering and hunting food, that wasn't a time for great and quick advances in science of philosophy. It wasn't we were able to stop worrying over food that we were able to progress as a society. The same goes for making a living. I'm going to make sure I have food, clothing, and shelter before I consider the luxury of learning for the sake of learning.

Hence, college has obviously gone astray in America. It's nothing more than false value, first-come-first-serve, buy-your-way-through-life, I am just going to college so I can revel in selfish happiness bullcrap. What a shameful pity

This makes me quite confused as to why you are arguing for higher education for everyone. If it's of false value, what the point in making it even more widely available?

I agree and disagree. I agree that IQ plays a role in who may or may not actually thrive in higher education (as it requires a bit more brain power to actually take in a lot of that information). However, even if some people simply don't have the mental power to make it through college, how can they be denied the opportunity altogether? I don't think it necessarily logically follows that since someone might have a harder time that they shouldn't be given the chance altogether. Again, people shouldn't be completely equal, in the sense that we all have the freedom of result; however, we should all have the freedom of opportunity, and if you truly understand what I'm saying, then you'll notice just how powerful a thought it really is. What it means is monumentally significant. We should all be able to try, even if we're not all going to win, essentially.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that we prevent people of lower intelligences from entering high education. God, no. It be a horrible thing deciding what someone is capable of before giving them a chance. It isn't even a matter of why can't they try, but more so, why should they have to try? The basic theme of my post is not, the rich should maintain the advantages of the poor, but rather, why is higher education necessary to fix that, or necessary at all?

I agree that giving certain groups of people more opportunities than another is unjust, but giving higher education to everyone doesn't solve that problem.

I think you missing the fact that in quite a few important ways, I agree with you. I'm not saying lets continue rich elitism. My problem isn't with allowing the gap between those that have money and those that do not, to widen. My problem is with higher education, and even lower levels of education.

Giving higher education to everyone is simply a matter a feeding an already flawed system.

The main and ultimate point against it, is how will what you are proposing be any different then what high school is now? Aren't you just asking we take high school and few steps further?

This is a stupid point (and pardon my choice of words and honesty here). High school may be accessible to all and does have ridiculously low standards, so that everyone can get by. However, I think it's more to do with all of the problems I'm address than because it's so accessible. How?

Well, high school is basically seen as a fundamental, necessary aspect of someone's education. It's basic. If you don't have a high school education, you really don't know much of anything and aren't useful in any real way, most likely.

Again, I think you misunderstand what I'm attacking. This, I can't possibly disagree with more. I have an appreciation for learning and education just as much as anyone else, but I strongly differ and that I think school is bullshit. It is a single and narrow-minded method of education and learning, that isn't efficient, and does not fit for everyone. I personally, learn very little with the type of rigidity it provides me. I have on quite a few occasion considered dropping out.

That doesn't make me incompetent, or useless as a worker. Nor do I believe that a high school education is actually necessary. If I become a lawyer, why would I have spent 12 years studying science? If I became a doctor, why would I have spent 12 years studying History? And the like.

Basic literacy in Math, Science, History and English is something that everyone should have, but it shouldn't take 12 years.

I recommend you consider doing some reading on unschooling to see where I'm coming from.

Thus, employers don't want someone who doesn't at least have a basic diploma. And now they want a lot more than that. Hence, society's ridiculous expectations as to how much someone should learn by a certain age in order to qualify for a certain job. This is the problem driving the lower standards in high schools. In order to help get everyone educated, we're willing to lower the standards so that everyone can get by and basically sink or swim in the world of work. If we weren't trying to get everyone a basic diploma as easily as possible so that more people can get basic jobs, what other reason would account for lower standards? I don't see any.

At any rate, high schools are obviously lower in terms of standards for practical reasons. We want more people to have the basics (and many employers aren't satisfied with anything else). Hence, the superficial value of a degree is the true culprit, here. People want a little paper that says you've learned, whether or not you really did. And to that end, we want every high school stupid to have this stupid little badge of nonsense so that they can flash their little superficial degree of value at employers and get basic jobs.

If I didn't know any better, I might think that you agreed with me. Everything you just said is parallel to what I've been saying. So there, we agree with the problem, we have these superficial pieces of paper that used to get basic jobs.

