What is interesting are the cites from the literature on education outcomes with respect to the learning environment vs parents (both their care and presence) and innate ability.
She does have a point about the diminishing returns for some education types vs ability in those fields. She can make the case ( as many do on here ) that the one-size-fits-all approach cripples many of the kids. She says that most of the kids can do well at sums, but most cannot do well at Algebra or Geometry. I think she has a point.
I tutored people in College and it was painful to watch so many kids who did not belong there struggle with stuff that I knew in 4th grade. These kids had some amazing abilities in other areas, but the frustration of college ( and the innapropriateness of it) blinded them and others to these abilities.
My MGM suffered through college and they passed her in Math, Greek, and Science because she was the basketball team. She later ran one of the largest firms in the region with men as figureheads. But even in her 80s, she still felt guilt that she was not good at Algebra or Euclidian Geometry or Greek.
What was the point of her taking Algebra and Euclidean Geometery or Greek? A better course of study would have been upper division classes in History and Literature.
Do we assume that only people with College Degrees are valuable?
