8 ms·

I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in

by gms7777 14y ago

I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in areas with bad high schools could apply to be sent to better high schools. If I remember correctly, admission to the program wasn't merit based, but first-come, first-serve. The study compared the students who got into the program, and the students who applied but didn't get it. The kicker? Their performance in school (I don't remember the metrics, though I agree its a relevant difference whether its GPA or standardized test scores or something else) was about the same. The takeaway point? The ones applying were the ones who were motivated to learn (or had family who encouraged them to take education more seriously). Those that want to learn, will learn. Not to be discouraging, (as I read this article and found it incredibly inspiring), but the students in these classes are the exceptionally motivated, who stuck through this education despite the difficulties. The hurdle that must be overcome for this to have widespread implication is how we get more people to find that motivation.

jshen 14y ago
"The ones applying were the ones who were motivated to learn" Wasn't it their parents that were applying? Doesn't that change the conclusion you drew?
zzeroparticle 14y ago
I did find the lowering of barriers that would impede access to education like providing free meals, free transportation, and access to free babysitting to have been really helpful. In a way, it's like lowering the activation energy required to get motivated students into an environment where they can flourish.
- grassclip 14y ago
  I feel that the desire for an education is intrinsic. If you want to learn, you will (as evidenced by the study gms was talking about). Simply having access to all those goodies won't lead to motivation. Unmotivated students in that cushy environment would just lead to them being happier and more content, not make them work harder.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
    Don't focus on what it doesn't do for the unmotivated. Focus instead on how it can improve the motivated. A smart, hardworking student who is hungry won't learn much. A smart, hardworking student who is exhausted after walking miles to school in winter on an empty stomach will learn even less. In the mid-80's I went to an NYC public school that used to be one of the best and by the time I went there, it was... Well let's just say it was quite subpar. The school had an honors program where I spent almost all my time, and I didn't really think it was anything special, just OK. Never had to work hard to get A's. Then Senior year they realized I couldn't graduate without taking Music Appreciation(!) and the only way to do it on time was to take that class with the "regular" students. Bedlam would have been calmer. It was simply impossible to learn anything in that class. There were students constantly screaming, throwing things, walking in and out of the room all the time, etc. Maybe 5 people out of 35 paid any attention to the teacher. Hell, once he realized I was one of the better behaved ones, he guaranteed me an A just for coming in and cleaning the blackboard every day and then sitting there quietly. I'm not an idiot; I did it and got my A. I could go on, but suffice to say that one experience opened my eyes to the difference in classes in the same school. I shudder to think how some of the really bad schools were.
    - gms7777 14y ago
      I understand that its easy and important to pour resources into educating the already motivated. The justification is clear, they want to be there, they want to learn, they "deserve it". Yet, unless I'm misreading your comment, it appears as if a majority of students in the worse schools appear to be in the "unmotivated" class. Heck, even in my middle/upper-middle class suburban high school, that same divide between the "honors" and the "regular" kids was there. I think the bigger societal issue is finding some way to get this majority interested in learning. That would have a far larger impact than giving more to the already motivated (if only due to sheer numbers). I realize this is a HUGE issue to tackle and unfortunately, its something that I have no answers for.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
jiggy2011 14y ago
It's possible to go to an excellent school and fail to learn anything if you don't want to, especially if you have been culturally conditioned to hate school. At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to. OK, this is just one anecdote, but... I grew up in a fairly rural, poor part of North Carolina, went to generic, poor to below average public schools, came from a dirt-poor family that most people would describe as "white trash" or "redneck" or whatever... my father dropped out of school in 8th grade, and my mom finished H.S. but never college. But, despite not going to a "good school," or growing up in a household full of academics, or living in an affluent neighborhood or anything, I always managed to keep learning, and things turned out fairly well for me (to date). I went to college, gaining (over the years) 3 A.S degrees, and not quite bothering to finish my B.S. I've worked professionally as a software developer for the past 12 years, and have broken the 6 figure / year salary margin (while still living in NC, mind you). When I look back at my own travails, I agree with the sentiment that "people who want to learn, will." If the classes I was in were boring as %!#^ (and they were) I went to the library and checked out books. Even my poor ass rural public school managed to have a library, and there was the local public library. And even though my family was poor, we went to things like the once per year "library book sale" at the main public library branch, and bought books for $0.25 / each... I'd go and bring back boxes of books on science, math, electronics, software, etc. And I read, and I hacked on shit in my spare time, and read more, and pursued the stuff that interested me. Honestly, I'd say my school (I'm talking elementary school through high-school here, not college) had little to nothing to do with what I learned, and my outcome in life. Again, just one anecdote, and admittedly a personal and biased one from one limited perspective... but I don't put much stock in the idea that it's "impossible to learn anything" pretty much regardless of what school you attend. I guess it's one reason I get annoyed when people talk about "Horatio Alger stories" as though they were a myth, or believing in them was some kind of logical fallacy. I %!#^ng lived that story, so I know first-hand that it's possible to ascend from poverty to a decent lifestyle through a lot of hard work and determination.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
