I notice that a lot of times, teaching advisors in news media and other media tend to say, "oh put a dumb kid in the same exact group as a smart kid. That way the smart kid can help the dumb kid understand."
But hang on a second. Why is it the smart kid's job to make sure the dumb kid understands? Why is it incumbent on the smart kid to make sure any dumb kids can grasp the subject matter?
They usually come back with some inane trite insipid reply that the smart kid should be helpful and giving and selfless and magnanimous.
But wait a minute. You are assuming that the dumb kid even wants to learn. Many don't. They have horrendous attitudes, they make fun of the smart kids, they bully and harass and tease them.
"Ohhhh well if you would just be patient with them, show them that you care, show them that you care about their wellbeing, show them that you care about their success."
Sigh. You are still assuming that this would definitely change their attitude for the better. Why should I have to expend that much energy and effort for **their** success? I feel that I should instead put all that energy and effort towards a goal that would actually pay off -- towards my own success. This would be an actual useful endeavor that is worth my time. I should instead be free and enabled to make sure I myself master the course concepts.
Here is what the advocates for the dumb kids are not comprehending. It is not the duty of ANYONE at the school to change the dumb kid's attitude. The school's only job -- that means teachers, principals, and other students -- is to teach the academic subject. That is it. It is nottt the school's job to do a personality transplant, an emergency horrid-attitude-appendectomy, or graft into their cerebral lobes a desire to learn and improve.
Plus, this is not just a matter of being dumb. This is a matter of being an a-hole. It is no one else's job in the world to magically turn an ahole into a good person who actually wants to learn. The only entity that owns the responsibility to change an a-hole into a good person -- is the a-hole. It is that person's duty alone.
----------------
The school also does not have the capability nor the responsibility to graft inherent, natural intelligence into a kid.
Sigh. Here is another thing they don't get. There is in fact such a thing as natural intelligence. So many talking heads in the sociopolitical arena staunchly refuse to face this simple truth. I remember a few people like this back in high school also. They were students that were reasonably intelligent themselves; they were in the advanced classes, they completed routine AP and honors courses. Yet they flat-out refused to accept this fact.
I am not sure why so many are loath to admit that there is such a thing as natural intelligence. We believe there is such a thing as natural athletic ability. We believe there is such a thing as natural musical talent, and artistic talent. Yep. So why is it such an unreasonable, illogical stretch of the imagination to think there exists such a thing as natural intelligence?
But hang on a second. Why is it the smart kid's job to make sure the dumb kid understands? Why is it incumbent on the smart kid to make sure any dumb kids can grasp the subject matter?
They usually come back with some inane trite insipid reply that the smart kid should be helpful and giving and selfless and magnanimous.
But wait a minute. You are assuming that the dumb kid even wants to learn. Many don't. They have horrendous attitudes, they make fun of the smart kids, they bully and harass and tease them.
"Ohhhh well if you would just be patient with them, show them that you care, show them that you care about their wellbeing, show them that you care about their success."
Sigh. You are still assuming that this would definitely change their attitude for the better. Why should I have to expend that much energy and effort for **their** success? I feel that I should instead put all that energy and effort towards a goal that would actually pay off -- towards my own success. This would be an actual useful endeavor that is worth my time. I should instead be free and enabled to make sure I myself master the course concepts.
Here is what the advocates for the dumb kids are not comprehending. It is not the duty of ANYONE at the school to change the dumb kid's attitude. The school's only job -- that means teachers, principals, and other students -- is to teach the academic subject. That is it. It is nottt the school's job to do a personality transplant, an emergency horrid-attitude-appendectomy, or graft into their cerebral lobes a desire to learn and improve.
Plus, this is not just a matter of being dumb. This is a matter of being an a-hole. It is no one else's job in the world to magically turn an ahole into a good person who actually wants to learn. The only entity that owns the responsibility to change an a-hole into a good person -- is the a-hole. It is that person's duty alone.
----------------
The school also does not have the capability nor the responsibility to graft inherent, natural intelligence into a kid.
Sigh. Here is another thing they don't get. There is in fact such a thing as natural intelligence. So many talking heads in the sociopolitical arena staunchly refuse to face this simple truth. I remember a few people like this back in high school also. They were students that were reasonably intelligent themselves; they were in the advanced classes, they completed routine AP and honors courses. Yet they flat-out refused to accept this fact.
I am not sure why so many are loath to admit that there is such a thing as natural intelligence. We believe there is such a thing as natural athletic ability. We believe there is such a thing as natural musical talent, and artistic talent. Yep. So why is it such an unreasonable, illogical stretch of the imagination to think there exists such a thing as natural intelligence?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment