7 ms·

This is what is called a "positional arms race". A comparable situation can be seen in football players and steroids. One does it, so all feel they must do it

This is what is called a "positional arms race". A comparable situation can be seen in football players and steroids. One does it, so all feel they must do it or be "left behind". For all this struggle, no one is better and most are where they started. Now they must also deal with the huge medical issues that steroids can cause. If every one stopped, all would be better. However, no one wants to be the "sucker" who stops: the first to do so actually will lose. It's the same issue here: interesting opportunities have a limited number of slots. My benchmark for getting in is not an "A" or a "B+", it's whatever my classmates have and then some. We all study more, but are not any better for it. There doesn't seem to be a solution that has been devised for this sort of issue in this sort of a case, as it's tremendously difficult to find any viable means of regulating how much free time a child receives (leaving aside the ethical/moral questions about such a practice). It's not just childhood, though. Higher education [0] has experienced it. Indeed, any "positional good" which has a limited number which go to the "best" is likely already experiencing this or will soon. Again, no one has yet found a perfect solution for such an application as this. We've tinkered with the positioning in certain cases (e.g. higher education and affirmative action), but it often doesn't work (in the instance of higher education, while all kids' childhoods may be screwed up, certain groups have theirs screwed up in the "right ways") [1]. I believe another example is the rise among millennials of "experience" vacations. Increased social media usage fuels envy and a perception of being lesser, meaning john doe now feels he needs to take a more exotic vacation and get more pictures with more retouching. I see no easy solution to this. The normal mitigation is government regulation, but I see no "arms control" type solution for number of math problems done. Ideas, any one? [0]: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474473 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474473 [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-pai...

alkonaut 7y ago
The question is, why aren't more outcomes acceptable? Why do parents feel a social pressure to make heir kids belong to a certain percentile of "successful" young adults? It could be many explanations, but it's definitely more prominent in the US and China (among middle class/upper middle class) than in e.g. the Netherlands or Sweden. So let's ask: what's the difference? Why do I not need to take my kids to extra curricular activities, and instead I trust I can leave them to play with rocks till it gets dark just like I did myself when I was a kid in the 80's? I think it's down to many factors that makes society less competitive: - I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) - Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt. - Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized tests, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments. - Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual. > Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt. It is an investment by some one. If free, it's an investment by society. If suddenly I'm paying for Joey's college, I'd feel I get to tell him to study engineering (or some other high-paying field) rather than poetry, as it's my nickel on which he's going. That's society's right when it pays, because the return would be payed later on in taxes to fund my retirement, in your vision of how this works. In any case, this is always an investment. Putting in years of a life is investment for the student; tuition is an investment for whoever pays. How else do you justify spending many thousands of my tax dollars to let some kid study what's "interesting" and go to parties? Why ought I to pay for that? > Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized test, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments. How do you propose to force this? The best schools are private. Also, standardized tests are a poor predictor of future success [0] [1] [2] [3]. Finally, the idea of one "all-or-nothing" test for which you can just cram for a few months (while slacking off for the rest of high school) is silly. > Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar. Depends which part you're in. The best is always competitive. Also, I thought many teachers (and definitely profs) posted grade lists publicly? Here's the core problem: every one keeps demanding an economic system that provides not liberty but essentially "freedom from hardship". Every one just wants to eat, and have health care, and a house, and vacation, and retirement, and a stable, comfortable, life. No economic system can guarantee you that. We have limited wants and unlimited needs. Population is growing, and may well out-pace economic growth. Many issues simply cannot be directly controlled by governments. Voting for utopia usually leads to disaster. [0]: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-standardized-test-scores-don-t-reflect-student-growth https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-st... [1]: https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-tests-not-always-best-indicator-success https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-te... [2]: https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-score-is-what-predicts-future-success/ https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-sco... [3]: https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_always_an_ac.html https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_a...

alkonaut 7y ago

The question is, why aren't more outcomes acceptable? Why do parents feel a social pressure to make heir kids belong to a certain percentile of "successful" young adults? It could be many explanations, but it's definitely more prominent in the US and China (among middle class/upper middle class) than in e.g. the Netherlands or Sweden. So let's ask: what's the difference? Why do I not need to take my kids to extra curricular activities, and instead I trust I can leave them to play with rocks till it gets dark just like I did myself when I was a kid in the 80's? I think it's down to many factors that makes society less competitive: - I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) - Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt. - Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized tests, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments. - Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar.

big_chungus 7y ago
> I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual. > Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt. It is an investment by some one. If free, it's an investment by society. If suddenly I'm paying for Joey's college, I'd feel I get to tell him to study engineering (or some other high-paying field) rather than poetry, as it's my nickel on which he's going. That's society's right when it pays, because the return would be payed later on in taxes to fund my retirement, in your vision of how this works. In any case, this is always an investment. Putting in years of a life is investment for the student; tuition is an investment for whoever pays. How else do you justify spending many thousands of my tax dollars to let some kid study what's "interesting" and go to parties? Why ought I to pay for that? > Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized test, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments. How do you propose to force this? The best schools are private. Also, standardized tests are a poor predictor of future success [0] [1] [2] [3]. Finally, the idea of one "all-or-nothing" test for which you can just cram for a few months (while slacking off for the rest of high school) is silly. > Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar. Depends which part you're in. The best is always competitive. Also, I thought many teachers (and definitely profs) posted grade lists publicly? Here's the core problem: every one keeps demanding an economic system that provides not liberty but essentially "freedom from hardship". Every one just wants to eat, and have health care, and a house, and vacation, and retirement, and a stable, comfortable, life. No economic system can guarantee you that. We have limited wants and unlimited needs. Population is growing, and may well out-pace economic growth. Many issues simply cannot be directly controlled by governments. Voting for utopia usually leads to disaster. [0]: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-standardized-test-scores-don-t-reflect-student-growth https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-st... [1]: https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-tests-not-always-best-indicator-success https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-te... [2]: https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-score-is-what-predicts-future-success/ https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-sco... [3]: https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_always_an_ac.html https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_a...