Youngest kid, smartest kid?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Youngest kid, smartest kid?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/youngest-kid-smartest-kid.html
12 comments
I think the best solution is to not have rigid grades. Each kid should have their own dedicated teacher who teaches them at their own pace. That way each kid is kept at the perfect level of difficulty, enough that they need to try really hard, but not enough that they are overwhelmed.
This might be impractical now, but in the future as technology gets better, I think that kids would benefit from being directed from their own personalized computer teacher, with a real teacher there just to manage the environment and address any circumstances that the computer teacher can't deal with, and for necessary group activities. That way each kid has an education that is tailored to them and nobody is lost in the cracks, bored kids becoming lazy, or overwhelmed kids learning to hate school and thinking of themselves as inferior or stupid.
This might be impractical now, but in the future as technology gets better, I think that kids would benefit from being directed from their own personalized computer teacher, with a real teacher there just to manage the environment and address any circumstances that the computer teacher can't deal with, and for necessary group activities. That way each kid has an education that is tailored to them and nobody is lost in the cracks, bored kids becoming lazy, or overwhelmed kids learning to hate school and thinking of themselves as inferior or stupid.
I think the best solution is to not have rigid grades.
I fully agree. That is the topic of my very oldest online FAQ, first composed in 1992.
http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html
Dividing up children into school grades by age is a modern form of insanity, which would have astonished educators in any earlier era.
I fully agree. That is the topic of my very oldest online FAQ, first composed in 1992.
http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html
Dividing up children into school grades by age is a modern form of insanity, which would have astonished educators in any earlier era.
We do it because it's practical and because it's scalable. We do it because we're a society that loves standards but doesn't really understand how they work. So we're comfortable painting everything as a bell curve.
The outcome is something resembling a lowest-common-denominator education for all. Outstanding students don't pull a class upward, but unproductive or struggling students do slow a class down. That sucks for the student who's ahead of the class, because her potential is being wasted. It also sucks for the student at the bottom of the class, because he shouldn't be there. (That sounds harsh, but it's true).
Solving this problem will require implementing a scalable way to aggregate students by some level or set of criteria other than age. We need to organize them somehow, because it's currently impractical to teach them all individually.
And it's tricky to organize them by any "potential"-based criterion at an arbitrary age, because the brain is changing almost continuously throughout childhood. Plucking a group of "gifted" students apart from the pack at, say, age 2 is poorly predictive of who actually turns out to have high potential later on. So we need to do better than that.
These are nontrivial challenges, but the solution would represent a giant leap forward in our society.
The outcome is something resembling a lowest-common-denominator education for all. Outstanding students don't pull a class upward, but unproductive or struggling students do slow a class down. That sucks for the student who's ahead of the class, because her potential is being wasted. It also sucks for the student at the bottom of the class, because he shouldn't be there. (That sounds harsh, but it's true).
Solving this problem will require implementing a scalable way to aggregate students by some level or set of criteria other than age. We need to organize them somehow, because it's currently impractical to teach them all individually.
And it's tricky to organize them by any "potential"-based criterion at an arbitrary age, because the brain is changing almost continuously throughout childhood. Plucking a group of "gifted" students apart from the pack at, say, age 2 is poorly predictive of who actually turns out to have high potential later on. So we need to do better than that.
These are nontrivial challenges, but the solution would represent a giant leap forward in our society.
I agree with the elimination of grades, but I don't think a teacher per child is necessary. I don't have experience with kids, but I would prefer a system of "circles" and "levels".
For each discipline, there would be defined different levels of ability. To attain a level, you would have to go through exam. If you would fail, you could repeat the level (even multiple times). Each level would be attainable in about half-year of directed study. So there would be no grades, only levels - you couldn't get best grades, because there would always be some level above you which you would attempt to attain.
Now kids would be grouped into circles primarily based on ability at the discipline, not age. So you could be older in one group and younger in another, depending on how good you are. That way, the typical social hierarchy in classroom would be limited. I also think presence of the older kids could prevent lot of bullying, and kids could make more connections with other kids that are better or worse in different disciplines. Of course, there should be ingrained a culture of helping to learn (those with higher levels should help those with lower levels).
You could select yourself which levels in what disciplines you want to attain each semester, however there would probably be some basic total curriculum you have to go through. Also you couldn't opt for less total work; if you fail the level, you would have to repeat it, so you would be motivated not to fail.
