I ain't vain enough to consider myself even "fairly intelligent", but I can say that I ain't very self-motivated, nor have I been since elementary school, and in hindsight my education system's insistence on strangling such intrinsic motivation in favor of extrinsic motivation is exactly what killed said self-motivation. "Grades are all that matter, and mine ain't anywhere near good enough to go to a good college, so why bother trying?"
It's something I'm actively working on trying to fix to this day, but old habits die hard.
I don't see how the second half of the sentence follows from the first half. Did that "not" slip in by accident? Or do you consider a PhD in pure maths to be evidence of not having academic ability?
-- Yours, offended holder of PhD in pure maths :)
Or even worse when teachers decide it isn’t worth you trying because they failed to inspire you.
I think this has shifted somewhat to the standardized tests mattering quite a bit now these days.
Should we not consider alternative methods or options for education? What should everything be concentrated into one public model that follows one national standard?
The course load in Eng. or in Grad School - now that can be overwhelming to the point of exhaustion.
Allowing children to pick what they want to explore and modeling the education after exploration is part of the baseline for Montessori education.
But this:
" Imagine if you could have skipped all those English classes back then. Guess what? You would be learning it all right now!"
No, no way.
It's a total misunderstanding of education to contemplate this.
Education is not 'some facts and things you learn that you may use later'.
Education at HS level is much more fundamental than that, particularly English.
It's about communicating, developing ideas, writing. Not only is it essential, it takes quite a lot of time and effort, and it's hard to just 'pick up'.
I have an Angel investor friend who just set up his own basic website (simple is fine) and wrote his own little intro copy. It's atrocious. Basically, in four sentences in writing, he reveals his own lack of education to anyone who cares to read. I mean - it's not 'that that bad' - but it really is sub professional and embarrassing. He's otherwise very smart, very educated, but it turns out he can't string together a few tightly coherent sentences to make a point.
There's no 'going back'. Both of should have paid more attention in school.
I do agree with he cadence, I think that school days should be shorter, and there should be more music and sports, shop class and longer term projects.
"Decent" high school grades are seldom adequate to even meet acceptance requirements for "good" colleges, let alone actually compete with the straight-A students also applying to said colleges.
Not that this really does anything to address the broader point: that "get into college because you'll make more money" is one of many extrinsic motivators American schools seem to push in order to strangle intrinsic motivators.
See how stupid that sounds
High schoool English, Geography, History and Math is referenced as easy by many students. Typical student does not have a problem to pass that class.
English, Math, History and Geography at the high school level are fairly straight forward, and the subjects are important to a rounded character. They really are not hard.
Most of Grad school is utterly gruelling, there isn't time to sleep, students pulled in different directions, and studying mostly arcane subjects that really are not important to anyone.
Theoretically the courses are probably designed to allow most people to succeed.
I think this can be generalized to all humans. It would be near impossible for a true lack of intrinsic motivation to have made it through evolutionary selection.
Like you say, what matters is matching the child's potential with what is available in their current environment, and institutional schooling might be a very blunt tool for that. Not only it is necessarily inadequate for every individual kid, it can also occupy too much time and deprive them from the opportunity to experiment and explore to their niche in society in their unstructured free time.
Be careful making assumptions like that. Suicidal tendencies made it through evolutionary selection, after all.
True lack of motivation both consumes resources and doesn’t contribute to back to the individual or group survival. It is a mode of being that approximates non-living with extra costs. And to be clear I am not talking about a temporary state like depression, or a disease state like chronic depression. I just can’t imagine a permanently stagnant reservoir of genes really passing on without any form of intrinsic motivation. Even at the lowest end of mammalian bioeconomics like sloths, there is motivation, if is just fulfilled it with a different strategy.
Likewise, your evolutionary arguments for motivation are equally useless. Evolution takes place on much larger timescales than the changes in our environment. 3000 years is almost nothing in terms of meaningful evolution through natural selection, and the world has drastically changed in the last 400, or 150, or even 70!
We are not talking about why people might be committing suicide now, we are talking about how the genetic disposition for suicadility might have passed along. To give context, 50% of the people will seriously have suicidal thoughts in their lifetime for about a week or two (so few actually do).
> Likewise, your evolutionary arguments for motivation are equally useless.
You misunderstand. We are not talking about an environment - gene mismatch, therefore the timescales are not relevant at all. I am positing a near impossibility of complete lack of intrinsic motivation to have passed genetically, regardless of timescale or even species.
The argument would propose that desensitization is mostly preferable, which is probably false if you look at particularly gifted people.
Even if most students suck as tutors (which they probably do – tutoring is difficult), the benefits outweigh the problems by a big margin. Most importantly, it allows each student the desired individual focus. But it also improves the tutors' memories of the classes they used to take.
