5 ms·

Genetics outweighs teaching, Gove adviser tells his boss

20 points by auggierose 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago
From the article: """Cummings sets out what appears to be an end point to the first wave of Gove's reforms, saying: "Hopefully, it will push the English system towards one in which the state provides a generous amount of funding per pupil, which parents can spend in any school they wish, breaking down the barrier between private-state school""" It's interesting to think about systems of providing education over time: 1. Since the mind of man can remember: your son grows up to do what you do, because that's what you teach him how to do. 2. Quite far back: for a fairly hefty fee, you can have your son apprenticed to a tradesman. He'll provide unpaid labor for several years while picking up the beginnings of the trade. 3. Rather recent: your son can attend a formal school, which will provide him the background of the correct social class. The last two systems were more focused on providing a living for the child; this one much less so. As with apprenticeship, this is expensive. 4. The government will pay for your child to attend a formal school, because it wants all citizens to have a certain shared viewpoint. 5. The government will now require your child to attend a formal school, though you can substitute a school of your own. It sounds like this guy wants to head back to stage 3, but expand government payments to cover it. It's also interesting to me that while there's a fairly coherent reform viewpoint in the US on the state of pre-college education and where we'd like it to go ("public school sucks, although not mine specifically; we should just dismantle the system and give everyone vouchers that they can spend at the school of their choice"), there are many wildly different views on what college should be. We see people vilifying colleges that advertise your ability to get a job post-graduation ("that's not what scholarship is about"); we do not see condemnation of the public schools (several are extremely prestigious); we see people saying that colleges organized as a for-profit corporation are inherently untrustworthy (somehow this idea doesn't apply to elementary schools?); we see people touting the job-placement benefits of university education... but we don't see much push for free tuition at public universities, or vouchers for them.
- judk 13y ago
  These apparent inconsistencies in philosophy can be rationalized by observing that USA has 300 million people and they don't all have a shared viewpoint.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Yes, I know. Why is the reform movement unified as to pre-college, but not as to college?
PLejeck 13y ago
Arguing that student genetics have any substantial influence on student success is a load of bullshit. It's the same argument that has been used in favor of organized eugenics, and, just to fulfill Godwin's Law, also used in favor of the holocaust. But seriously, this is detrimental to improvements in education. All this will do is push us backwards, and delay actual improvements. EDIT: I guess I should've been more clear: I was being sarcastic with my comparisons to hitler, for the sake of fulfilling Godwin's Law early and being done with that stupid.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  I don't know how much influence does genetics have on student success. There can be plausible arguments that it's 50/50 nature/nurture, 20/80 or 80/20. However, it definitely is bullshit to claim "It's the same argument that has been used in favor of organized eugenics, and, just to fulfill Godwin's Law, also used in favor of the holocaust." as any evidence whatsoever about what nature/nurture proportion is the true one.
  - PLejeck 13y ago
    Okay yeah it was rather bullshit to say that, but part of me just wanted to fulfill Godwin's Law nice and early and get that out of the way. Anyways, it's hard to argue that genetics control anything in humans very heavily: evidence shows that almost anything genetic can be overridden by later events, and there's so much variance as it is. And not to mention the fact that gene expression is affected by environmental factors!
- msohcw 13y ago
  However, to argue the converse is just as difficult. Can we really reject the hypothesis that genetics has an effect on a person's mental ability? On student success? In China, researchers are looking at mapping the genomes of 'geniuses' to look for potential genes that impact intelligence. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/) While, you argue from a point of pathos, that is that pursuing such genetics-based arguments of ability is dangerous and leads to dangerous situations, it is important to consider that with increasing knowledge of genetics, it is possible that we will find certain genes with impacts on knowledge and ability. I mean, even now, we know at least of genetic bases to diseases that negatively impact intelligence. Who is to say the converse won't happen? In a question of science and ethics, I would argue that it is better that we pursue, to a) not end up in lopsided world power (imagine if only China were to successfully pursue genetic bases for improving education) and b) look at potential ways of improving education across the board. If we do know a genetic bases, that may allow us to better target education. Ability is clearly myriad and manifold, and likely impossible to fully be determined by genetics. There will still be better objective measures than genetics. To shove aside genetics effects on student success just on potential ethical ramifications might not be a very good idea.
dasil003 13y ago
I don't need science to refute that the idea that achievement is 70% IQ is absolute horse shit. I've seen too many brilliant people who wasted their potential, and too many successful morons to discount the obvious effect of effort and motivation. It's self evident that brain power needs to be catalyzed to provide any real value.
- _random_ 13y ago
  Yet brains of geniuses are physically different than those of ordinary men.
- aaron695 13y ago
