<p>Everyone knows that competition ends up improving everything with which it comes in contact, evidenced by the unbelievable improvements in athletic prowess of major athletes in the past few decades, the Microsoft-Apple rivalry, the improvement of cars over time, etc etc etc. When you don't have competition, you get cable companies, the pitiful Democrat-Republic biarchy, and the American school system. </p>
<p>I'm a very competitive person; 1-on-1 basketball is literally a drug to me. My least favorite part of school, other than when the schools discourage girls from wearing leggings, is the non-competitive nature of it. Outside of maybe some tippy-top private schools, ability is not even a part of school. See: the laughable inclusion of English as a core, take-all-4-years subject and high school math, where you are used as a human calculator with no emphasis on understanding what is going on- to avoid hurting the feelings of people who suck at math. But why does high school have to be such a vapid attempt of getting people through school without actually accomplishing anything?</p>
<p>Can you imagine how much better our schools would be if only the top 15% performers in a class could get an A? Or if grades and SAT scores were publicly available, a la the stats of athletes? Or if failure was actually a legitimate possibility in classes? Or if only the most productive students were able to use the school, while the less-productive weren't guaranteed a spot in classes?</p>
<p>Basically, high school athletics are extremely effective at producing world-class athletes, so why not emulate them in academics? Why not separate and glorify the more-able over the less-able like we do in sports with Varsity, JV, not making the team, etc?</p>
<p>You probably just go to a noncompetitive school. Mine isn’t anything special, but there is a sense of competitiveness among maybe, the top 10% of kids. In my AP calc class, I think 2 or 3 out of 15 kids have As, so inflation really isn’t a problem. I agree with your premise, but competition already exists in some schools.</p>
<p>We kind of do, we just don’t do it overtly. I go to a private school (not “tippy-top” by any standards) and everything is extremely competitive.</p>
<p>Also, varsity = APs, not making the team = having to drop a class because it’s too hard / not qualifying for it, etc.</p>
<p>There’s huge competition in my school among the top students, and though others strive to make that top 10, they fail. I mean that there’s a huge gap between the really good students (and epic competition), mediocre students who try and hard, and those who don’t give a shoe.</p>
<p>Also, athletics didn’t “come into contact” with competition. Athletics were founded <em>as</em> competition. We’ve improved because of experience and performance-enhancing substances (legal and illegal).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two things. One, we tried that; it was called white-only education! Second, wouldn’t it make more sense productivity-wise to guarantee spots to those who needed them more, and allow the high-achievers to act on their own? In any case, education is a human right, not something you “deserve.”</p>
<p>It sounds good on paper when you’re talking about a bunch of high achievers cruising through schools, but when it comes to reality, especially in poorer and rural areas, it just doesn’t work. In many areas, we have enough trouble trying to get students to get their diploma, let alone having to get their diploma in a competitive environment. </p>
<p>Also, there’s a pretty huge differences between sports and education - especially when you said making things like grades and SAT scores public. Sports are completely optional - if a student feels he is doing horribly at the sport, he can drop any time and save himself the embarrassment. However, a student can’t just drop school (Well, you can, but that’s not really the goal schools are going for). A low-performing student who gets his poor SAT score displayed publicly to everyone is just going to be humiliated and further discouraged, possibly to the point of dropping out.</p>
<p>“I’m a very competitive person” - But not everybody is competitive. When I was little I’d actually lose games on purpose to not make my opponent feel bad. And I don’t agree that competition improves everything. Competition leads to underhanded tactics to get ahead (athletes: steroids, computers: monopolies and bad labor practices, students: cheating). </p>
<p>In any case, on top of my non-competitive nature, add a need to fit in. I’d just freaking die if grades were public. My grades aren’t stellar, but I am in maybe the top 15% of my class? I’d sabotage my own work to stick out less. I don’t mind standing out occasionally, like to get an award or something, but if I stood out constantly like what you’re proposing, my grades would drop considerably. </p>