>Those that want to learn, will learn. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. In fact, it seems like the study you mention supports the exact opposite. Those that wanted to learn (as evidenced by being first to apply) didn't show signs of being better able to learn given the same environment and resources. Wanting to learn isn't enough, but requires an environment in which to flourish.
- gms7777 14y ago
  Apologies if the wording wasn't clear in the original comment. The students who applied for the program performed about the same, regardless of whether they went to the "good" schools or the "bad" ones. I'm not arguing that an environment which promotes learning isn't better. I believe that having the resources and support probably motivates people to learn more. I was just saying that for the already motivated, it didn't make much of a difference.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  The difference between "applied first" and "applied last" in motivation is probably dwarfed by the difference between "applied last" and "didn't apply". If it was being used for a study, though, it was probably a lottery out of those who applied, not first-come, first-served.
ramses0 14y ago
Freakonomics story. http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-lack-of-impact-of-school-choice/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-... I can't find the exact reference but I believe somewhere in the book they talk about the mere fact of entering your student into this lottery to go to a better school meant that the student would have better outcomes (regardless of whether they "won" the lottery or not). The idea being that it was the mere "intent" of a parent wanting better for their child that had the most impact on student performance.
- edderly 14y ago
  Yeah, there's a nice summary of some of these types of papers here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR460.pdf http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR460.pdf (section 2.3). Some people wish to extrapolate that lottery results proves that a (statistically) lower quality pupil going to a a good school is without benefit.
scarmig 14y ago
Why is it, then, that despite the school someone goes to not mattering in outcomes once you control for external factors, rich people still disproportionately prefer to send their kids to private schools, and are willing to pay 20-30k per year over a decade to do so? I could totally believe that it's totally irrational on the rich parents' part: kids and health are places where people lose much sense of rationality and perspective. But it's still worth considering that the people who are typically most invested and knowledgeable about their kids and the benefits of a good education do usually go for private school if they have the means to.
- timwiseman 14y ago
  In the case of this particular study, it seemed that the quality of the school as a factor was overshadowed by the desire to learn, as shown by the attempt to get into a better school. This does not mean that the quality of the school does not matter, simply that desire to learn matters much more.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Shivetya 14y ago
  because a private school would not have confined my friend's child to special education because she spoke Spanish in class one day to a friend. Perhaps rich people are getting the result they believe they are supposed to receive? As in, their behavior is modified in minor ways they do not perceive but all towards the goal of increasing the success of the children they enroll? It really comes down to parents. Children are not autonomous for the early formative years and how the parents treat them, from setting their morals and encouraging good behavior sets the course for most of their life barring abrupt unforeseen external forces. I have only one issue with private schools, I do not believe any politician should be allowed to send their children to one.
  - spydum 14y ago
    That is odd.. so politicians should have less freedoms than the citizens they serve? Good luck finding someone to elect. It is bad enough political organizations go dredging through their personal lives. It amazes me people are still willing to serve in public office.
clarky07 14y ago
This is part of Freakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338 http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden...). Though you could have obviously seen it elsewhere. In the book, it was referring to lottery based admission to the better schools. The result was that it didn't matter whether the students won the lottery or not. They performed equally well (on whatever generic criteria you use to judge academic performance in hs, most likely state standardized tests). The point being that students who cared enough to want to be in the better school would do well no matter where they were.
- gms7777 14y ago
  That may very well have been where I saw it. Thank you.
- neilk 14y ago
  Do we know that virtuous intent is what separates those who apply versus those who don't? That might just be measuring the stability, resources, and values of the family. I can easily see how a kid with a supportive family can do well, even under challenging circumstances. But is that fair to the kid who was born into a more chaotic environment? Or, a family where the parents make a rational choice not to send their kid to this school? Perhaps they can't afford increased activity fees. Or perhaps they worry about their kid being a fish out of water, competing with kids from more privileged backgrounds? Or, a family where the parents are actively anti-learning -- either through internalized racism or sexism[1], fear of their kids becoming alien to them, or a belief that the rest of society is so racist that education isn't helpful? [1] A friend of mine from rural Quebec was dissuaded by her mother from getting a college degree, because, quote, "we're not made for great things".
- pron 14y ago
  Maybe, but the lucky ones who get into the good schools because their parents can donate a building or two, will also do well no matter how lazy or stupid they are, so life's still unfair.
cantankerous 14y ago
My question to your takeaway point would be, if these people are so motivated that they do better in courses, why do they stay so poor? Either merit is being suppressed by social forces (most definitely), or merit isn't the only requisite thing for social ascent.

