Hermit wrote:Forty Two wrote:Hermit wrote:Forty Two wrote:Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )
And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.
It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
And, there are those professors in academia and activists who would say that by reading to your kids, you are "unfairly disadvantaging others."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... rine-timpf
Technically speaking any competition is unfair unless all competitors participate on the same, level playing field. Adam Swift's use of the word "unfair" is justified. What's your beef?
Having a level playing feel does not mean everyone's intelligence, abilities, strength, dexterity, constitution, fortuitiveness, aggressiveness, drive, ambition, etc. are the same, and it doesn't mean they all had the same training, education, upbringing, caring parents, or schooling.
It goes without saying that contestants are not equal. There'd be no point having competitions if they were. Sending your children to private schools or reading them bedtime stories can be regarded as parents giving them a push along during the race, which to my mind creates a field that is not level. It's analogous to the former east block raising their competitors in what might be called athlete factories, only the east block did on an industrial scale what parents do on an individual scale. It is also analogous to this:
I was hoping you had replied more honestly, with words to the effect of: "Yes it's unfair. Deal with it."
Well, I don't think it's unfair that I read to my kids, or send them to a good school, so I did answer honestly. It's no more unfair to other people than other people instead investing the money that I spend on books and school and other related costs and having more money for retirement. That's not unfairness.
And, I really don't think it's "unfair" that some people have more money than others, or are willing/able to give more time/energy to their kids. Most parents I run into say they hardly ever read to their kids. There is no excuse for that, in my view. Books are free in the US - the schools give them away - every town has a library with a kid's section dedicated to it. You can even download materials online to a phone or PC or whatever. If you don't have a PC, use of them is free at libraries and other places. The fact that I do value education, and the fact that I sit them in my lap several times a week and read to them is not unfair, and my response was honest when I said that the notion that I should feel bad about that because other people don't do that is ridiculous.
I was hoping you'd explain explicitly why it's unfair. What I read was that yous said that reading to them was giving the kids a boost in the race. Yes. And that is expressly not unfair. It's akin to a father working with his son to build a soapbox racecar to compete against other fathers and their sons, and if one father takes little to not interest in the racecar, it's not unfair that I take interest and help my son design and build one that is apt to go faster. Now, life is only a race if you want it to be, of course. It's not really a competition, other than in the minds of individuals who view it as such. So, really, another way to describe it is that in a free society, you're not forced to do much of anything - if you want to read and learn with your kids, fine. If not, fine. If you want to instead play sports with them, fine. If you do the latter, chances are the kids will be better at sports than the kids whose parents don't do that. Maybe it's dance, and some parents focus on teaching their kids to dance.
To use myself as an example, my parents told me it was good to join sports, for example, but they gave me zero support and were largely incapable of teaching me anything about sports. They themselves did not know how to play any sports, and they for the most part viewed them as childish games which skill and development of ability was secondary. it was just something to go do and dick around with, and helping me become better was irrelevant. They had more important things to do, like earn a living. They were more concerned with academics, although in that sense, too, they gave little help, and mostly criticism or punishment if I failed to do my work or got a lower grade. I was expected to learn on my own. All that is fine - there are arguments people have for why it's better to be given the responsibility to do one's own work, and follow the teacher's instructions, etc. However, I've chosen a different way with my kids, which is to be engaged in their learning process, and their sports, and their dance, and give them encouragement, and let them ask me questions, and I can answer the questions, or work with them to learn how to find the answers.
Yes, my goal is to give them a "leg up" -- but that is not "unfair." There is no moral reason why my kids have to hold themselves back if they are capable of doing more, and there is no moral reason why it is unfair for me to help them reach a capacity and goal that is higher than they would be alone. The assumption that humans must go through life with exactly the same upbringing is based on an ideology I do not share.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
