> I believe that encouraging parents to invest in their children's growth is a good thing.
No disagreement from me there. However, I would prefer if a child's outcome were not so dependent on how willing their parents are to make sacrifices.
> Simply put, parents are now forced to weigh the comparative benefit of a high-end university education over the child's development. I'm betting that diminishing returns on development investment will at some point encourage investment in gaming the adversity score instead.
I'd argue the current system already does this. Placing such a high emphasis on scores just makes it so that parents are strongly encouraged to put their children in SAT/AP prep scores while ignoring other things that would likely be much more important.
I went to a school full of wealthy students. Almost all of them took prep classes to get really high scores.
As far as I could tell, there was absolutely no instance of people learning for the sake of learning and little no to interest in doing something for the sake of a child's development.
No disagreement from me there. However, I would prefer if a child's outcome were not so dependent on how willing their parents are to make sacrifices.
> Simply put, parents are now forced to weigh the comparative benefit of a high-end university education over the child's development. I'm betting that diminishing returns on development investment will at some point encourage investment in gaming the adversity score instead.
I'd argue the current system already does this. Placing such a high emphasis on scores just makes it so that parents are strongly encouraged to put their children in SAT/AP prep scores while ignoring other things that would likely be much more important.
I went to a school full of wealthy students. Almost all of them took prep classes to get really high scores.
As far as I could tell, there was absolutely no instance of people learning for the sake of learning and little no to interest in doing something for the sake of a child's development.