6 ms·

I think the biggest difference is the funding went from unrestricted to being very specific. A lot of questions are asked before money is given. But the answers

by asrp 9y ago

I think the biggest difference is the funding went from unrestricted to being very specific. A lot of questions are asked before money is given. But the answers for an interesting project may involve concepts and vocabulary that do not yet exist, ideas that are not currently trendy. While I can understand the desire to avoid misallocation, this model assumes the funder has a better idea of what needs resources that the funded. From the second point in the answer: > 2. Fund people not projects — the scientists find the problems not the funders. So, for many reasons, you have to have the best researchers. So yes, the total amount may be there but is now diverted.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> While I can understand the desire to avoid misallocation, this model assumes the funder has a better idea of what needs resources that the funded. Reminds me of a (probably the) reason we're doing standardized testing in schools. A decent teacher is able to teach and test kids much better than standardized tests, but the society needs consistency more than quality, and we don't trust that every teacher will try to be good at their job. That (arguably, justified) lack of trust leads us as a society to choose worse but more consistent and people-independent process. I'm starting to see this trend everywhere, and I'm not sure I like it. Consistency is an important thing (it lets us abstract things away more easily, helping turn systems into black boxes which can be composed better), but we're losing a lot of efficiency that comes from just trusting the other guy. I'd argue we don't have many PARC and MIT around anymore because the R&D process matured. The funding structures are now established, and they prefer consistency (and safety) over effectiveness. But while throwing money at random people will indeed lead to lots of waste, I'd argue that in some areas, we need to take that risk and start throwing extra money at some smart people, also isolating them from demands of policy and markets. It's probably easier for companies to do that (especially before processes mature), because they're smaller - that's why we had PARC, Skunk Works, experimental projects at Google, and an occasional billionaire trying to save the world. TL;DR: we're being slowed down by processes, exchanging peak efficiency for consistency of output.
- moftz 9y ago
  Standardized testing has also restricted teachers to standardized teaching. They must complete X number of units from the binder every Y number of days. This leaves little time for the teacher to come up with their own lesson plans. I think there needs to be a balance between a teacher's autonomy in the classroom and standardization. I've heard many teachers complain while I was in school that they felt like they don't have the time to focus on the things they want to do in class. In my elementry school, the class would go to a different teacher for either STEM or liberal arts. I think this is a good start since because teachers can solely focus on material that is related, they can tie in lesson plans and make sure that the standardized subjects are taught efficiently to leave time for the other topics they want to focus on. I remember in middle school, I had a couple teachers who would say "ok, this is the standardized stuff I have to say" and then go into a very boring lecture of what we just had been learning except the way we first learned it was interesting and engaging. They were simply dotting their i's to make sure that they did their job in conveying the material the state wanted us to know.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > A decent teacher is able to teach and test kids much better than standardized tests, but the society needs consistency more than quality, and we don't trust that every teacher will try to be good at their job. It's more about it being way to hard to fire bad teachers and standardized tests, in theory at least, are an attempt at providing objective proof of bad teaching that won't be subject to union pushback and/or lawsuits. I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers. And, of course, it's up to their superiors to hold them accountable for being good at that job. > ...we're losing a lot of efficiency that comes from just trusting the other guy. I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Well, that's my point expressed in different examples. Standardized testing makes the system easier to manage from the top, and makes the result consistent. Firing "bad teachers" is a complex problem - some teachers can get fired because they suck at educating, but others just because the principal doesn't like them, etc. With standardized rules and procedures, you try to sidestep the whole issue, at the cost of the rules becoming what you optimize for, instead of actual education (which is hard to measure). > I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers. That could maybe affect the desire coming from the bottom, but not the one from the top - up there, the school's output is an input to further processes. Funding decisions are made easier thanks to standardized tests. University recruitment is made easier thanks to standardized tests. Etc. > I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts. That's the think I'm talking about. I believe it's like this (with Q standing for Quality): Q(affluent_free) + Q(poor_free) > Q(affluent_standardized) + Q(poor_standardized) Q(affluent_standardized) < Q(affluent_free) Q(poor_standardized) > Q(poor_free) E.g. education without standardized tests may be better for society in total in terms of quality, but then it totally sucks to be poor. Standardized educaion gives mediocre results for everyone.
alankay1 9y ago
This is one of the most important points

