3 ms·

Back when I was a grad student, we'd have this afternoon program for kids that excelled in math. A lot of that was training towards math competitions, both regi

Back when I was a grad student, we'd have this afternoon program for kids that excelled in math. A lot of that was training towards math competitions, both regional and national / international. I'd 1/3 of the kids were there because they loved math, and solving math problems. Another third were there because they felt like they had to have something competitive on their resume and application letter, while the last third were there because their parents forced them to - and they seemed miserable. The same last third were also forced to play some instrument, or some other extracurricular - they basically followed a strict program that their parents had made for them. Check off the "correct" boxes. A couple of years ago I curiously checked up where these kids had wound up later in life, and many of the kids that loved math had become math or physics Ph.Ds, or were on track to. The rest seemed to work in tech, engineering, consulting, finance, and such fields. With that said, kids these days have it tough. To competition is INSANE, and you have to excel at pretty much everything, to even have a chance. Having a perfect GPA is not enough, you also need a slew of other accomplishments. And even then, there's no guarantee. And it continues like that into higher education. The irony of it all is that the work these kids tend to pursue, does not even require 1/10th of the work they've put into their education / academic life. One exception would be for those that decide to pursue research - but far too many whip-smart overachievers will end up working on the dullest shit imaginable...but they do get paid. EDIT: One thing you'll notice is that overachievers with such backgrounds need constant feedback, and any criticism goes straight to their heart. There's this name - "insecure overachiever" - and it rings true for many kids that went through that grind. Some of them really need to be re-programmed, when they enter the workforce.

lisper 2y ago
> you have to excel at pretty much everything, to even have a chance That can't possibly be true. By definition, only a small minority can excel, and as a practical matter, to excel at something requires specialization and focus. So to "excel at pretty much everything" is a practical impossibility. If anyone who didn't "excel at pretty much everything" had no chance, most people would be on the street. This idea that you must excel to have a chance is necessarily a myth. And it's a pernicious and dangerous myth. It's this myth that is driving young people to burn themselves out, not anything in actual reality.
- chasd00 2y ago
  op probably means to have a chance getting in to a top tier university. To that I agree, a HS student is competing with the whole world to get one of the very few spots in one of the top universities. Given the pool of applicants, all of which are very high achieving kids, the competition is very wide and deep.
  - lisper 2y ago
    That might have been what he meant, but it's not what he said. The competition to get into top universities has always been fierce. The only thing that has changed AFAICT is the wide-spread promulgation of the idea that if you don't get in to a top-tier university that you're a failure, your life is over, you're doomed to be destitute. It's no wonder that if we tell kids that, that they will be pretty unhappy if they don't get in to a top-tier university. But the only thing we need to do to solve that problem is to stop telling kids that, especially since it isn't actually true.
    - rgrieselhuber 2y ago
      Most of the millionaires I know certainly did not graduate from top tier schools and many didn’t even go to college.
      - cma 2y ago
        That's almost by definition true. Something like 8-9% of the USA's population is millionaires, lots of times just from housing and 401K appreciation. 8-9% of the population didn't graduate from top tier schools.
        rgrieselhuber 2y ago
        The people I’m referring to are business owners, people who made money vs just passive investing.
    - CPLX 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
In the conclusion, this article rather clumsily introduces 'Common Core' as a causal factor, without having engaged with it in any of the preceding discussion. One might argue that the Common Core represents a baseline of common educational material, yet here it is deployed as a rhetorical flourish, an afterthought devoid of substantiation. The argument navigates through a series of points about High Performing schools, only to suddenly invoke the specter of Common Core at the end. This abrupt shift is problematic, as it positions Common Core—an endeavor to standardize and elevate educational content—as a lowest common denominator, a diluted and reductionist framework. Such a leap demands more rigorous reasoning. The article should interrogate the implications of its own critique: Are we suggesting that certain students should be exempt from foundational learning because it imposes stress? Are we advocating for a system where basic mathematical literacy, as defined by Common Core, is deemed too onerous? The absence of a cohesive argument leading to this conclusion undermines the critique and leaves us questioning the coherence of the proposed educational standards.

lisper 2y ago

> you have to excel at pretty much everything, to even have a chance That can't possibly be true. By definition, only a small minority can excel, and as a practical matter, to excel at something requires specialization and focus. So to "excel at pretty much everything" is a practical impossibility. If anyone who didn't "excel at pretty much everything" had no chance, most people would be on the street. This idea that you must excel to have a chance is necessarily a myth. And it's a pernicious and dangerous myth. It's this myth that is driving young people to burn themselves out, not anything in actual reality.

chasd00 2y ago
op probably means to have a chance getting in to a top tier university. To that I agree, a HS student is competing with the whole world to get one of the very few spots in one of the top universities. Given the pool of applicants, all of which are very high achieving kids, the competition is very wide and deep.
- lisper 2y ago
  That might have been what he meant, but it's not what he said. The competition to get into top universities has always been fierce. The only thing that has changed AFAICT is the wide-spread promulgation of the idea that if you don't get in to a top-tier university that you're a failure, your life is over, you're doomed to be destitute. It's no wonder that if we tell kids that, that they will be pretty unhappy if they don't get in to a top-tier university. But the only thing we need to do to solve that problem is to stop telling kids that, especially since it isn't actually true.
  - rgrieselhuber 2y ago
    Most of the millionaires I know certainly did not graduate from top tier schools and many didn’t even go to college.
    - cma 2y ago
      That's almost by definition true. Something like 8-9% of the USA's population is millionaires, lots of times just from housing and 401K appreciation. 8-9% of the population didn't graduate from top tier schools.
      - rgrieselhuber 2y ago
        The people I’m referring to are business owners, people who made money vs just passive investing.
  - CPLX 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

In the conclusion, this article rather clumsily introduces 'Common Core' as a causal factor, without having engaged with it in any of the preceding discussion. One might argue that the Common Core represents a baseline of common educational material, yet here it is deployed as a rhetorical flourish, an afterthought devoid of substantiation. The argument navigates through a series of points about High Performing schools, only to suddenly invoke the specter of Common Core at the end. This abrupt shift is problematic, as it positions Common Core—an endeavor to standardize and elevate educational content—as a lowest common denominator, a diluted and reductionist framework. Such a leap demands more rigorous reasoning. The article should interrogate the implications of its own critique: Are we suggesting that certain students should be exempt from foundational learning because it imposes stress? Are we advocating for a system where basic mathematical literacy, as defined by Common Core, is deemed too onerous? The absence of a cohesive argument leading to this conclusion undermines the critique and leaves us questioning the coherence of the proposed educational standards.