Here's where we disagree. Like IB said, where does it end? You say this is just the basics. Nobody wants just the basics. Do you have any idea how many people are going to college these days? A basic education and a basic job isn't cutting it. People want a better education a better job. How do they get that? By simply extending the average education.

Essentially, if we give higher education to everyone, it will become the new 'basic".

That makes absolutely no sense. Being provided with difficult education material is somehow possibly discriminatory, in your opinion? No. Discrimination involves EXCLUSION, never inclusion. If people of lower intelligence were given the opportunity to study difficult material, they wouldn't be discriminated against; they simply wouldn't be cut out for it. They're not being forced to learn this material; again, it's simply an optional choice, a chance, an opportunity, and nothing more. And if intelligent people were forced to learn less complex information, even they wouldn't be discriminated against. Again, discrimination is to look at someone's characteristics and exclude them from something. What are intelligent people, in this case, being excluded from for being smarter? Nothing. They simply aren't going to learn material on their level (if you assume that standards will actually be lower, which as I just explained isn't entirely likely, but just a dumb American fear).

Okay, maybe I was a little unclear. Discrimination is giving better treatment towards certain types of people, over others. Giving those of lower intelligences a challenge, and not giving those of higher education a challenge, is pretty discriminatory. Not only that, but maintaining lower standards of education is suggesting that those of lower intelligences are decidedly "normal" and that the system should be geared toward them. Using your definition of discrimination: Creating even more levels of low intelligence education is giving individuals of lower intelligence a place in the system, and excluding those of higher education from having their own. Those of lower intelligence have high school to do their best, why should we exclude those of higher education for having their own opportunity to do their best?

Thus, I leave off with the acknowledgment that America is full of discriminatory practices, on many levels, and it pains me to know that in a country where people are already discriminated on the basis of socioeconomic differences, some people would also want them discriminated on the basis of intelligence. HORRIBLE. Have a nice day.

I agree and I disagree. Yeah, this country is riddled with different types of discrimination, and that is wrong, when we are judging people on irrelevant measures. The color of ones skin, their gender or the like prove nothing about the ability of an individual. Black isn't better than white, men aren't better than women.

But sometimes being smarter is better, sometimes being nicer is better. Deciding that in a certain circumstance something is better than something else, isn't necessarily discriminatory.

Again, too much to edit. I didn't know I had that many words in my head.

 

[s0nystyle]

Higher education should be limited to those with higher intelligence levels. Dumbing down the curriculum serves no good purpose and when everyone , rich or poor, dumb or smart, has a college degree or even the opportunity to buy one, it becomes a relatively worthless piece of paper...

i approve

 

[Maiken]

So weird reading this. Where I'm from education is free for all and I couldn't imagine it being any other way.

 

[Philosophyking87]

So weird reading this. Where I'm from education is free for all and I couldn't imagine it being any other way.

Oh, how I envy youuuuu!!!!!

*raises fists in the air!**

Stupid Americans. Europeans are so much more progressive.

 

[pjoa09]

i voted in definition

i think everyone deserves all the knowledge there is assumed. and it seems coming for the near future with the internet.

i think.
now those born in shit holes cant get internet.
but if they did.

with help of youtube, and generous people, they can.

 

[pjoa09]

Oh, how I envy youuuuu!!!!!

*raises fists in the air!**

Stupid Americans. Europeans are so much more progressive.

nahhh they are dying... no doubt americans are stupid when it comes down to government. like seriously what the fuck.

pakistan and india has a woman running the country, talk about women inequalities... its everywhere!

 

[Philosophyking87]

i voted in definition

i think everyone deserves all the knowledge there is assumed. and it seems coming for the near future with the internet.

i think.
now those born in shit holes cant get internet.
but if they did.

with help of youtube, and generous people, they can.

Indeed. There's already something known as "Khan Academy" on youtube. A guy basically teaches math and science to people for free. Really neat resource for the average Joe. And the internet will definitely revolutionize learning in general, I just hope greedy douchebags don't also start forcing people to pay large amounts of money for knowledge they can easily learn over the internet.