  > I don't need science to refute that the idea that achievement is 70% IQ He never said that in the news article. He was referring to performance in school and specifically comparing it to teaching quality.
johnchristopher 13y ago
> He says: "There is strong resistance across the political spectrum to accepting scientific evidence on genetics. Most of those that now dominate discussions on issues such as social mobility entirely ignore genetics and therefore their arguments are at best misleading and often worthless." He claims research shows that as much as 70% of a child's performance is genetically derived. Does anyone know the research papers he is referring to ?
- auggierose 13y ago
  The entire paper (which includes references) is also available there, here is a direct link: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/dominic-cummings-michael-gove-thoughts-education-pdf http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/...
  - spindritf 13y ago
    Is there a way to download it? This viewer is an absolutely ridiculous and contemptible attempt at keeping readers on your website. Using someone else's paper, no less. EDIT: Yes, it's here https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/804396/some-thoughts-on-education-and-political.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8043... (The PDF also has clickable links, and lots of them, if anyone wants to chase down the sources.)
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    Thank you. Unfortunately the references can't be clicked and the full URL isn't given.
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  I sincerely doubt there is anything here. I'm not even sure why this drivel makes it to HN. This is a political statement written by a career politician to drive a political agenda. If science is used it will be purely selectively in support of largely predetermined conclusions.
wisty 13y ago
> "In England, few are well trained in the basics of extended writing or mathematical and scientific modelling and problem-solving," he writes. When people talk about teaching problem-solving, they need to justify whether they actually know what they are talking about. I'm not going to say that problem-solving can't be taught, but most of the people who talk about it are just using a meaningless buzz-word. Problem solving is mostly about domain knowledge. There's domain-specific strategies which can be taught. There's also a small number of more general strategies. And there may be ways to encourage students to find strategies, and try to transfer ones from other domains, but this isn't a field where you can assume that anyone who just happens to be using a few of the right buzz-words is going to be helpful. But just saying "teach kids to solve problems" is arrogant and moronic. Kids already know how to solve problems - human beings are pretty much problem-solving machines. And most teachers already try to get kids to think for themselves - it's just not that simple (especially when there's a lot of pressure to get exam results, set lots of assessment, and to prove to some public servant that they are teaching problem solving). As for genetics; he might be confounding "genetics, home environment, and other stuff which doesn't happen in class".
cliveowen 13y ago
I completely agree with the adviser, everyone who denies genetics plays a major role in academic performance/learning is living in denial. I've seen it many times, people that with no effort whatsoever manage to solve complex problems that require hours of hard work for most people. We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly.
- kgarten 13y ago
  So how do you know it's genetics? (Short answer you cannot know ...) I also know people who outperform others and solve complex problems effortlessly, yet talking with these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study. It makes me sad to read such a comment on hacker news. You seem quite convinced by your answer, do you have any proof to back it up? Is is just your perception? If so how do you know that it's genetics and no cultural traits or the way they were raised by their family etc.?
  - cliveowen 13y ago
    As with the answers above I see that the divergence in opinions is actually due to a different understanding of the word genetics. To me genetics refers to whichever properties or features a given person has that make him of her different from anyone else. "these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study." What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics. What grants a person the kind of introspection needed to perform "a substantial amount of self-study"? also genetics. Genetics decides your height, weight, the fact that you believe in God or not, your interests, amount dedication, attention span and every other aspect that makes up whatever form of success you have in mind.
    - kgarten 13y ago
      again you make it very easy ... (sorry I have the feeling you are trolling me ...) "What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics." Really, so it's genetics that determines if I'm interested in Computer Science or any other topic? I highly doubt that ... In my case I believe it has more to do with very gifted teachers I had the luck of meeting that spawned my interest. You believe you can tell the interest of people by looking at their genes? (There several examples of twins with the same genetic material who show complementary interests, talents etc.). So genetics determines your weight ... tell that to the people living in the 3rd world. There way also environmental influences that determine your life and at least for me the ruling is still out how much is in the genes and how much is due to the environment. You know that our environment/food etc. can change our genes ...
sentenza 13y ago
So the people of Finland have different genetics from the English? The article also states that he is against extending pre-school education, which has to be shown to be highly effective again and again. But those studies were done in the US, so genetics probably works different for them too. It is important to realize that there is a heavy strain of racial superiority thinking in the English upper class. As far as I know, there is nothing similar anywhere in Europe today.
