Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of selection bias here - the majority (all?) of the readers of this site are far more intelligent than the majority.

So all (most? many?) of us will probably agree with her (at least as regarding our own schooling).

I know I do.

But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do what she suggests, using our minds for creativity, and not rote work. There really is a difference in intelligence, and the sad truth is that for most students school is exactly right.

The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway. The lost ones are those that are just a bit more intelligent than the rest, but not quite enough to succeed on their own.

View on HN

>But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do what she suggests,

How do you know? Not everyone learns the same way. Personally I find it quite arrogant to assume that you or I are just born with more potential than those who don't end up as "smart". Environment has an enormous effect on learning as does the teaching itself. Lots and lots of students don't understand calculus. But a really talented teacher can make it clear to anyone.

Look at recent events (e.g. with the US health care debate) and it's clear that if the US education system isn't addressed soon it's going to be too late. We have to take a hard look at where and why it's broken. Not assuming it's "as good or better than everyone else's" and for the love of Pete don't accept Hitleresque "we're just the chosen ones and they're not" nonsense.

I don't buy it. Yes, people learn in different ways, and one teaching method that one person gets perfectly may be entirely inadequate -- or even harmful -- to another person.

But all people are not created equal. All people do not have the same level of intelligence. All people do not have the same potential for success (however you want to define success).

It's nice in a theoretical/feel-good sense to say that everyone has a chance to be great, and all we have to do is figure out that perfect environment to place them in to help them thrive. But this is the real world. People who adapt better to their environment will do better. Doesn't that trait alone make those kinds of people "smarter?"

Now, I'm not saying the American system of schooling couldn't be better (it certainly could), but I don't think there's any one (or more) perfect system that would give everyone an equal chance of being "successful" or "smart" or whatever.

>All people do not have the same level of intelligence.

True, but I'm talking about potential for intelligence and in this I think all non-handicapped people have close to the same potential.

Of course what I have in mind isn't person A is exactly equal to person B (and "intelligence" is probably the wrong word for this), but rather if you could somehow give "points" to the persons level of effectiveness then person A's points would add up to person B's even though they took completely different routes to get there. For example, one person might be able to get insanely good at math, while another is awful at math but is an amazing artist.

I can accept that there may be overall differences in the potential levels between individuals but I don't think that difference should be anything remotely as dramatic as what we're seeing right now (especially in the US).

>But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do >what she suggests, using our minds for creativity, and not >rote work. There really is a difference in intelligence, and >the sad truth is that for most students school is exactly >right.

I disagree. I don't think we're that smart, and I don't (usually) think the rest of the world is that dumb. Besides, is memorizing soon-to-be-forgotten dates and listening to other students butcher Shakespeare in a uniform monotone exactly right for most students? Is doing the same math over and over again, boring those who get it and failing to bring understanding to those who don't, exactly right?

More people need to be able to find their way to meaningful work (not necessarily creative work.) I claim that the public school system hinders this process.

> The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway.

Probably only if you circularly define the really intelligent as those who succeed. This definitely doesn't work if you use IQ.

And how do you measure IQ? With a test?

You can't study for an IQ test.

You probably can, at least in principle. The SAT is effectively an IQ test (it correlates as well with IQ tests as they correlate with each other) and you can definitely study for that. The difference is that there aren't Stanford-Binet prep classes (at least I don't think so.)

SAT scores and IQ may be correlated, but the fact you can study for the SAT means that it's a weak indicator of 'natural' intelligence.

My friend scored 70 points higher than me on the math section and yet he was totally lost in calculus II and eventually dropped the class (while I consistently scored the highest on tests). His strategy was to try and memorize the answers/procedures rather than understand the principles behind them (which is the name of the game in prepping for the SAT).

I do not agree with her as well. Yes there are problems with the system. Yes, we can have a more liberal flexible system. But the system is designed for everyone.

How many people in your class didn't know the capitals? How many couldn't write a formal letter? How many couldn't solve for x? I'm sure majority of HN thought this was trivial, but many others need this, and the only way they can learn it is through repetitive, boring, tedious tasks.

It would be more helpful if schooling allowed everyone to excel in whatever they wanted to, but the fact is we still need a basic understanding of everything. Yeah, it's easy to subscribe to the romantic view that doodlers will become great artists, but the fact is being a great artist and knowing differential calculus are mutually exclusive. She has a very black or white view of the educational system. She half expects this magical school system that would transform her into this creative genius if she just demands it loudly. She seems afraid of failure, she doesn't want to work hard for it.

If it weren't for these boring tedious tasks, I would've never known about the works of Shakespeare or how cells multiply and many other things I would've never considered studying for, but later found really interesting. The educational system isn't meant to be a one shop stop for your enlightening. It's meant to show you what's possible, what doors you can take. Then you can walk through any door - work on whatever excites you, whatever interests you.

You're right about needing basic understanding of everything. However schooling goes much further beyond that. You can take college level courses in high school. A college level education is supposed to summarize your professional capabilities. As you can see, the problem is that youth is swallowed up by an educational itinerary that leaves very little time for you to do what you want at a time you can make the most out of it.