I'm baffled it's not more widely employed in lower education. (Higher education seems to get it right by using former students as TAs. Although then it happens against payment. I'd argue for simply making it part of the regular curriculum.)
Mind you, this is from reading about it, I don't have first hand experience how the system works. I can however attest to the effectiveness of tutoring in higher education. Tutors (typically grad students) often understand much better the subtle points that are difficult to understand in a topic, I guess because it's been more recent that they have learnt it. There also seems to be less reluctance for students to ask questions of their tutor then their lecturer.
I think higher education in Finland isn't anything special, if you actually want a quality education you'll have to go abroad (like the actually successful people do here anyway). Even the arguably best schools aren't that good. People mostly coast through them once they get in and just want the piece of paper at the end. Good parties though.
Years later in the work force they'll wake up and see they barely make more money then an electrician with their fancy degree because of the insane tax policies here. What's the point of having a nice degree if you're still gonna have a moderately low salary compared to other European countries?
Interesting comment in a thread about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation...
> Even if most students suck as tutors [...]
Teaching is such a valuable skill in itself! And, it can be improved. I'd argue that you can't say that you understand something unless you can explain it to someone a step away from your current level of depth in the domain.
Now, imagine every developer spend 5%, 1% of their (coding) time learning how to teach or communicate ideas in a succinct, empathetic way.
We'd not only have less 40yo ranting at some 15yo project, because they used React, but also the quality of our work would improve drastically.
I’m not sure what you have against people in their 40s but, it might be worth it to spend 5% of your time learning to respect and have empathy for them.
Side note, people in their 40s aren’t old. Damn.
Context: As I was replying to this post I saw another one where a bunch of senior 10x developers were bashing a 15yo who came up with a personal project, because the poor guy/gal used React(!).
I mean, surely we can do better than that. I'm really tired of seeing senior engineers, often fairly intelligent people acting as if being kind to others wasn't their responsibility because how smart they perceive themselves. HN is a prime example of that (despite some amazing content that can be found here too).
I'm sorry if my comment hurt you in any way. I hope it's a bit more clear now. (I won't edit the parent comment—to keep the context of your reply and remind myself to be more specific).
> Side note, people in their 40s aren’t old. Damn.
Personal note: I hope so!
You dont improve peoples skills in general just by throwing them into water and hoping that swimming happens by itself.
The exception to this is skills that will kill you if you get in over your head. But that's a rather small category of skills, and it only calls for supervision, not avoidance.
As for tutoring itself: it increases the skill level of both the teacher and the student. The student gets 1-on-1 directed focus, and the teacher is forced to reflect more deeply on his own skills. Having students teach each other is very beneficial at all levels of education.
As someone who was a kid in that position, no it did not increased my skill in thing I was supposed to teach at all. That might happen when you are teaching interested peer at similar level, does not happen when you are teaching someone uninterested and someone who has much lower skills.
> For example, toddlers learn primarily by mimicking their parents, replicating their behaviour.
That body of knowledge wears off after you are like 3. Then explicit teaching by parents and other adults becomes much more prominent. And even toddlers are explicit taught a lot.
> Very bad analogy. Yes, for almost all skills, just doing them improves your proficiency.
Only up to the pretty low level for most people and most activities. After that, you reach a plateau.
1. Make the student interested.
2. Improve the student's skills.
Of course the student is uninterested and has low skills when you start out. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point to the activity.
You might argue that it's not the tutor's job to make the student interested, but it is. The primary thing that sets good tutors apart from bad ones is their ability to motivate their students. To care. To fiendishly ask questions that are just out of reach of the students ability, or will reveal some tiny flaw in the students understanding. This type of thing engages everyone when done well.
(I did have a source for this but I seem to have lost it. That is a shame because it was a really good article.)
What you are describing is out of range for peer tutoring (child-to-child) which is what I was thinking of. For children, the motivation for the task doesn't need to come from the subject matter itself, the very fact that a friend/peer is working with you can be all the motivation you need.
Which is why literally this whole setup where you have good students tutoring weak ones is a trap and punishment for the good one.
Expecting well behaved kid to be that emphatetic mind reading tutor is waaay beyond age appropriate expectations and abilities of typical kid.
Nowhere did I state I expected any expert tutors from children. I merely said that something, anything at all, is better than nothing. It might not even be better in all cases, but on average, the evidence tells us it is.
Plus, this is your attitude toward kid tutoring another kid: as a tutor, you have exactly two jobs: Make the student interested. Improve the student's skills. And you have this expectation placed on a kid.
> I merely said that something, anything at all, is better than nothing.