- spindritf 13y ago
  > So the people of Finland have different genetics from the English? Yes, of course. I'm not saying that this explains the difference in educational outcomes but Finns, Basques, Sardinians and another group I always forget are descendants of the original (or at least earlier) Europeans. They are genetically different from waves of peoples who entered and conquered Europe later (Slavs, Germanic tribes, etc) which in turn differ from each other.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    Funnily enough, last week a comparative test of educational outcomes was discussed in the press showing that today there still exists a clear difference between outcomes in (former) East Germany and (former) West Germany. East German Children were better at mathematics and natural sciences. So with identical genetics there is still an effect on the scale of typical European inter-country differences.
- makomk 13y ago
  Exactly. Notice how his proposed solution makes the kind of education children can get dependent not on their genetics, but on whether their parents have enough money to send them to private schools.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  >It is important to realize that there is a heavy strain of racial superiority thinking in the English upper class. As far as I know, there is nothing similar anywhere in Europe today. If we put weight on genetics, English style slow social mobility class system would be the worst kind. Some biologists have theorized that rigid class system has kept the genetic differences between classes minimal. Lowest peasants have same amount of genetic advantages and disadvantages as upper class because there was minimal mixing between them. In the modern times when class structure collapses and social mobility increases it will be different. Successful and beautiful people move to big cities where they meet each others and mate (Finland and Nordic countries have high social mobility). New upper class will form that self selects it's members based on personal traits and performance. This would mean that new upper class will be more beautiful, fit and intelligent and genetic disadvantages will concentrate on lower classes. In other words, if genetics is important, giving equal opportunity to all children and high social mobility will create upper class with better genetics. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-...
threeseed 13y ago
I am sure most agree that genetics is integral to educational success. But so what ? Is the aim then to measure IQ in kindergarden and then decide at that point whether that person should be afforded the privilege of going to university ? And what happens if the tests are flawed (like almost all are) are we then going to accept an entire generation of disadvantaged children ? And surely everyone has worked with people who aren't book smart but are brilliant in their respective fields. If recent history has taught us anything is that humans are the sum of many, many parts. And the minute you start narrowly categorising them you do them and humanity a massive disservice.
- auggierose 13y ago
  I couldn't agree more, you should not put people into boxes, especially not according to artificial measures like IQ tests. What you should do is design the education system in a way such that more variance is possible, so that especially gifted students get the stimulation they need. In the paper the argument is put forward, that a "good school" improves the average performance of students, but also increases the variance between performances.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    But how do you decide which students are gifted without some way to measure general intellectual aptitude which is the purpose of an IQ test.
    - auggierose 13y ago
      Ideally you don't decide anything. You just give them the tools, and see what they do with it.
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        But how do you know what to teach and grade students on?
pesenti 13y ago
The UK system is unique for selecting kids at a very early age. At 11, kids take a test to enter super selective public schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school. In some parts of UK only 2% of the 11 year old make it in. For those who don't make it, their only chance to go to top universities is to pay for expensive private school.
- jgranby 13y ago
  Not quite. Comprehensive (non-selective) schools are the norm and have been for many years. Grammar schools only remain in very few areas, where the local authority has chosen to keep them. For the majority of the country, there isn't a local grammar school.
  - pesenti 13y ago
    You are right. I should have written "Part of the UK system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_Engl.... But the point remains.
auggierose 13y ago
How did this post drop from rank 3 to rank 148 within 5 minutes? Interesting algorithm at work here...
- DanBC 13y ago
  People flagged it, because the discussion has been had on HN before and it tends to go poorly. This submission also involves the hateful Gove, a clueless fuckwit of the highest order. (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gove-exams-gcse-schools http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gov...) Here's another article from The Grauniad involving Gove, who calls for a return to teaching "Newton's laws of thermodynamics". The Guardian make no mention of that error. https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-thermodynamics-boyles-law-and-the-basics-a-lesson-for-michael-gove/ https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-thermo...
  - auggierose 13y ago
    Ah, thanks for this. It is interesting, because on the photo shown in the article you can see both gove and the adviser, and gove seems to be an obvious "fuckwit", and the adviser an obvious nerd. So I would separate advised from the adviser here, and focus on the content of the paper which is very interesting. Disappointing HN community.
ekm2 13y ago
"It is genetic" is the secular version of "because the Lord said so".It helps explain anything we have no clue about.

