3 ms·

This effect seems to be frighteningly powerful. Apparently professional athletes are disproportionately more likely to be born in the 2nd half of the school yea

by J-dawg 11y ago

This effect seems to be frighteningly powerful. Apparently professional athletes are disproportionately more likely to be born in the 2nd half of the school year [0]. They simply grow bigger and show athletic promise a few months earlier than their peers, which leads to them being identified as promising athletes. It seems to be incredibly powerful to give a child a positive label in this way. It also makes you wonder how many talented kids get left behind for the opposite reason. I guess I have a tendency to root for the underdog, but I think it should be part of a teacher's job to consciously avoid falling victim to this effect. I'm not saying this is what happened to your son - if he learned to read at 3 I'm sure he's pretty smart anyway. And if I ever have a child, I'll do anything I can to give them an advantage. The education system, on the other hand, should be aiming for fairness, not labeling kids as "smart" or "sporty" while they're still in primary school. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749

frobozz 11y ago
Yes, but remember that fairness should not be a Harrison Bergeron-style equality, but that each child should have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever avenues are appropriate for that child. Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones.
- J-dawg 11y ago
  Firstly, thanks for introducing me to Harrison Bergeron. I'm looking forward to reading it. I love HN for things like this. > Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you are holding back another, whether you like it or not.
  - germinalphrase 11y ago
    And this is the core (if covert) problem with large class sizes. Not that a teacher can't instruct 30 kids vs. 20 kids - but that 150 kids per semester just leaves less time to interact with each student at a meaningful level.

by J-dawg 11y ago

frobozz 11y ago

Yes, but remember that fairness should not be a Harrison Bergeron-style equality, but that each child should have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever avenues are appropriate for that child. Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones.

J-dawg 11y ago
Firstly, thanks for introducing me to Harrison Bergeron. I'm looking forward to reading it. I love HN for things like this. > Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you are holding back another, whether you like it or not.
- germinalphrase 11y ago
  And this is the core (if covert) problem with large class sizes. Not that a teacher can't instruct 30 kids vs. 20 kids - but that 150 kids per semester just leaves less time to interact with each student at a meaningful level.