by gms7777 14y ago

jshen 14y ago

"The ones applying were the ones who were motivated to learn" Wasn't it their parents that were applying? Doesn't that change the conclusion you drew?

zzeroparticle 14y ago

I did find the lowering of barriers that would impede access to education like providing free meals, free transportation, and access to free babysitting to have been really helpful. In a way, it's like lowering the activation energy required to get motivated students into an environment where they can flourish.

grassclip 14y ago
I feel that the desire for an education is intrinsic. If you want to learn, you will (as evidenced by the study gms was talking about). Simply having access to all those goodies won't lead to motivation. Unmotivated students in that cushy environment would just lead to them being happier and more content, not make them work harder.
- HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
  Don't focus on what it doesn't do for the unmotivated. Focus instead on how it can improve the motivated. A smart, hardworking student who is hungry won't learn much. A smart, hardworking student who is exhausted after walking miles to school in winter on an empty stomach will learn even less. In the mid-80's I went to an NYC public school that used to be one of the best and by the time I went there, it was... Well let's just say it was quite subpar. The school had an honors program where I spent almost all my time, and I didn't really think it was anything special, just OK. Never had to work hard to get A's. Then Senior year they realized I couldn't graduate without taking Music Appreciation(!) and the only way to do it on time was to take that class with the "regular" students. Bedlam would have been calmer. It was simply impossible to learn anything in that class. There were students constantly screaming, throwing things, walking in and out of the room all the time, etc. Maybe 5 people out of 35 paid any attention to the teacher. Hell, once he realized I was one of the better behaved ones, he guaranteed me an A just for coming in and cleaning the blackboard every day and then sitting there quietly. I'm not an idiot; I did it and got my A. I could go on, but suffice to say that one experience opened my eyes to the difference in classes in the same school. I shudder to think how some of the really bad schools were.
  - gms7777 14y ago
    I understand that its easy and important to pour resources into educating the already motivated. The justification is clear, they want to be there, they want to learn, they "deserve it". Yet, unless I'm misreading your comment, it appears as if a majority of students in the worse schools appear to be in the "unmotivated" class. Heck, even in my middle/upper-middle class suburban high school, that same divide between the "honors" and the "regular" kids was there. I think the bigger societal issue is finding some way to get this majority interested in learning. That would have a far larger impact than giving more to the already motivated (if only due to sheer numbers). I realize this is a HUGE issue to tackle and unfortunately, its something that I have no answers for.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

It's possible to go to an excellent school and fail to learn anything if you don't want to, especially if you have been culturally conditioned to hate school. At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to.

mindcrime 14y ago
At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to. OK, this is just one anecdote, but... I grew up in a fairly rural, poor part of North Carolina, went to generic, poor to below average public schools, came from a dirt-poor family that most people would describe as "white trash" or "redneck" or whatever... my father dropped out of school in 8th grade, and my mom finished H.S. but never college. But, despite not going to a "good school," or growing up in a household full of academics, or living in an affluent neighborhood or anything, I always managed to keep learning, and things turned out fairly well for me (to date). I went to college, gaining (over the years) 3 A.S degrees, and not quite bothering to finish my B.S. I've worked professionally as a software developer for the past 12 years, and have broken the 6 figure / year salary margin (while still living in NC, mind you). When I look back at my own travails, I agree with the sentiment that "people who want to learn, will." If the classes I was in were boring as %!#^ (and they were) I went to the library and checked out books. Even my poor ass rural public school managed to have a library, and there was the local public library. And even though my family was poor, we went to things like the once per year "library book sale" at the main public library branch, and bought books for $0.25 / each... I'd go and bring back boxes of books on science, math, electronics, software, etc. And I read, and I hacked on shit in my spare time, and read more, and pursued the stuff that interested me. Honestly, I'd say my school (I'm talking elementary school through high-school here, not college) had little to nothing to do with what I learned, and my outcome in life. Again, just one anecdote, and admittedly a personal and biased one from one limited perspective... but I don't put much stock in the idea that it's "impossible to learn anything" pretty much regardless of what school you attend. I guess it's one reason I get annoyed when people talk about "Horatio Alger stories" as though they were a myth, or believing in them was some kind of logical fallacy. I %!#^ng lived that story, so I know first-hand that it's possible to ascend from poverty to a decent lifestyle through a lot of hard work and determination.