20 points by auggierose 13y ago

From the article: """Cummings sets out what appears to be an end point to the first wave of Gove's reforms, saying: "Hopefully, it will push the English system towards one in which the state provides a generous amount of funding per pupil, which parents can spend in any school they wish, breaking down the barrier between private-state school""" It's interesting to think about systems of providing education over time: 1. Since the mind of man can remember: your son grows up to do what you do, because that's what you teach him how to do. 2. Quite far back: for a fairly hefty fee, you can have your son apprenticed to a tradesman. He'll provide unpaid labor for several years while picking up the beginnings of the trade. 3. Rather recent: your son can attend a formal school, which will provide him the background of the correct social class. The last two systems were more focused on providing a living for the child; this one much less so. As with apprenticeship, this is expensive. 4. The government will pay for your child to attend a formal school, because it wants all citizens to have a certain shared viewpoint. 5. The government will now require your child to attend a formal school, though you can substitute a school of your own. It sounds like this guy wants to head back to stage 3, but expand government payments to cover it. It's also interesting to me that while there's a fairly coherent reform viewpoint in the US on the state of pre-college education and where we'd like it to go ("public school sucks, although not mine specifically; we should just dismantle the system and give everyone vouchers that they can spend at the school of their choice"), there are many wildly different views on what college should be. We see people vilifying colleges that advertise your ability to get a job post-graduation ("that's not what scholarship is about"); we do not see condemnation of the public schools (several are extremely prestigious); we see people saying that colleges organized as a for-profit corporation are inherently untrustworthy (somehow this idea doesn't apply to elementary schools?); we see people touting the job-placement benefits of university education... but we don't see much push for free tuition at public universities, or vouchers for them.

judk 13y ago
These apparent inconsistencies in philosophy can be rationalized by observing that USA has 300 million people and they don't all have a shared viewpoint.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Yes, I know. Why is the reform movement unified as to pre-college, but not as to college?

PLejeck 13y ago

Arguing that student genetics have any substantial influence on student success is a load of bullshit. It's the same argument that has been used in favor of organized eugenics, and, just to fulfill Godwin's Law, also used in favor of the holocaust. But seriously, this is detrimental to improvements in education. All this will do is push us backwards, and delay actual improvements. EDIT: I guess I should've been more clear: I was being sarcastic with my comparisons to hitler, for the sake of fulfilling Godwin's Law early and being done with that stupid.

PeterisP 13y ago
I don't know how much influence does genetics have on student success. There can be plausible arguments that it's 50/50 nature/nurture, 20/80 or 80/20. However, it definitely is bullshit to claim "It's the same argument that has been used in favor of organized eugenics, and, just to fulfill Godwin's Law, also used in favor of the holocaust." as any evidence whatsoever about what nature/nurture proportion is the true one.
- PLejeck 13y ago
  Okay yeah it was rather bullshit to say that, but part of me just wanted to fulfill Godwin's Law nice and early and get that out of the way. Anyways, it's hard to argue that genetics control anything in humans very heavily: evidence shows that almost anything genetic can be overridden by later events, and there's so much variance as it is. And not to mention the fact that gene expression is affected by environmental factors!
msohcw 13y ago
However, to argue the converse is just as difficult. Can we really reject the hypothesis that genetics has an effect on a person's mental ability? On student success? In China, researchers are looking at mapping the genomes of 'geniuses' to look for potential genes that impact intelligence. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/) While, you argue from a point of pathos, that is that pursuing such genetics-based arguments of ability is dangerous and leads to dangerous situations, it is important to consider that with increasing knowledge of genetics, it is possible that we will find certain genes with impacts on knowledge and ability. I mean, even now, we know at least of genetic bases to diseases that negatively impact intelligence. Who is to say the converse won't happen? In a question of science and ethics, I would argue that it is better that we pursue, to a) not end up in lopsided world power (imagine if only China were to successfully pursue genetic bases for improving education) and b) look at potential ways of improving education across the board. If we do know a genetic bases, that may allow us to better target education. Ability is clearly myriad and manifold, and likely impossible to fully be determined by genetics. There will still be better objective measures than genetics. To shove aside genetics effects on student success just on potential ethical ramifications might not be a very good idea.

dasil003 13y ago

I don't need science to refute that the idea that achievement is 70% IQ is absolute horse shit. I've seen too many brilliant people who wasted their potential, and too many successful morons to discount the obvious effect of effort and motivation. It's self evident that brain power needs to be catalyzed to provide any real value.