<p>Yeah so maybe I’m an outlier =P. But dammit I count too right?? I don’t think I’m alone in feeling this?</p>
<p>KAIST, the MIT of Korea, tried something like this. They made financial aid dependent on GPA. This resulted in the suicides of a good deal of college students.</p>
<p>Public schools are not pools of people to pick from for jobs. Not everyone can be the best. You don’t need to be to have a happy life. You would deprive everyone and anyone who did not come out on top in whatever you measured "best"ness in of being happy by making them miserable. Not being the best does not mean failure.</p>
<p>also breh
you’re a freshman
wait until you’re junior or senior, then say you aren’t challenged enough</p>
<p>I’m not a competitive person and I go to a relatively competitive public school. In order to be in the top 10% (which guarantees acceptance to any state school in my state) students have to have over a 99% gpa and the top 10% have to gripe for every digit. While our average gpa is around a 95%, our average SAT score is a 1500/2400, despite the fact SAT scores are also competitive (over 2000 students are announced to the class and get free pizza). The reason for this is it’s harder for students to cheat on the SAT.</p>
<p>Why not give high achieving students the option to work at a higher standard? Right now, I’m a 4.0 student and am pretty close to the top of every class I’m taking (except Alg 2/trig honors, and I still have an A in that). They should make lists of tough teachers public, and group students by ability. I personally HATE having 1-3 smart kids, 20 average kids, and 1-3 kids who can’t read in every class. Wouldn’t it be better if there were a few rigorous, challenging, AP level classes at every level in every subject so that the average kids would be forced to drop out and wouldn’t bring the rest down? They’d still get the same education as now, but the high achievers would actually be working, instead of cruising through classes they could have aced years ago.</p>
<p>Schools are fine the way they are i think. so much thought is put into figuring out how to make them as effective as possible given their budget constraints and everything. more competition might make school better for some students like you, but i have the feeling it wouldn’t do the same for other students.</p>
<p>Though just throwing out references to studies and articles isn’t always the best way to have these sort of debates, I did see a good article in the Wall Street Journal about competition in learning environments. I can’t link to it, I guess, but Google “Being Ranked Can Reduce IQ” to find it. In general, they found that the students put in a implicitly competitive environment saw a decline in their academic performance.</p>
<p>I just think you’re forgetting about actual LEARNING. That’s what school should be about. That’s what No Child Left Behind forgot. That’s what New York state schools are embarrassingly forgetting at the moment (google it). The Age of Standardized Testing is making our country’s youth simpler and just pathetic problem solvers that put us behind the curve globally. It’s about learning, not grades. The OP comes from the school of thought that test scores, grades, etc. are the ultimate indicator of learning. While generally the most intelligent students have the highest grades, it’s frankly irresponsible to assume that there’s a one-size-fits-all manner to education. People learn differently. While it’s almost impossible to cater to all of them, promoting an environment that is strictly competitive and based off of metrics that certain students struggle with just leads to shaving off a part of the population that realizes “it’s no use, I’m dumb, there’s no place for me here.” Is that what schools should be promoting?</p>
<p>The ideal world is one in which the high achieving students are catered to accordingly and the less intelligent students are catered to accordingly so that everyone reaches their potential. Sadly most schools (public schools at least) aim for that doughy middle and accomplish nothing. It’s sad.</p>
<p>I totally see where you’re coming from and a lot of what you say makes sense, but I honestly think the idea that competition fosters better learning is a highly misguided idea.</p>
<p>It’s not the “average public highschool” but it is a public highschool. Some people fail, just not many. My highschool’s in a VERY wealthy town (ranked highest median income in a town a few times) and athletics and academics are both very competitive to the point where majority of the class cheats and the teachers have to be okay with it because if the students get caught they can’t participate in sports and then we aren’t state champs. And if the cheating student isn’t an athlete their parents are still rich and the administration doesn’t want to have to deal with them. It’s probably the most ridiculous public school environment…lol</p>