3 ms·

> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long I just n

> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle. It just gives you an impression that life is much easier than it is, and you can BS your way through it. It sends the wrong message both ways. Skills that are useful/meaningful IRL certainly are much harder to acquire. Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc. It just sends the wrong message either way. The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes.

gsinclair 2mo ago
An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth, it allows many kinds of people to succeed. And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.
- noir_lord 2mo ago
  As with all things human it's a continuum and the education system (at least as it existed when I went through it which was to be fair decades ago) wasn't always great at getting that message across. I had a friend in my year, bright enough but where he excelled was in putting in the work, he studied harder for GCSE's (our secondary school educational qualifications) than basically anyone I've ever met studied for anything. I still frequently outscored him on tests/coursework and did in final exam results and I did basically no work beyond reading the books and homework was an alien idea, the only real differences between us was I read for fun outside of what was assigned by school and I had a much better memory where he ground away at the assigned material but reading for fun would simply not have occurred to him. Sadly an exam usually only captures a single metric, the final score - it in no way captures the effort put into that score and it's really not fair (in a general sense) that two people can get the same score and put in wildly disparate levels of effort. But there isn't a Universal Law of Fairness, he had a stable loving home with two parents and I did not, that wasn't "fair" either but I realised early sometimes life simply isn't. Though stepping out of structured education into post-secondary education where you had to actually study came as a spectacular shock to the system because I had no framework to build on - having coasted my entire way through school putting in minimum effort.
  - steveBK123 2mo ago
    I had a similar experience in mediocre exurb HS. Was top 5% or whatever of my class without really studying or even handing in completed homework. Good friend in most of the same classes as me would often ask me for help on questions, but he just worked so much harder. He has a very intense father who obviously was on top of him about stuff. But putting in the effort to be top 1% instead of top 5% while also being a varsity football player got him into an Ivy, which was great for him. In some sense the system worked.
- torginus 2mo ago
  This is a very difficult discussion, especially considering there are many countries and many schooling systems, but you have to admit there are common failings across systems. > the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle Sorry, I think I miscommunicated what I wanted to say, which is I know for a fact that there were people in my HS class that put in a lot more effort than I did, yet got worse grades, even in subjects (like literature) they cared about more than I did. In retrospect I kinda feel sorry for them and envious of them at the same - they got a lot more out of that class than I did by making effort. > You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth I think this the issue of what they call the 'skills-based' education system. The 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' type shows which translate well across cultures really show a trend - kids and teens are taught and tested on an immense breadth of subjects, most of which will be quite useless and forgotten, not only by adulthood, but by the time they graduate. The reason final exams tend to be 'skill-based' are to paper over this fact. Most kids don't really remember much about the composition of the water table, but can write an essay. Smart kids are usually better at writing essays, than not so smart ones given an equal amount of practice. So basically they force you to learn stuff you're not interested in, are liable to forget and won't matter in terms of your future, even in the scope of the narrowly defined schooling system. > it allows many kinds of people to succeed. This is what's not really true imo. It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. They're just conditioning you to the fact that your prime waking hours will be essentially thrown away for most of your adult life (for most people). If you can do that, and you live in an okayish country, you can get through life doing alright by doing that, so by that definition its true. But the only people who are rewarded by the (academic) purpose of the schooling system, are the ones who excel at core subjects. If you're a gifted artist, but suck at math, you'll likely not enjoy being in the system. Most people, dumb or smart, could likely end up in the same place in life playing video games in their youth, instead of going to school.