_random_ 13y ago
Yet brains of geniuses are physically different than those of ordinary men.
aaron695 13y ago
> I don't need science to refute that the idea that achievement is 70% IQ He never said that in the news article. He was referring to performance in school and specifically comparing it to teaching quality.

johnchristopher 13y ago

> He says: "There is strong resistance across the political spectrum to accepting scientific evidence on genetics. Most of those that now dominate discussions on issues such as social mobility entirely ignore genetics and therefore their arguments are at best misleading and often worthless." He claims research shows that as much as 70% of a child's performance is genetically derived. Does anyone know the research papers he is referring to ?

auggierose 13y ago
The entire paper (which includes references) is also available there, here is a direct link: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/dominic-cummings-michael-gove-thoughts-education-pdf http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/...
- spindritf 13y ago
  Is there a way to download it? This viewer is an absolutely ridiculous and contemptible attempt at keeping readers on your website. Using someone else's paper, no less. EDIT: Yes, it's here https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/804396/some-thoughts-on-education-and-political.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8043... (The PDF also has clickable links, and lots of them, if anyone wants to chase down the sources.)
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  Thank you. Unfortunately the references can't be clicked and the full URL isn't given.
twelvechairs 13y ago
I sincerely doubt there is anything here. I'm not even sure why this drivel makes it to HN. This is a political statement written by a career politician to drive a political agenda. If science is used it will be purely selectively in support of largely predetermined conclusions.

wisty 13y ago

> "In England, few are well trained in the basics of extended writing or mathematical and scientific modelling and problem-solving," he writes. When people talk about teaching problem-solving, they need to justify whether they actually know what they are talking about. I'm not going to say that problem-solving can't be taught, but most of the people who talk about it are just using a meaningless buzz-word. Problem solving is mostly about domain knowledge. There's domain-specific strategies which can be taught. There's also a small number of more general strategies. And there may be ways to encourage students to find strategies, and try to transfer ones from other domains, but this isn't a field where you can assume that anyone who just happens to be using a few of the right buzz-words is going to be helpful. But just saying "teach kids to solve problems" is arrogant and moronic. Kids already know how to solve problems - human beings are pretty much problem-solving machines. And most teachers already try to get kids to think for themselves - it's just not that simple (especially when there's a lot of pressure to get exam results, set lots of assessment, and to prove to some public servant that they are teaching problem solving). As for genetics; he might be confounding "genetics, home environment, and other stuff which doesn't happen in class".

cliveowen 13y ago

I completely agree with the adviser, everyone who denies genetics plays a major role in academic performance/learning is living in denial. I've seen it many times, people that with no effort whatsoever manage to solve complex problems that require hours of hard work for most people. We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly.

kgarten 13y ago
So how do you know it's genetics? (Short answer you cannot know ...) I also know people who outperform others and solve complex problems effortlessly, yet talking with these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study. It makes me sad to read such a comment on hacker news. You seem quite convinced by your answer, do you have any proof to back it up? Is is just your perception? If so how do you know that it's genetics and no cultural traits or the way they were raised by their family etc.?
- cliveowen 13y ago
  As with the answers above I see that the divergence in opinions is actually due to a different understanding of the word genetics. To me genetics refers to whichever properties or features a given person has that make him of her different from anyone else. "these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study." What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics. What grants a person the kind of introspection needed to perform "a substantial amount of self-study"? also genetics. Genetics decides your height, weight, the fact that you believe in God or not, your interests, amount dedication, attention span and every other aspect that makes up whatever form of success you have in mind.
  - kgarten 13y ago
    again you make it very easy ... (sorry I have the feeling you are trolling me ...) "What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics." Really, so it's genetics that determines if I'm interested in Computer Science or any other topic? I highly doubt that ... In my case I believe it has more to do with very gifted teachers I had the luck of meeting that spawned my interest. You believe you can tell the interest of people by looking at their genes? (There several examples of twins with the same genetic material who show complementary interests, talents etc.). So genetics determines your weight ... tell that to the people living in the 3rd world. There way also environmental influences that determine your life and at least for me the ruling is still out how much is in the genes and how much is due to the environment. You know that our environment/food etc. can change our genes ...

sentenza 13y ago

So the people of Finland have different genetics from the English? The article also states that he is against extending pre-school education, which has to be shown to be highly effective again and again. But those studies were done in the US, so genetics probably works different for them too. It is important to realize that there is a heavy strain of racial superiority thinking in the English upper class. As far as I know, there is nothing similar anywhere in Europe today.