That something is to put responsibility on a kid and then blame a kid for not tutoring well enough it it fails. And I am telling you that it is unfair to punish the good kid by doing this. Because this plan is not caring about the "good" kid at at all.
The tutors is not improving own recall. The tutor is dealing with social problem outside of tutors control or abilities. And no, good student kid wont be able to individualize teaching better then adult teacher. The good student kid will struggle with the whole motivational thing much much more.
That's not the alternative, either, because nobody will pay for one adult teacher per student. The alternative is no tutoring at all.
It is absolutely not solution to lack of teachers. Even teacher having 15 bad students the same time is better then one kid trying to be tutor.
It is also quite unfair expectation to be placed on a kid.
Education problems are indeed money problems.
The one kid that I ever encountered which I didn't find something that I could leverage to get their intrinsic motivation was a very young syrian refugee child who must have been so severeley traumatized he barely remembered my name despite seeing me every day – he was 6 years old. With him it was like working with someone who had dementia, you could only get him for very short periods and do something and he would completely lose it the day after. Most times it seemed like he wasn't there at all mentally.
But for all the others it was just about finding a way to connect certain topics to their field of interest. E.g. xkcd-style calculations for catapult with the "mad professor" as a trojan horse to physics he tended to hate before that, doing record sales calculations with the hiphop guy, writing a text about a soccer game with the soccer guy etc.
Of course sometimes they just wanted to do nothing, but slowly connecting the stuff they were forced to do before with their interests was something that showed tremendous effect. They were gladly coming every day (most because it was worse at home). If someone is stressed they cannot focus unless you make them care and motivate them.
Edit: as you can imagine, this is not the easy route to do that job. The easy route is more authoritarian.
This is a false dichotomy that gets reinforced everywhere to the detriment of all students. There is no reason those things should be mutually exclusive, but we make it so by the power of our collective expectations.
Lots of people are discouraged and pushed away from their areas of interest because they aren't seen as fitting a stereotype or mold. Some people never even get a chance to discover that they have academic interests, and are effectively placed on a "remedial" track from the time they enter the school system because of their background. The messaging is that they cannot succeed without external motivation, which sets them up for failure.
On the other side of the coin, it also contributes to the unhealthy pressures advanced students face. Building rigid assumptions into the education system about how students spend their leisure time is part of what kills diversity.
We grossly overestimate the amount of kids who fall into this group, maybe because we're priviledged enough exclude ourselves from it.
> I think the school system is fairly good at forcing all children to learn at least a little about all subjects.
Dude, ca. 20% of people in the US are either illiterate or functionally illiterate. How is that good?[1]
Unless, given your previous point, they're too busy playing computer games or getting high on Satan's lettuce?
Pardon the sarcasm, but this is an extremely dangerous mindset as it distracts us from the actual problem.
Edit: source
[1] https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=How-Serious-Is-A...
It’d be great to solve internal motivation issue. It’s damn hard though. Forcing some of them to learn in other ways is better than nothing while we come up with a solution for the core issue.
When those peer groups have values that include playing video games and exclude exploring learning, it's very hard to motivate members of the group to explore learning. I don't actually have any data on this, but I suspect that applies even under extrinsic motivators. In other words, telling the cool kids who hate school that they will get bad grades if they don't learn more will not make them learn more. It will simply become a badge of honour to have bad grades.
Perhaps the single most important job of a teacher is to attempt to create a single group of the class[1] with which every student identifies, and then imbue that group with the value of learning.
I don't think the way to do this is by promising rewards (good grades) for good performance (doing exactly what the teacher asks.) The way to do it is to encourage self-directed exploration and mastery, with a sense of a greater good. (This sounds like something out of an Italian-inspired educational philosophy, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just rather simple reasoning from the principles of motivation and social behaviour as we know them.)
In the end, this is a really tough problem. If children are convinced (based on interactions with their peer groups) that learning sucks, then it's really hard to change their mind. This goes for adults as well. I'm not saying there's a magic formula to make everything work out right.
What I'm saying is that there are two insufficient and contradictory methods. I think one of them is slightly less bad than the other one.
[1]: It might sound like creating multiple groups would be easier and accomplish the same thing, but the danger with that is that small natural variations in the value of learning between these groups could get exaggerated in an attempt to create group identities. I.e. if one group is just about considered more school-happy than the other group, then that will become a point both groups can use to distinguish between themselves: one group will intentionally become more ignorant of the benefits of learning to separate its members from the other. It has to be one single group for them to all adopt the same value of learning.
Edit: I almost forgot. For more on this, see The Nurture Assumption – well worth a read.
Totally unlike adults then.
"erziehen", if translated literally, means "to pull", "er" is something like "to act" while "ziehen" means "pull"
Sometimes it feels like that, that it is necessary to pull someone into a certain direction in order to better that person. And this is usually not easy to do.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/7/17/21328316/covid-19...