I feel that learning to solve for x, learning the capitals, writing a formal letter, etc. can all be handled better than "repetitive, boring, tedious tasks." Why am I solving for x? How would knowing the capital of Nebraska ever help me? When would I write a formal letter? These are questions school fails to answer and thus fails the students.

For example, teachers could give projects out that involve a closed-system and get the students to work through the problem until everyone understands. I have spent weeks being taught a single subject because the teaching pattern involved putting a math problem on the board, wiping it off, repeat until the bell rings...

Another example would be finding a business that they deal with regularly and writing a formal letter expressing their concern/surprise at the services the business provides. In school, instead, I was given the task of copying word-for-word formal letters out of a book for the purpose of replicating something identically.

The problem is that we are graded and passed based on memorization, duplication, and busywork. It's not that we accomplished anything in particular - we just learned a little stuff without much purpose (most of which will be forgotten within a year or two).

You're kidding, right? Even my small town school in India told me why I had to write letters or solve for x. We actually posted a letter to a relative and to the local council. We actually solved for x using everyday examples involving ice cream or something. I'm not saying the schools should force this learning, schools definitely should give a convincing reason why things like this are important and if I'm correct most teachers do. What I'm saying is, these things do have a reason behind why they need to be understood, and no should be exempted from learning basic sciences just because they want to be the next Leonardo or U2. Sure, go ahead, be the next big thing, but also do your Math homework, it's not going to hurt your progress.

"... but the fact is being a great artist and knowing differential calculus are mutually exclusive."

Either you missed a 'not', or you need to stop and think about the number of people you've just insulted with this statement. Math and art have been strongly intertwined for a very long time, from the Golden Ratio of the Greeks to Da Vinci to Escher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_art). Those who are good at math are frequently good at art partly because they can understand abstractions and separate them from 'icons' of objects and ideas. I would instead state that it is the rare great artist that doesn't have the ability to quickly pick up continuous math concepts.

I missed a 'not'.

It's almost like one-size-fits-all is a bad idea.

On that thought, I wonder why we get so much choice in so many services that we buy but so little in something that matters as much as education?

Because schools are cheap. And I'm not talking inexpensive.

If you are interested in a contrary viewpoint I suggest reading some of E.D. Hirsch's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hirsch,_Jr.#Concern_for_c...

There's an active "school choice" movement, and they're working for policies which enable choice: e.g. charter schools, voucher programs, and choice open enrollment for public schools, as they do in Seattle.

Cynically, the reason choice is restricted is it's easier to do a bad job and get away with it when you have no competitors to be compared against. Because the public schools get substantial funding from the government, an entrepreneur generally can't compete on equal footing unless they have similar funding of some sort as well. Hence vouchers & charter schools as a mechanism for choice.

But where I have seen pro-choice policies implemented here in the UK, the choices have amounted to between "bad" and "good". And some parents are pushier, and richer, and can afford to live in the right catchment areas. And thus choice mainly seems to promote rich parents having well educated kids.

Personally, I don't want a choice, and I want what I receive to be high quality and accommodating of a wide range of kids.

Why do you equate intelligence and creativity?

I am not the brightest person on the block, but I probably know more than most people on something.

If you have curiosity, you will discover something.

I don't agree with her, well, sure a little. The fact is, like capitalism, the schooling system is the worst system, except for all the others.

And for the majority, it is great for them.

I think this is one of the areas where it is so easy to criticize, because of course there are problems, unless someone actually recommends a good alternative system, I just ignore them.

You're misquoting Churchill and objectively inaccurate. The USA version's of capitalism and schooling are not ideal for our culture or the world as a whole.

There are plenty of alternatives.

...go on

Total nonsense. Lots of other countries have vastly better grade schools (pg mentions this in one of his essays). Do you think all the people in those countries just have a lot more potential than most Americans?

The worst thing about this ridiculous "America is the best!" attitude is that you can't fix anything if you think you've already got the best that can be done.

"Do you think all the people in those countries just have a lot more potential than most Americans?"

Yes, for the above reasons you mentioned.

I meant potential as in "do you think no manner of teaching could ever make them more intelligent".

I am not actually American, I am from Australia, which supposedly has a comparatively good schooling system.

We have the same complaints here.

I agree, she didn't offer any alternatives.

There are some very basic concepts that regular schools completely skip that would make all the difference. In my opinion we need classes (for example):

- dedicated to learning how one specifically learns,

- dealing with relating to people/relationships (it's really the main thing a lot of young people think/worry about),

- helping people find passions/things they care about,

- giving people choices and learning through real-world scenarios.

We all agree that a majority of schooling is focused on memorizing random stuff. It's a fact that people learn more effectively by doing, not sitting in a classroom memorizing and theorizing. It only makes sense that most information needs to be placed into contexts for it to be any useful whatsoever (or stick in the first place), and school eliminates any context in most cases. Math is the perfect example of this.

Other than for the reason that you may appear ignorant in random social settings with mindless/pointless conversation, why do we have to learn all the math that we do, history, literature, chemistry, biology, etc.?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com