For each discipline, there would be defined different levels of ability. To attain a level, you would have to go through exam. If you would fail, you could repeat the level (even multiple times). Each level would be attainable in about half-year of directed study. So there would be no grades, only levels - you couldn't get best grades, because there would always be some level above you which you would attempt to attain.
Now kids would be grouped into circles primarily based on ability at the discipline, not age. So you could be older in one group and younger in another, depending on how good you are. That way, the typical social hierarchy in classroom would be limited. I also think presence of the older kids could prevent lot of bullying, and kids could make more connections with other kids that are better or worse in different disciplines. Of course, there should be ingrained a culture of helping to learn (those with higher levels should help those with lower levels).
You could select yourself which levels in what disciplines you want to attain each semester, however there would probably be some basic total curriculum you have to go through. Also you couldn't opt for less total work; if you fail the level, you would have to repeat it, so you would be motivated not to fail.
Do away with grades and focus on effort, attention and output. And give kids three areas of focus and allow them to drop three subjects, keeping a core. In this age, kids need to develop deeper skills, faster and not memorize.
Huh, I had never thought about birthdate giving students a leg up in terms of mental capability.
I was in a gifted program in for elementary and middle school, and now that I think about it, in 8th grade, of the top 5 academically performing kids, 4 had birthdays in January or February, and 1 was redshirted... hmmm
I wonder if their parents planned that, or if it was a result of their developmental advantage/other environmental factors/own personality/aptitude?
Anyways, fascinating idea.
I was in a gifted program in for elementary and middle school, and now that I think about it, in 8th grade, of the top 5 academically performing kids, 4 had birthdays in January or February, and 1 was redshirted... hmmm
I wonder if their parents planned that, or if it was a result of their developmental advantage/other environmental factors/own personality/aptitude?
Anyways, fascinating idea.
Logically, the most gifted and smartest kid will advance faster, and be placed in higher levels, resulting in them usually being the youngest in the class.
For example, if your school told you your 5 year old is smart enough to start 1st grade, you'll likely enroll it into 1st grade, making it younger than the average 6 year old 1st grader.
Unfortunately this has the problem of straining the kid, and rather than seeming and being exceptional, it'll appear average. Later on in life when grades, extracurriculars, become important for college admissions, the kid will be disadvantaged because of this, since age is usually never considered.
Moral of the story: it's better to be a big fish in a small pond.
For example, if your school told you your 5 year old is smart enough to start 1st grade, you'll likely enroll it into 1st grade, making it younger than the average 6 year old 1st grader.
Unfortunately this has the problem of straining the kid, and rather than seeming and being exceptional, it'll appear average. Later on in life when grades, extracurriculars, become important for college admissions, the kid will be disadvantaged because of this, since age is usually never considered.
Moral of the story: it's better to be a big fish in a small pond.
I'm guessing being gifted is a totally different question since you'd have to be born with it.
In Freakonomics, the idea is that older kids will be more physically developed, thus get more attention and skill development. Those kids will end up being better, get picked for the junior teams, who then get picked for national teams, etc. As a result, on any given professional team, you have a roster of players whose birthdays statistically favor the earlier months of the year.
In Freakonomics, the idea is that older kids will be more physically developed, thus get more attention and skill development. Those kids will end up being better, get picked for the junior teams, who then get picked for national teams, etc. As a result, on any given professional team, you have a roster of players whose birthdays statistically favor the earlier months of the year.
This sounds like a different version of smart kids being lazy because they learned that they can get away with it, while those who were taught to work hard as kids become successful.
I would hope that no smart child ever gets the message that he can get away with being lazy, and yet I have seen school settings that produce that mistaken idea.
What is 'effort'? Why is it required? Why can't we learn freely with our own time and interest? Why should that be considered 'not being lazy'? Why are you judging children?
In our culture, laziness and curiosity are considered two of the three virtues of a programmer. (Hubris is the other, but I don't think that's as important)
Anecdotally, I know I for one got away with being lazy in school years. Generally I would do work in class only until I understood what was going on, then stop. Homework was avoided wherever possible. Requests from teachers for repetition of essentially mindless acts was considered a form of condescension and actively subverted wherever possible.
However, my curiosity meant that self-directed learning in my free time outside of school (computing, photography, geography, history, etc.) more than compensated.
