4 ms·

The review of Amanda Ripley's new book Smartest Kids in the World by Annie Murphy Paul in the New York Times[1] is a good reality check on the review from The E

The review of Amanda Ripley's new book Smartest Kids in the World by Annie Murphy Paul in the New York Times[1] is a good reality check on the review from The Economist kindly posted here. The book is in hot demand in my county library system, so my request for the book hasn't been filled yet. The other excerpts from the book I have seen online have been very good. I have lived overseas and observed the effect of another school system, and indeed education reform is the issue that drew me to participate here on Hacker News,[2] so I am always interested in discussing education policy here. Based on the different country I have observed, I think the book's account is largely correct. Americans underestimate how much young people can learn. School programs in the United States, according to federal sample surveys, are so underchallenging that many school pupils, not just the "gifted" pupils, find school too easy and boring.[3] Mathematics lessons in the United States are especially notorious for emphasizing the mechanical aspects of calculation--thus expecting students to bring electronic calculators to class--and underemphasizing the thinking involved in mathematical problem-solving.[4] Let's discuss what makes sense in education policy on the basis of facts from more than one place. It's significant that we are discussing education policy around the world here in English, as very few Americans could discuss education policy in Korean, Polish, or Finnish, the languages of the countries profiled in the new book. (I could discuss education policy in Chinese, the language I learned as a second language, but that is not the usual experience of Americans.) The new book's encouragement to do that is a good contribution to better education policy. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/amanda-ripleys-smartest-kids-in-the-world.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/amanda-ripley... [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 [3] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-09/school-too-easy/56120106/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-... http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/Gold/CAP_state_of_education.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/G... [4] http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=calculustrap http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?pa...

Jd 13y ago
I don't see why Americans should be able to discuss education policy in Polish. Seems a non sequitur. I don't think the author of the book claimed to be able to do such anyways. As for technological over-reliance, I take that as given. I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad. To me this is one of the strengths of the US system. Even if the high achieving groups are not stimulating enough for high achievers, it seems to provide some sort of positive stimulus that otherwise would be lacking in the system.
- smtddr 13y ago
  > I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad. I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits. Once you divide a group between the "desired" and "non-desired" traits, there's no way the less desired people will get the same quality attention as the desired. It pretty much will turn into: Group them all together, then systematically eliminate them, condemn them or make them irrelevant. Basically, that segregation will become the solution itself: "We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average."
  - Jd 13y ago
    So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into? It's true that there are more resources associated with success, but doesn't that also incentivize people to work harder to end up in the higher bracket? I don't see the "Class-C" problem as necessarily a problem, so long as the person in "Class-C" has the opportunity to get back to Class-A by putting in the appropriate work. My own feeling (having also observed higher ed in Europe and Asia and other places) is that the US system works better for cultivating high achievement, but less well at making sure that lower achievers maintain a certain level of quality. This means that there is more spread over the bell curve and less in the center. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to prefer more clustering in the center of the bell curve. This is equally true for wealth acquisition, btw, with Europeans generally preferring not to have extremes (i.e. extremely high wage earners or extremely low wage earners).
    - 13y ago

Jd 13y ago

I don't see why Americans should be able to discuss education policy in Polish. Seems a non sequitur. I don't think the author of the book claimed to be able to do such anyways. As for technological over-reliance, I take that as given. I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad. To me this is one of the strengths of the US system. Even if the high achieving groups are not stimulating enough for high achievers, it seems to provide some sort of positive stimulus that otherwise would be lacking in the system.

smtddr 13y ago
> I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad. I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits. Once you divide a group between the "desired" and "non-desired" traits, there's no way the less desired people will get the same quality attention as the desired. It pretty much will turn into: Group them all together, then systematically eliminate them, condemn them or make them irrelevant. Basically, that segregation will become the solution itself: "We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average."
- Jd 13y ago
  So do you think that the US higher-ed system is inherently flawed also, with competition between high achievers (i.e. Harvard) and schools that anyone can get into? It's true that there are more resources associated with success, but doesn't that also incentivize people to work harder to end up in the higher bracket? I don't see the "Class-C" problem as necessarily a problem, so long as the person in "Class-C" has the opportunity to get back to Class-A by putting in the appropriate work. My own feeling (having also observed higher ed in Europe and Asia and other places) is that the US system works better for cultivating high achievement, but less well at making sure that lower achievers maintain a certain level of quality. This means that there is more spread over the bell curve and less in the center. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to prefer more clustering in the center of the bell curve. This is equally true for wealth acquisition, btw, with Europeans generally preferring not to have extremes (i.e. extremely high wage earners or extremely low wage earners).
  - 13y ago