spindritf 13y ago
> So the people of Finland have different genetics from the English? Yes, of course. I'm not saying that this explains the difference in educational outcomes but Finns, Basques, Sardinians and another group I always forget are descendants of the original (or at least earlier) Europeans. They are genetically different from waves of peoples who entered and conquered Europe later (Slavs, Germanic tribes, etc) which in turn differ from each other.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Funnily enough, last week a comparative test of educational outcomes was discussed in the press showing that today there still exists a clear difference between outcomes in (former) East Germany and (former) West Germany. East German Children were better at mathematics and natural sciences. So with identical genetics there is still an effect on the scale of typical European inter-country differences.
makomk 13y ago
Exactly. Notice how his proposed solution makes the kind of education children can get dependent not on their genetics, but on whether their parents have enough money to send them to private schools.
hannibal5 13y ago
>It is important to realize that there is a heavy strain of racial superiority thinking in the English upper class. As far as I know, there is nothing similar anywhere in Europe today. If we put weight on genetics, English style slow social mobility class system would be the worst kind. Some biologists have theorized that rigid class system has kept the genetic differences between classes minimal. Lowest peasants have same amount of genetic advantages and disadvantages as upper class because there was minimal mixing between them. In the modern times when class structure collapses and social mobility increases it will be different. Successful and beautiful people move to big cities where they meet each others and mate (Finland and Nordic countries have high social mobility). New upper class will form that self selects it's members based on personal traits and performance. This would mean that new upper class will be more beautiful, fit and intelligent and genetic disadvantages will concentrate on lower classes. In other words, if genetics is important, giving equal opportunity to all children and high social mobility will create upper class with better genetics. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-...

threeseed 13y ago

I am sure most agree that genetics is integral to educational success. But so what ? Is the aim then to measure IQ in kindergarden and then decide at that point whether that person should be afforded the privilege of going to university ? And what happens if the tests are flawed (like almost all are) are we then going to accept an entire generation of disadvantaged children ? And surely everyone has worked with people who aren't book smart but are brilliant in their respective fields. If recent history has taught us anything is that humans are the sum of many, many parts. And the minute you start narrowly categorising them you do them and humanity a massive disservice.

auggierose 13y ago
I couldn't agree more, you should not put people into boxes, especially not according to artificial measures like IQ tests. What you should do is design the education system in a way such that more variance is possible, so that especially gifted students get the stimulation they need. In the paper the argument is put forward, that a "good school" improves the average performance of students, but also increases the variance between performances.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  But how do you decide which students are gifted without some way to measure general intellectual aptitude which is the purpose of an IQ test.
  - auggierose 13y ago
    Ideally you don't decide anything. You just give them the tools, and see what they do with it.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      But how do you know what to teach and grade students on?

pesenti 13y ago

The UK system is unique for selecting kids at a very early age. At 11, kids take a test to enter super selective public schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school. In some parts of UK only 2% of the 11 year old make it in. For those who don't make it, their only chance to go to top universities is to pay for expensive private school.

jgranby 13y ago
Not quite. Comprehensive (non-selective) schools are the norm and have been for many years. Grammar schools only remain in very few areas, where the local authority has chosen to keep them. For the majority of the country, there isn't a local grammar school.
- pesenti 13y ago
  You are right. I should have written "Part of the UK system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_Engl.... But the point remains.

auggierose 13y ago

How did this post drop from rank 3 to rank 148 within 5 minutes? Interesting algorithm at work here...

DanBC 13y ago
People flagged it, because the discussion has been had on HN before and it tends to go poorly. This submission also involves the hateful Gove, a clueless fuckwit of the highest order. (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gove-exams-gcse-schools http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gov...) Here's another article from The Grauniad involving Gove, who calls for a return to teaching "Newton's laws of thermodynamics". The Guardian make no mention of that error. https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-thermodynamics-boyles-law-and-the-basics-a-lesson-for-michael-gove/ https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-thermo...
- auggierose 13y ago
  Ah, thanks for this. It is interesting, because on the photo shown in the article you can see both gove and the adviser, and gove seems to be an obvious "fuckwit", and the adviser an obvious nerd. So I would separate advised from the adviser here, and focus on the content of the paper which is very interesting. Disappointing HN community.

ekm2 13y ago

"It is genetic" is the secular version of "because the Lord said so".It helps explain anything we have no clue about.