Joe N. posted Jun 3, 2014 10:25 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9478180) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > GS Chandy says: > >... they have not really thought *in any depth* > about applying the powerful tools of 'systems > science' to seek to design an effective educational > system that would, at least over time, meet the > perceived needs or aims the system is expected to > serve. > > The perceived needs are for every child to be above > average and care deeply about knowledge they will not > use. > If the perceived needs/aims of the system is that every child should be 'above average', then such a system will most likely fail pretty soon of its own dynamics. Our existing systems appear largely to be designed to enable and encourage the privileged in society to enjoy unearned privileges. Agreed, this is probably much more the case in India than in the US, where merit does (I believe) play a larger role in societal affairs than it does in India.
However, witness the findings of Thomas Piketty on 'inequality', which appear to indicate that there are grave societal tensions there too in your systems.
I've long claimed that economists such as Piketty have sounded a war-cry that is likely to fail. (IMHO), they'd serve society rather better to seek reduction of 'inequity' rather than the reduction of 'inequality', for a whole slew of reasons.
Economists (the left leaning ones, e.g. Piketty) are likely to draw a wider range of support from people at large if they'd advocate reduction of 'inequity' - very few people will openly plump for 'inequity', while practically everyone will deny - probably correctly - that it is possible to reduce 'inequality in any significant way (in practice, on the ground). Recall, for instance, stories and memoirs about the early days of the Russian revolution (Maxim Gorky, et al): today, we are able to perceive how very naive those aims of equality etc in society are in real life, 'noble' though they must have seemed to the people genuinely seeking them. (Of course, the realists in Russia at the time were seeking power - and they got it: however, they too failed as the society they sought to build failed under its own dynamics). In any case, the Soviet model soon fell apart because of its own 'system failures'.
I claim that the capitalist systems is also likely to fail under its own contradictions - though this will most likely happen over a longer time frame than occurred for the Soviet system. (Pikettyf is not entirely wrong in his arguments - at least those of them that I've read. We may never be able to test out Piketty's theories adequately because human society as a whole appears to be heading for collapse - but for reasons that are rather more fundamental than just the 'failure of capitalism' (which is, I believe, a relatively superficial phenomenon. > > >Labelling the great majority of students as 'unfit' > and bundling them off to a 2nd class vocational > career is scarcely democratic, though probably it is > 'convenient' for them (the critics). > > If they are the great majority, one could accurately > label them normal. > My claim is that - in current systems (in 'nominal democracies') - the great majority of people are denied the opportunity to develop themselves to the best of their own abilities. The 'normal' is in fact (I claim) highly 'abnormal'.