  - ipsod 2mo ago
    > It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. According to John Taylor Gatto's research, the US school system was explicitly designed from inception to be just that. I haven't looked into it beyond his words, but he seems to have actual quotes and notes from the people at the origin.
- pmarreck 2mo ago
  > An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. How about some tweaks, then? Here's the problem as I see it. People seem designed to work together, but school isolates everyone. The people who are natural leaders, natural persuaders, natural consensus-distillers, natural "dig deep into a hard problem to solve it" people SHOULD NOT need to wait until 22 fucking years old to discover that "the hard way" at "real work"!! There were SCANT FEW group projects when I grew up, but they all stick out in my memory because it was suddenly abundantly clear who was better at what and that we had to work together! And the best part is that riding coattails becomes immediately noticeable and socially punished. We need MORE experiences in school where people actually NEED to use their gifts to succeed TOGETHER. Exactly like at a job in real life! But their parents apparently won't have that!
Tade0 2mo ago
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle. My high school math teacher didn't subscribe to this idea, so for the first time in my life I had poor scores in math. We took six previous years' math finals as part of our preparation. I recall scoring a humbling 33/50 on my first attempt. My final result was 45/50 because there was a 3pt. problem I couldn't solve, but decided not to since I had like 15 minutes left and was confident that the rest was largely ok. Lost 2pt. on some minor stuff I overlooked. Of course I didn't learn my lesson just yet back then because I had years of being lazy under my belt, so I struggled through college.
moate 2mo ago
"The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes." Counterpoint, the "I had to work twice as hard for my A" people are prudish buzzkills who think that working hard has inherent value. "Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc." I mean...it could? The whole article is about how "intelligent" isn't exactly one thing. Obvious Smart and Lazy here: Life is easy, and I've been BSing my way through it for over 40 years. I work at one of the largest companies in my field on the planet, I'm well respected by my supervisors and coworkers, I make enough money to keep the lights on (and my artist wife and I both fed). I have friends I see regularly, love an affection, and time to garden and play video games. There's no "right" way so there can be no "wrong" way, only ways that don't work for your skillset. Also, understanding how to navigate society/hierarchy is a skill and a lot of the try-hards don't realize that so they just brute force for results.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
steveBK123 2mo ago
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle. I think it's just as simple as its designed for the average case not the extremities. If it's designed for any extremity, it's to ensure the least bad outcome for the bottom 25%. If you're doing well you are not a problem as far as most schools are concerned. Unfortunately "smart but lazy" types kind of fall through the cracks. For me "smart but lazy" was more being smart enough to understand the rewards in the system, but not smart enough/having context for the long term rewards. In a lot of ways I saw life as a game, and had no one around me who could explain the higher level games of elite school admissions/job funnel/etc. In the end I don't know if my life would have been drastically better if I'd gone to MIT/Carnegie Mellon instead of a "a top 25 engineering program". I'd have had more options for sure.