by asrp 9y ago

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> While I can understand the desire to avoid misallocation, this model assumes the funder has a better idea of what needs resources that the funded. Reminds me of a (probably the) reason we're doing standardized testing in schools. A decent teacher is able to teach and test kids much better than standardized tests, but the society needs consistency more than quality, and we don't trust that every teacher will try to be good at their job. That (arguably, justified) lack of trust leads us as a society to choose worse but more consistent and people-independent process. I'm starting to see this trend everywhere, and I'm not sure I like it. Consistency is an important thing (it lets us abstract things away more easily, helping turn systems into black boxes which can be composed better), but we're losing a lot of efficiency that comes from just trusting the other guy. I'd argue we don't have many PARC and MIT around anymore because the R&D process matured. The funding structures are now established, and they prefer consistency (and safety) over effectiveness. But while throwing money at random people will indeed lead to lots of waste, I'd argue that in some areas, we need to take that risk and start throwing extra money at some smart people, also isolating them from demands of policy and markets. It's probably easier for companies to do that (especially before processes mature), because they're smaller - that's why we had PARC, Skunk Works, experimental projects at Google, and an occasional billionaire trying to save the world. TL;DR: we're being slowed down by processes, exchanging peak efficiency for consistency of output.

moftz 9y ago
Standardized testing has also restricted teachers to standardized teaching. They must complete X number of units from the binder every Y number of days. This leaves little time for the teacher to come up with their own lesson plans. I think there needs to be a balance between a teacher's autonomy in the classroom and standardization. I've heard many teachers complain while I was in school that they felt like they don't have the time to focus on the things they want to do in class. In my elementry school, the class would go to a different teacher for either STEM or liberal arts. I think this is a good start since because teachers can solely focus on material that is related, they can tie in lesson plans and make sure that the standardized subjects are taught efficiently to leave time for the other topics they want to focus on. I remember in middle school, I had a couple teachers who would say "ok, this is the standardized stuff I have to say" and then go into a very boring lecture of what we just had been learning except the way we first learned it was interesting and engaging. They were simply dotting their i's to make sure that they did their job in conveying the material the state wanted us to know.
humanrebar 9y ago
> A decent teacher is able to teach and test kids much better than standardized tests, but the society needs consistency more than quality, and we don't trust that every teacher will try to be good at their job. It's more about it being way to hard to fire bad teachers and standardized tests, in theory at least, are an attempt at providing objective proof of bad teaching that won't be subject to union pushback and/or lawsuits. I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers. And, of course, it's up to their superiors to hold them accountable for being good at that job. > ...we're losing a lot of efficiency that comes from just trusting the other guy. I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Well, that's my point expressed in different examples. Standardized testing makes the system easier to manage from the top, and makes the result consistent. Firing "bad teachers" is a complex problem - some teachers can get fired because they suck at educating, but others just because the principal doesn't like them, etc. With standardized rules and procedures, you try to sidestep the whole issue, at the cost of the rules becoming what you optimize for, instead of actual education (which is hard to measure). > I think a lot of the desire for standardized testing would dissolve if principals could just make personnel decisions like normal managers. That could maybe affect the desire coming from the bottom, but not the one from the top - up there, the school's output is an input to further processes. Funding decisions are made easier thanks to standardized tests. University recruitment is made easier thanks to standardized tests. Etc. > I think people have been trusting public schools a lot. That generally worked out great for people in affluent suburban districts. And it worked out horribly for people in poor, remote, and urban districts. That's the think I'm talking about. I believe it's like this (with Q standing for Quality): Q(affluent_free) + Q(poor_free) > Q(affluent_standardized) + Q(poor_standardized) Q(affluent_standardized) < Q(affluent_free) Q(poor_standardized) > Q(poor_free) E.g. education without standardized tests may be better for society in total in terms of quality, but then it totally sucks to be poor. Standardized educaion gives mediocre results for everyone.

alankay1 9y ago

This is one of the most important points