Genetics outweighs teaching, Gove adviser tells his boss
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The article also states that he is against extending pre-school education, which has to be shown to be highly effective again and again.
But those studies were done in the US, so genetics probably works different for them too.
It is important to realize that there is a heavy strain of racial superiority thinking in the English upper class. As far as I know, there is nothing similar anywhere in Europe today.
Yes, of course. I'm not saying that this explains the difference in educational outcomes but Finns, Basques, Sardinians and another group I always forget are descendants of the original (or at least earlier) Europeans. They are genetically different from waves of peoples who entered and conquered Europe later (Slavs, Germanic tribes, etc) which in turn differ from each other.
So with identical genetics there is still an effect on the scale of typical European inter-country differences.
If we put weight on genetics, English style slow social mobility class system would be the worst kind.
Some biologists have theorized that rigid class system has kept the genetic differences between classes minimal. Lowest peasants have same amount of genetic advantages and disadvantages as upper class because there was minimal mixing between them. In the modern times when class structure collapses and social mobility increases it will be different. Successful and beautiful people move to big cities where they meet each others and mate (Finland and Nordic countries have high social mobility). New upper class will form that self selects it's members based on personal traits and performance. This would mean that new upper class will be more beautiful, fit and intelligent and genetic disadvantages will concentrate on lower classes. In other words, if genetics is important, giving equal opportunity to all children and high social mobility will create upper class with better genetics.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-...
One of the most unpleasant aspects of British politics is the disproportionate influence of this group on political discourse and policy-making, particularly in the Conservative party.
Is the aim then to measure IQ in kindergarden and then decide at that point whether that person should be afforded the privilege of going to university ? And what happens if the tests are flawed (like almost all are) are we then going to accept an entire generation of disadvantaged children ? And surely everyone has worked with people who aren't book smart but are brilliant in their respective fields.
If recent history has taught us anything is that humans are the sum of many, many parts. And the minute you start narrowly categorising them you do them and humanity a massive disservice.
What you should do is design the education system in a way such that more variance is possible, so that especially gifted students get the stimulation they need. In the paper the argument is put forward, that a "good school" improves the average performance of students, but also increases the variance between performances.
If you have a class of 20 , how can you teach 20 different curriculum?
When people talk about teaching problem-solving, they need to justify whether they actually know what they are talking about. I'm not going to say that problem-solving can't be taught, but most of the people who talk about it are just using a meaningless buzz-word.
Problem solving is mostly about domain knowledge. There's domain-specific strategies which can be taught. There's also a small number of more general strategies. And there may be ways to encourage students to find strategies, and try to transfer ones from other domains, but this isn't a field where you can assume that anyone who just happens to be using a few of the right buzz-words is going to be helpful.
But just saying "teach kids to solve problems" is arrogant and moronic. Kids already know how to solve problems - human beings are pretty much problem-solving machines. And most teachers already try to get kids to think for themselves - it's just not that simple (especially when there's a lot of pressure to get exam results, set lots of assessment, and to prove to some public servant that they are teaching problem solving).
As for genetics; he might be confounding "genetics, home environment, and other stuff which doesn't happen in class".
It makes me sad to read such a comment on hacker news. You seem quite convinced by your answer, do you have any proof to back it up? Is is just your perception? If so how do you know that it's genetics and no cultural traits or the way they were raised by their family etc.?
"these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study."
What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics. What grants a person the kind of introspection needed to perform "a substantial amount of self-study"? also genetics.
Genetics decides your height, weight, the fact that you believe in God or not, your interests, amount dedication, attention span and every other aspect that makes up whatever form of success you have in mind.
"What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics."
Really, so it's genetics that determines if I'm interested in Computer Science or any other topic? I highly doubt that ... In my case I believe it has more to do with very gifted teachers I had the luck of meeting that spawned my interest. You believe you can tell the interest of people by looking at their genes? (There several examples of twins with the same genetic material who show complementary interests, talents etc.).
So genetics determines your weight ... tell that to the people living in the 3rd world. There way also environmental influences that determine your life and at least for me the ruling is still out how much is in the genes and how much is due to the environment. You know that our environment/food etc. can change our genes ...
First of all, there exist people with similar genetics, like twins, but there aren't two people exactly identical, biologically speaking. We call people individuals because everyone is unique. Take actors Shawn Ashmore and Aaron Ashmore: the former is 1.83m the twin is 1.80m. Why can you accept that kind of difference in height but you can't accept that kind of difference (or higher) in any other trait? Like intelligence.
The last point you make is rather moot. There's no doubt nutrition impacts weight as well as general development in a living being, but given that changes spawned by biological processes are immutable and directly related to one's genetic makeup (think immune system or metabolism) those too have to be put on the same level as genetic mutations.
No, I don't deny the influence of genetics on intelligence and the like, however I don't believe that it outweighs teaching. (I had the experience when our math class was way advanced compared and our A-level was easy due to the teaching methods of a very talented and engaged math teacher ...). There are tons of other examples, if you give an average person with average IQ the breathing room and spark their interest they can become an expert in any field (that's what I believe ...). They might not become a Goedel or Turing, yet that's something else ...
Do you say that it's in our genes if we understand a particular subject (e.g. algebra, differential equations ...) or not?
If you don't receive any formal training in anything or get the wrong teaching, sorry than genetics won't help you. The type of training and teaching are more important than your genetics when it comes to contributions to the sciences (assuming no disabilities). I've seen this over and over ... at elementary school, high school and university.
There are studies that show that the IQ of a child for example is to 1/4 determined by their family environment and deteriorates rapidly with social risk factors. e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993....
