I thought the discussion we had in class about the affirmative action policy in American universities raised some very interesting points. One of the recurring points that were was made was that universities needed to consider the fact that different students had different educational opportunities in school, because in today's society, the education one public school provided can be absolute junk compared to the education provided in another school. Also, I had conversation with a woman I work with today, who said that she was homeschooling her kids now, because of how horrible the teachers and schools were where she lived. She also kept mentioning how lucky I was to be going to Hoover, and that my parents and I did not have to deal with what they passed off as education where she lived. This difference in the quality of education is completely unfair to all students, and is dragging down the whole educational system. As most people know, the United States' educational system has been falling behind the rest of the world for years, and desperately needs to be changed. I think that the US should look to Finland as an example. It may come as a surprise to some people that Finland has consistently been rated with the top educational system in the world. However, in the 1960's, this was not the case. Finland's educational system was a mess, and the quality of the education it proved showed it. In the late '60s, the Finns decided that all of their schools and school systems needed to not be competitive with each other, but to be equal. Finland completely reformed its educational system, so that every school was as close to equal as possible , and that child was given the same education and same opportunity for success. 50 years later, that system, which completely goes against the American theory that schools should be competitive, has proved itself to be the more effective.
While I know that it would never be possible for every public school in the country to be completely equal, I think that the states should at least try to give every student the same opportunity for success. For example, in Alabama, along with many other states, the schools with the higher test scores are rewarded, either with more money, more equipment, or both. While this system is great for improving competition between schools, it does little to help the schools who are not as good. The schools who need to be improved so that they can be competitive are the ones that really need the money, so with this system, they can never improve, because the money they need is given to the schools that are better than them. This is just one example of the way our educational system is flawed today, among the many others out in our country.
Instead of being obsessed with competition, like America is today, we should focus on improving every school, instead of rewarding the ones who are already ahead and leaving the rest behind. America should put education as one of its top priorities, because education is nothing but preparing our country and its citizens for the future. College admissions cannot be truly equal until every student has the same opportunities to be admitted, which will not happen until all of our public schools are improved, either by actually receiving the funding it needs to improve, hiring teachers who know what they're doing, and anything else that needs to be done in order to prepare children for the future.
Excellent post that I agree with on virtually every point. It is definitely true that America's school system is flawed and that the competitive model to which it aspires to is likewise damaged. But I think it is also important to keep in mind that, at least in my opinion, education reflects society. As American society today favors the wealthy and well-off, so to do the schools. It is definitely a point for embarrassment when most people agree that a country based on freedom and equality as its main tenants is widely considered to do neither. Education can be competitive in nature, but it must be intensive as well. Korea's harsh world-renowned school curriculum comes to mind. Such a model was at the heart of the original capitalistic theory made by its founder Adam Smith in his famous book, in which he stressed that free enterprise impartial of government trade and a symbiotic society were paramount to a capital system. In today's times the system has degraded into a sham where oil companies, the most profitable companies in the world, receive huge government subsidies while fledgling renewable energy companies receive relatively none due to heavy corporate lobbying. One can literally find oil billionaires commenting on how free energy is not aesthetically pleasing and therefore should not receive funding, as if implying oil refineries are. It is evident that today's society is not capitalistic but corporate, a whole new type of economic model that favors big corporations and is thus an apt description to describe the mindset of most Americans today. It is only through gargantuan amounts of propaganda and a resultant illiteracy on the topic that people believe that such a system can in any way be described as capitalism. I personally believe that America should try and retain its capital values and encourage competition to the extent that everyone has a fighting chance, something that is reflecting in the sentiment that most school systems in Alabama other than Hoover are absolutely horrible. Thus, paradoxically, capitalism must be tempered with government aid in order for it to be capitalism in practicality as Adam Smith's original idea of people helping each other out cooperatively seems to not work great. However, if a steady and wholesome redefinition of capitalism is not feasible, the U.S. should truly adopt the model of Finland in favor of its future successors, a model that is actually not all that much further from the capitalism described in a genuine sense. Sure competition in its contemporary sense is not implemented in the forms of tests until the age of sixteen, but students are still encouraged to do their best in nationalistic pride and self-interest. Plus everyone has virtually equal chance for success, so it is arguably more capitalistic than the survival-of-the-fittest mindset in today's educational system which at least adheres to the point of equality that Adam Smith actually advocated for while still retaining competition in spirit and a consequent excellence in performance for all.
ReplyDelete