hackinthebochs 14y ago

>Those that want to learn, will learn. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. In fact, it seems like the study you mention supports the exact opposite. Those that wanted to learn (as evidenced by being first to apply) didn't show signs of being better able to learn given the same environment and resources. Wanting to learn isn't enough, but requires an environment in which to flourish.

gms7777 14y ago
Apologies if the wording wasn't clear in the original comment. The students who applied for the program performed about the same, regardless of whether they went to the "good" schools or the "bad" ones. I'm not arguing that an environment which promotes learning isn't better. I believe that having the resources and support probably motivates people to learn more. I was just saying that for the already motivated, it didn't make much of a difference.
dllthomas 14y ago
The difference between "applied first" and "applied last" in motivation is probably dwarfed by the difference between "applied last" and "didn't apply". If it was being used for a study, though, it was probably a lottery out of those who applied, not first-come, first-served.

ramses0 14y ago

Freakonomics story. http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-lack-of-impact-of-school-choice/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-... I can't find the exact reference but I believe somewhere in the book they talk about the mere fact of entering your student into this lottery to go to a better school meant that the student would have better outcomes (regardless of whether they "won" the lottery or not). The idea being that it was the mere "intent" of a parent wanting better for their child that had the most impact on student performance.

edderly 14y ago
Yeah, there's a nice summary of some of these types of papers here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR460.pdf http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR460.pdf (section 2.3). Some people wish to extrapolate that lottery results proves that a (statistically) lower quality pupil going to a a good school is without benefit.

scarmig 14y ago

Why is it, then, that despite the school someone goes to not mattering in outcomes once you control for external factors, rich people still disproportionately prefer to send their kids to private schools, and are willing to pay 20-30k per year over a decade to do so? I could totally believe that it's totally irrational on the rich parents' part: kids and health are places where people lose much sense of rationality and perspective. But it's still worth considering that the people who are typically most invested and knowledgeable about their kids and the benefits of a good education do usually go for private school if they have the means to.

timwiseman 14y ago
In the case of this particular study, it seemed that the quality of the school as a factor was overshadowed by the desire to learn, as shown by the attempt to get into a better school. This does not mean that the quality of the school does not matter, simply that desire to learn matters much more.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 14y ago
because a private school would not have confined my friend's child to special education because she spoke Spanish in class one day to a friend. Perhaps rich people are getting the result they believe they are supposed to receive? As in, their behavior is modified in minor ways they do not perceive but all towards the goal of increasing the success of the children they enroll? It really comes down to parents. Children are not autonomous for the early formative years and how the parents treat them, from setting their morals and encouraging good behavior sets the course for most of their life barring abrupt unforeseen external forces. I have only one issue with private schools, I do not believe any politician should be allowed to send their children to one.
- spydum 14y ago
  That is odd.. so politicians should have less freedoms than the citizens they serve? Good luck finding someone to elect. It is bad enough political organizations go dredging through their personal lives. It amazes me people are still willing to serve in public office.

clarky07 14y ago

This is part of Freakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338 http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden...). Though you could have obviously seen it elsewhere. In the book, it was referring to lottery based admission to the better schools. The result was that it didn't matter whether the students won the lottery or not. They performed equally well (on whatever generic criteria you use to judge academic performance in hs, most likely state standardized tests). The point being that students who cared enough to want to be in the better school would do well no matter where they were.

gms7777 14y ago
That may very well have been where I saw it. Thank you.
neilk 14y ago
Do we know that virtuous intent is what separates those who apply versus those who don't? That might just be measuring the stability, resources, and values of the family. I can easily see how a kid with a supportive family can do well, even under challenging circumstances. But is that fair to the kid who was born into a more chaotic environment? Or, a family where the parents make a rational choice not to send their kid to this school? Perhaps they can't afford increased activity fees. Or perhaps they worry about their kid being a fish out of water, competing with kids from more privileged backgrounds? Or, a family where the parents are actively anti-learning -- either through internalized racism or sexism[1], fear of their kids becoming alien to them, or a belief that the rest of society is so racist that education isn't helpful? [1] A friend of mine from rural Quebec was dissuaded by her mother from getting a college degree, because, quote, "we're not made for great things".
pron 14y ago
Maybe, but the lucky ones who get into the good schools because their parents can donate a building or two, will also do well no matter how lazy or stupid they are, so life's still unfair.

cantankerous 14y ago

My question to your takeaway point would be, if these people are so motivated that they do better in courses, why do they stay so poor? Either merit is being suppressed by social forces (most definitely), or merit isn't the only requisite thing for social ascent.