gsinclair 2mo ago

An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth, it allows many kinds of people to succeed. And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.

noir_lord 2mo ago
As with all things human it's a continuum and the education system (at least as it existed when I went through it which was to be fair decades ago) wasn't always great at getting that message across. I had a friend in my year, bright enough but where he excelled was in putting in the work, he studied harder for GCSE's (our secondary school educational qualifications) than basically anyone I've ever met studied for anything. I still frequently outscored him on tests/coursework and did in final exam results and I did basically no work beyond reading the books and homework was an alien idea, the only real differences between us was I read for fun outside of what was assigned by school and I had a much better memory where he ground away at the assigned material but reading for fun would simply not have occurred to him. Sadly an exam usually only captures a single metric, the final score - it in no way captures the effort put into that score and it's really not fair (in a general sense) that two people can get the same score and put in wildly disparate levels of effort. But there isn't a Universal Law of Fairness, he had a stable loving home with two parents and I did not, that wasn't "fair" either but I realised early sometimes life simply isn't. Though stepping out of structured education into post-secondary education where you had to actually study came as a spectacular shock to the system because I had no framework to build on - having coasted my entire way through school putting in minimum effort.
- steveBK123 2mo ago
  I had a similar experience in mediocre exurb HS. Was top 5% or whatever of my class without really studying or even handing in completed homework. Good friend in most of the same classes as me would often ask me for help on questions, but he just worked so much harder. He has a very intense father who obviously was on top of him about stuff. But putting in the effort to be top 1% instead of top 5% while also being a varsity football player got him into an Ivy, which was great for him. In some sense the system worked.
torginus 2mo ago
This is a very difficult discussion, especially considering there are many countries and many schooling systems, but you have to admit there are common failings across systems. > the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle Sorry, I think I miscommunicated what I wanted to say, which is I know for a fact that there were people in my HS class that put in a lot more effort than I did, yet got worse grades, even in subjects (like literature) they cared about more than I did. In retrospect I kinda feel sorry for them and envious of them at the same - they got a lot more out of that class than I did by making effort. > You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth I think this the issue of what they call the 'skills-based' education system. The 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' type shows which translate well across cultures really show a trend - kids and teens are taught and tested on an immense breadth of subjects, most of which will be quite useless and forgotten, not only by adulthood, but by the time they graduate. The reason final exams tend to be 'skill-based' are to paper over this fact. Most kids don't really remember much about the composition of the water table, but can write an essay. Smart kids are usually better at writing essays, than not so smart ones given an equal amount of practice. So basically they force you to learn stuff you're not interested in, are liable to forget and won't matter in terms of your future, even in the scope of the narrowly defined schooling system. > it allows many kinds of people to succeed. This is what's not really true imo. It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. They're just conditioning you to the fact that your prime waking hours will be essentially thrown away for most of your adult life (for most people). If you can do that, and you live in an okayish country, you can get through life doing alright by doing that, so by that definition its true. But the only people who are rewarded by the (academic) purpose of the schooling system, are the ones who excel at core subjects. If you're a gifted artist, but suck at math, you'll likely not enjoy being in the system. Most people, dumb or smart, could likely end up in the same place in life playing video games in their youth, instead of going to school.
- ipsod 2mo ago
  > It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. According to John Taylor Gatto's research, the US school system was explicitly designed from inception to be just that. I haven't looked into it beyond his words, but he seems to have actual quotes and notes from the people at the origin.
pmarreck 2mo ago
> An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. How about some tweaks, then? Here's the problem as I see it. People seem designed to work together, but school isolates everyone. The people who are natural leaders, natural persuaders, natural consensus-distillers, natural "dig deep into a hard problem to solve it" people SHOULD NOT need to wait until 22 fucking years old to discover that "the hard way" at "real work"!! There were SCANT FEW group projects when I grew up, but they all stick out in my memory because it was suddenly abundantly clear who was better at what and that we had to work together! And the best part is that riding coattails becomes immediately noticeable and socially punished. We need MORE experiences in school where people actually NEED to use their gifts to succeed TOGETHER. Exactly like at a job in real life! But their parents apparently won't have that!

Tade0 2mo ago

> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle. My high school math teacher didn't subscribe to this idea, so for the first time in my life I had poor scores in math. We took six previous years' math finals as part of our preparation. I recall scoring a humbling 33/50 on my first attempt. My final result was 45/50 because there was a 3pt. problem I couldn't solve, but decided not to since I had like 15 minutes left and was confident that the rest was largely ok. Lost 2pt. on some minor stuff I overlooked. Of course I didn't learn my lesson just yet back then because I had years of being lazy under my belt, so I struggled through college.

moate 2mo ago

"The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes." Counterpoint, the "I had to work twice as hard for my A" people are prudish buzzkills who think that working hard has inherent value. "Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc." I mean...it could? The whole article is about how "intelligent" isn't exactly one thing. Obvious Smart and Lazy here: Life is easy, and I've been BSing my way through it for over 40 years. I work at one of the largest companies in my field on the planet, I'm well respected by my supervisors and coworkers, I make enough money to keep the lights on (and my artist wife and I both fed). I have friends I see regularly, love an affection, and time to garden and play video games. There's no "right" way so there can be no "wrong" way, only ways that don't work for your skillset. Also, understanding how to navigate society/hierarchy is a skill and a lot of the try-hards don't realize that so they just brute force for results.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

steveBK123 2mo ago

> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle. I think it's just as simple as its designed for the average case not the extremities. If it's designed for any extremity, it's to ensure the least bad outcome for the bottom 25%. If you're doing well you are not a problem as far as most schools are concerned. Unfortunately "smart but lazy" types kind of fall through the cracks. For me "smart but lazy" was more being smart enough to understand the rewards in the system, but not smart enough/having context for the long term rewards. In a lot of ways I saw life as a game, and had no one around me who could explain the higher level games of elite school admissions/job funnel/etc. In the end I don't know if my life would have been drastically better if I'd gone to MIT/Carnegie Mellon instead of a "a top 25 engineering program". I'd have had more options for sure.