The problem is that intelligence is a bit more complicated than you want it to be ;) (and maybe that your genes are not made out to understand what I'm trying to say :D
Does any rational person actually believe this?
I know it's hard to accept the fact that we're biologically limited in our capabilities and people have a knee-jerk reaction when put in front of their own boundaries, but that doesn't make you right, and it sure as hell doesn't change the impact of genes on our lives or the meaning of words.
"Impact" and "decided by" imply very different concepts.
btw, I found the wikipedia article on the topic interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
This statement reminds me a lot of the movie Gattaca.
One should never discount the importance of ambition, work ethic and passion.
That said, ambition, work ethic and passion are also important, but they're a product of genetics too.
Take two guys, one is smart and spends his days trying to solve complex problems, while the second one is just as smart but spends his days on Netflix. What's the difference between the two? Mostly dedication, but what provides the former with it? Yep, genetics.
If you are angry with the world there is a good chance you will work hard to change it.
For example you mentioned upbringing. So now image the two kids above are raised by the same family, with the same values; they're equally smart, maybe they're even equally dedicated but one of the two lacks ambition/passion and doesn't live up to his brother's success. Why's that? Again, maybe the brother has his brain wired to be ambitious and has a knack (read passion) for whatever he does that lets him be successful.
It is the ability to project your mind into the future and see how the picture is affected by actions you take in the present.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "act accordingly"? People who favour genetics as a means of shaping educational provision should be honest enough to actually spell out the consequences of pre-judging a person's intelligence on genetic grounds. It's pretty obvious to me what the (horrendous and appalling) consequences would be of categorising whole classes of people into superior or inferior intellect.
Does anyone know the research papers he is referring to ?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/...
EDIT: Yes, it's here https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8043...
(The PDF also has clickable links, and lots of them, if anyone wants to chase down the sources.)
Unfortunately the references can't be clicked and the full URL isn't given.
It's interesting to think about systems of providing education over time:
1. Since the mind of man can remember: your son grows up to do what you do, because that's what you teach him how to do.
2. Quite far back: for a fairly hefty fee, you can have your son apprenticed to a tradesman. He'll provide unpaid labor for several years while picking up the beginnings of the trade.
3. Rather recent: your son can attend a formal school, which will provide him the background of the correct social class. The last two systems were more focused on providing a living for the child; this one much less so. As with apprenticeship, this is expensive.
4. The government will pay for your child to attend a formal school, because it wants all citizens to have a certain shared viewpoint.
5. The government will now require your child to attend a formal school, though you can substitute a school of your own.
It sounds like this guy wants to head back to stage 3, but expand government payments to cover it.
It's also interesting to me that while there's a fairly coherent reform viewpoint in the US on the state of pre-college education and where we'd like it to go ("public school sucks, although not mine specifically; we should just dismantle the system and give everyone vouchers that they can spend at the school of their choice"), there are many wildly different views on what college should be. We see people vilifying colleges that advertise your ability to get a job post-graduation ("that's not what scholarship is about"); we do not see condemnation of the public schools (several are extremely prestigious); we see people saying that colleges organized as a for-profit corporation are inherently untrustworthy (somehow this idea doesn't apply to elementary schools?); we see people touting the job-placement benefits of university education... but we don't see much push for free tuition at public universities, or vouchers for them.
He never said that in the news article. He was referring to performance in school and specifically comparing it to teaching quality.
This submission also involves the hateful Gove, a clueless fuckwit of the highest order.
(http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gov...)
Here's another article from The Grauniad involving Gove, who calls for a return to teaching "Newton's laws of thermodynamics". The Guardian make no mention of that error.
https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-thermo...
But seriously, this is detrimental to improvements in education. All this will do is push us backwards, and delay actual improvements.
EDIT: I guess I should've been more clear: I was being sarcastic with my comparisons to hitler, for the sake of fulfilling Godwin's Law early and being done with that stupid.
However, it definitely is bullshit to claim "It's the same argument that has been used in favor of organized eugenics, and, just to fulfill Godwin's Law, also used in favor of the holocaust." as any evidence whatsoever about what nature/nurture proportion is the true one.
Anyways, it's hard to argue that genetics control anything in humans very heavily: evidence shows that almost anything genetic can be overridden by later events, and there's so much variance as it is.
And not to mention the fact that gene expression is affected by environmental factors!
In China, researchers are looking at mapping the genomes of 'geniuses' to look for potential genes that impact intelligence. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/)
While, you argue from a point of pathos, that is that pursuing such genetics-based arguments of ability is dangerous and leads to dangerous situations, it is important to consider that with increasing knowledge of genetics, it is possible that we will find certain genes with impacts on knowledge and ability. I mean, even now, we know at least of genetic bases to diseases that negatively impact intelligence. Who is to say the converse won't happen? In a question of science and ethics, I would argue that it is better that we pursue, to a) not end up in lopsided world power (imagine if only China were to successfully pursue genetic bases for improving education) and b) look at potential ways of improving education across the board. If we do know a genetic bases, that may allow us to better target education. Ability is clearly myriad and manifold, and likely impossible to fully be determined by genetics. There will still be better objective measures than genetics.
To shove aside genetics effects on student success just on potential ethical ramifications might not be a very good idea.
Genetics isn't good for anyone but bigots and haters. There is absolutely nothing useful in the Genetics movement for the common man - fact is, the entire movement to categorize humans genetically is a corporate one, with the intent of providing insight into the nature of the consumers the corporations paying for these studies wish to acquire as willing - or even unwilling - subjects in their empire.
Humans are just complex chemical reactions. Yes, genetics determine the beginning state, but the experiences determine the future.