Tensei shitara Otome Game no Sekai? Ie, Majutsu wo Kiwameru no ni Isogashii no de sou iu no wa Kekkou desu - Vol. 2 Ch. 8.2
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2024
- Messages
- 1,114
What’s Ms Ray gonna teach the students?
Lgbtqia+ premium, genders and pronounce? 😂
Lgbtqia+ premium, genders and pronounce? 😂
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 3,896
As far as research has been able to tell us about having multiple learning tracks for "normal" and "talented" students:
1. If done wrongly, both groups's average performance suffers!
2. If done 'right', advanced students do a little bit better than they would have and "normal" students do worse. It's harder to say why the slower group does even worse than they would if everyone had been going at the same rate, but there are some obvious possible causes (simple discouragement, a tendency to assign worse teachers to the "normal" group, removing all the smarter students from the pool means no learning from smarter peers, etc.)
Accordingly, the headmaster here is (whether she knows it or not, though she honestly does seem to know) at best, advocating for a system where the priority is the top-performing students doing better at the cost of the lower-performing students.
And, like, all of that is potentially fine—I mean, she seems to be making an argument that the priority should be developing research prospects for military, economic, or scientific power, regardless of any mild human expense, and that can be rational depending on one's goals.
But... the way this mirror of that whole modern debate it's framed as her side being rational against a straw-man of a religion that says "people just shouldn't learn much" irks me somewhat. It reeks of authorial soapboxing.
1. If done wrongly, both groups's average performance suffers!
2. If done 'right', advanced students do a little bit better than they would have and "normal" students do worse. It's harder to say why the slower group does even worse than they would if everyone had been going at the same rate, but there are some obvious possible causes (simple discouragement, a tendency to assign worse teachers to the "normal" group, removing all the smarter students from the pool means no learning from smarter peers, etc.)
Accordingly, the headmaster here is (whether she knows it or not, though she honestly does seem to know) at best, advocating for a system where the priority is the top-performing students doing better at the cost of the lower-performing students.
And, like, all of that is potentially fine—I mean, she seems to be making an argument that the priority should be developing research prospects for military, economic, or scientific power, regardless of any mild human expense, and that can be rational depending on one's goals.
But... the way this mirror of that whole modern debate it's framed as her side being rational against a straw-man of a religion that says "people just shouldn't learn much" irks me somewhat. It reeks of authorial soapboxing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
