• @moon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55 months ago

    If it’s not universities, they will meet in country clubs and summer parties. No suggestions for how we short-circuit this entire process but something fundamental about how our society works will have to change for all children to have equal or near-equal levels of opportunity

    • Todd Bonzalez
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 months ago

      We could stop funding schools based on the income level of the community in which it is located.

      This is the reason that there are good and bad schools. As always, poor children get the short end.

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        Seems like a great recipes for more private schools. If a local public school isn’t any better than anyone else’s why would the wealthy send their kids there?

        A variation of that is currently each community decides how much to spend on their future. Some people choose to live in communities that spend less, while others move to the best school district they can afford. Why would someone who cares about their kids’ education want anything to do with “mediocre “ schools

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      Maybe initially but over time forcing the kids to spread out is going to break down those more entrenched dynastic networks, because those kids might just decide to settle down where they end up, meaning their connection to the network is effectively severed unless they eventually decide to go back.

      • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

        Here’s your proposal in a nutshell. “Can we have the rich and powerful impose laws on the rich and powerful to reduce the benefits that will have for their children?” And even if we could do that, you completely ignore the option of them just hiring tutors to train their kids (which is already done by some).

        Not saying your goals are bad, perhaps a little misguided, and rely on the people that would be negatively impacted (by their perception) to make it happen.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I mean stanger things have happened in political history, every amendment to the US constitution that expanded the right to vote was passed by a country of leaders elected before those expanded rights went into effect, meaning the wider voting pool would inherently risk negatively impacting them even insofar as having to spend the time and energy campaigning to the newly enfranchised.

          Taking for granted that the rich and powerful can never be made to accept changes wich negatively impact their wealth and power is a dangerous game of giving in to the most advantageous form of cynicism to the rich and powerful, the kind where you stop expecting anything of them and stop pushing for accountability when they fail those expectations.