←back to thread

346 points obscurette | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
basilgohar ◴[] No.42116662[source]
As someone who's worked in EdTech for around two decades, I know why people think this. It's what a lot people here have already said. Education is what is failing, EdTech didn't magically solve this. Just like money, you can't just throw tech at education and expect it to solve anything.

There are too many profitable incentives to poor education that are conspiring to perpetuate it. An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable. Power generally resides with those who benefit from an ill-educated populace, so anything that would actually help educate children and people at large is discouraged.

I'll repeat what others have said here. Giving teachers the means with which to properly work with their students, and investing in students at a more individual level, is what's needed. Sadly, my refrain with regards to public education is that is has become little more than glorified babysitting. Those that succeed do so in spite of the system, and not because of it. Meanwhile, students that suffer from one or more disadvantagements (poverty, disability, social issues, mental or physical health issues, and so much more) tend to just...suffer more. And then they fall into cycles where preventable issues repeat or enhance into the next generation. They'll still spend all of their little income excessively, so profit is still to be had, or they'll end-up in prison, which, again, thanks to privatization, is also immensely profitable, so no problem there, right?

The system is setup to fail because that's what's profitable in the long run for those seeking such profits. And because they can lobby, and use their wealth to influence politics, it won't change. Something else needs to happen first.

replies(8): >>42116816 #>>42116833 #>>42116938 #>>42117033 #>>42117054 #>>42117300 #>>42117727 #>>42117746 #
1. fny ◴[] No.42117054[source]
> An ill-educated populace is easier to manipulate, gravitate towards consumerism, and won't hold their leaders as accountable.

This is a reactionary take.

Math, science, and basic language skills do not lead to political upheaval, and are incredibly valuable skills to the capital class. Leadership would be more apt to propagandize social studies and suppress dissent.

China easily comes to mind as a counter argument.

I'd apply Hanlon's razor: education languishes due to poor funding, lack of competition, and low salaries that attract mediocre teachers. We don't even properly fund development for blue collar jobs! Also the problem compounds since one generations students become the next generations teachers.

replies(2): >>42117160 #>>42117420 #
2. soarerz ◴[] No.42117160[source]
> China easily comes to mind as a counter argument.

I mean, cultural revolution was still going on 50 years ago lol

3. dehrmann ◴[] No.42117420[source]
If the US electorate had better economics education, they would have thought both the [2024] candidates were economic idiots.
replies(2): >>42117488 #>>42120033 #
4. krapp ◴[] No.42117488[source]
If the US electorate had better economics education, the 2024 candidates might have been forced to present sane and reasonable economic platforms, because doing so would have actual political value. Dare I say at least one of those candidates wouldn't even have made it to the primaries. Which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

They aren't economic idiots, they just know most American voters mistrust any economic concept more complex than "taxes bad. China bad. jobs good."

replies(3): >>42117555 #>>42117565 #>>42119988 #
5. AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.42117555{3}[source]
I think it's worse. Regardless of the amount of education, they would have to care about policy enough to read and act on candidates' policies.
6. dehrmann ◴[] No.42117565{3}[source]
That's fair, and someone told be there's a distinction between politics and policy, but when politicians pander to the crowd, it's really hard to get an idea of what their actual policy will be.
7. medvezhenok ◴[] No.42119988{3}[source]
This is reductive. Even PhD economists are crap at predicting effects of certain policies (see the Federal Reserve - it has thousands of them!). The economy is very complex to model (and has reflexivity), and generally you will find credentialed experts on both sides of anything short of a trivial debate.

Tariffs have pros/cons, as does any other policy proposed by the two candidates. And the most tricky thing when computing the effects of these policies is: "what is the quantity we're trying to optimize for?" - where the "welfare of the people" is not really a measurable thing.

8. medvezhenok ◴[] No.42120033[source]
Economists have a pretty poor track record of predictions themselves... so I wouldn't be too smug about this. The economy (the real one, not the one in textbooks) is very complex, and most "obvious" things that you think about the various proposed policies are probably wrong.