And annoyingly, when I bring this proposal up, most people talk about how important it is for learning to be intrinsically motivated.
It depends on the culture of the place the school system is applied in. This kind of blanket utilitarianism by way of school is a sad state for society as a whole. In a country like Canada we have a sordid past, very recently, when implementing the residential school system [0].
That's the more extreme case but I'd argue that elements of that exist in every school system when applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion and when that system has a monopoly on education.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_...
Drive is great. Leverage it heavily as a manager.
But when it comes to kids, the problems I see are that (a) cognitively speaking, children are not tiny adults; and (b) if you want them to be successful and happy adults, you need to give kids the ability to work through mountains of "I Need To Do This Even Though It Sucks"
Cognitive development is an amazing process to watch -- you can see as brains grow and develop a wide variety of skills we take for granted.
But what that means is that you can't treat a six-year-old as an adult.
Their thinking is likely highly egocentric, because they have not yet developed the ability to realize that "my feelings and wants" are different from "other peoples' feelings and wants".
In their world, when they like Pokemon, they literally believe that everybody in the world feels the same way about Pokemon that they do. They just haven't yet gained the ability to handle that concept.
So, up to age eleven or so, you need to put enough structure around children to deal with their cognitive development path. Rules that are consistently enforced are critical (it's also good if those rules, in fact, make sense), with a gradual loosening of constraints as the child grows the ability to handle greater responsibilities.
This path continues from eleven -- when, cognitively, your child is now a functioning adult -- onwards towards the age of majority.
You still need to provide structure, but with enough freedom and ability to bend-or-change the rules such that the child can learn how to make their own decisions. Your goal is ramp them towards the full set of adult responsibilities, as quickly as they are able to handle it.
The problem with a lot of "traditional" education is that it failed to do the latter in a lot of ways -- rigid structure until age of majority, and then bam!, you're an adult, good luck.
This is compounded by how much regulation and how little slack there is in society. In the 70s, teenagers commonly brought rifles to school (because they were on the shooting team, or going hunting afterwards). Nowadays, kids are getting expelled for accidentally forgetting a tiny, micro-sized pocketknife.
The problem with "modern" education is that there is no expectation that you will ever assume responsibility. If you've dealt with a lot of recent graduates, you probably know what I mean. They have been denied much of the experience required for them to mature as adults, all in the name of keeping them "safe".
Including being "safe" from boredom. Which relates to giving kids the ability to get through mountains of drudgery.
That skill is so critical.
And I didn't really master it until I was an adult, much to my disadvantage.
If Elon Musk and every one of his employees were to vanish tomorrow, I'd be sad. SpaceX is cool. But my life would go on.
If the organization that handles sewage for my city were to vanish tomorrow, I would soon be, quite literally, in a world of shit.
I doubt that working for a sewage treatment plant offers much in the way of Autonomy. Mastery, perhaps? Purpose, absolutely.
And I doubt most kids grow up dreaming of being a waste engineer.
It's a hard job, and it demands grit. But that job makes modern life possible, and I don't see us setting up kids to be able to tackle both kinds of challenges.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think Deming (and, perhaps more concretely, the Toyota Production System) has showed us that there is a surprising amount of autonomy that can be unlocked even for the most menial roles.
Treating low-level workers with respect, training them well, and listening to what they have to say is a mutually beneficial agreement. They are the people who know what is really going on in the processes they control. They are (or at least should be!) the most informed people in the room when it comes to decisions around those processes.
In exchange for their valuable input, low-level workers should, then, get a piece of autonomy. If they have figured out a way to prevent mistakes, or a more efficient procedure to accomplish their objective, they can do it their way – with the support of management. Of course, if they know they aren't respected or listened to, it will never occur to them even to think about improvements.
Really, it's two sides of the same coin.
Adults are merely large children.
Edit: I did read the rest of your comment and generally agree whole heartedly.
And I do know a frighteningly large number of thirty-odd-year old children. :)
How many people never make it out of the drinking and playing video games phase because school has convinced them that they're failures?
A lot of kids would be perfectly happy starting some sort of apprenticeship when they were teenagers, and it's not obvious to me that that would be worse than forcing them through the remainder of school.
I think it's hard to tell the difference between kids who have an intrinsic motivation to play video games, and kids who have an intrinsic motivation to do anything but school and have to default to video games because the world doesn't offer much of an avenue for kids to be productive on their own (unless you happen to be very interested in computers and have access to one and the internet).
I say all this as someone who thinks education is profoundly important. I just don't think as much education happens in schools as we'd like to believe, especially for people who don't fit neatly in the system.