My advice to children is this: Spend time on what you feel like (but don't waste opportunities to learn, and don't tread on other people's toes), feel free to ignore authorities (with modes of peaceful resistance), do something physical if you get the chance, but use the internet to satisfy your curiosity about the world. Never let it die. Most adults you see have let it die, and sometimes they are like husks of true people... never a free moment, never an idle thought, never a playful tangent. Avoid that fate, and you will always be knowledgeable, always be fed, always be respected.
In our culture, laziness and curiosity are considered two of the three virtues of a programmer. (Hubris is the other, but I don't think that's as important)
Anecdotally, I know I for one got away with being lazy in school years. Generally I would do work in class only until I understood what was going on, then stop. Homework was avoided wherever possible. Requests from teachers for repetition of essentially mindless acts was considered a form of condescension and actively subverted wherever possible.
However, my curiosity meant that self-directed learning in my free time outside of school (computing, photography, geography, history, etc.) more than compensated.
My advice to children is this: Spend time on what you feel like (but don't waste opportunities to learn, and don't tread on other people's toes), feel free to ignore authorities (with modes of peaceful resistance), do something physical if you get the chance, but use the internet to satisfy your curiosity about the world. Never let it die. Most adults you see have let it die, and sometimes they are like husks of true people... never a free moment, never an idle thought, never a playful tangent. Avoid that fate, and you will always be knowledgeable, always be fed, always be respected.
Most people have only two valuable assets - their brain and their time. Effort in education and experiences can make all of your future time more valuable.
Most people have only two valuable assets - their brain and their time
While I don't disagree I do think the statement itself is amusing for its inherent assumptions: that we can usefully generalize about all people, that it is logically coherant for strangers or society at large to attempt to value the activity of individuals, and that actions should be directed towards some commonly agreed upon goal. There are many cultures and philosophies out there that would reject such assumptions.
Effort in education and experiences can make all of your future time more valuable.
It depends how you choose to value your future time. Would you value it now, guessing at what you want in the future? Would you value it in the future, admitting that you may be totally ignorant of or worse - outright incorrect - about your future wants and needs, here and now?
If you go the defacto route of economic rationalism, then you'd usually be right (ie. 'education leads to more income' is still true in many circumstances, but more weakly of late) though one could draw in to question the associated costs in non-economically rationalizable experience, skill and thought, such as art and philosophy.
If you just relax about decisions in life, adding effort where curiosity deigns to dangle its carrot, would you be any worse off?
While I don't disagree I do think the statement itself is amusing for its inherent assumptions: that we can usefully generalize about all people, that it is logically coherant for strangers or society at large to attempt to value the activity of individuals, and that actions should be directed towards some commonly agreed upon goal. There are many cultures and philosophies out there that would reject such assumptions.
Effort in education and experiences can make all of your future time more valuable.
It depends how you choose to value your future time. Would you value it now, guessing at what you want in the future? Would you value it in the future, admitting that you may be totally ignorant of or worse - outright incorrect - about your future wants and needs, here and now?
If you go the defacto route of economic rationalism, then you'd usually be right (ie. 'education leads to more income' is still true in many circumstances, but more weakly of late) though one could draw in to question the associated costs in non-economically rationalizable experience, skill and thought, such as art and philosophy.
If you just relax about decisions in life, adding effort where curiosity deigns to dangle its carrot, would you be any worse off?
Smart children CAN get away with being lazy. For some that's true for years, for some it's true for decades.
One can under achieve until well into their thirties/forties and still make meaningful accomplishments.
What's mistaken about it?
A fair question. Paul Graham had something to say about this issue in his essay "What You'll Wish You'd Known" (January 2005).
http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
"Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
"Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
"I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."
In other words, if you are content with being mediocre, there is no problem with being lazy. Lots of people all over the world are lazy. But if want to accomplish something in life, don't rely on "genius" alone--roll up your sleeves and do plenty of work.
http://paulgraham.com/hs.html
"Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
"Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
"I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."
In other words, if you are content with being mediocre, there is no problem with being lazy. Lots of people all over the world are lazy. But if want to accomplish something in life, don't rely on "genius" alone--roll up your sleeves and do plenty of work.
What a great fucking quote. I remember being totally inspired by this essay. Makes me feel like my dreams are within my reach.
Ahh, youthful optimism! While work is obviously useful, the fact is, PG's business model relies on others doing lots and lots of work, very quickly, to get a good return on his capital. In reality, the hardest things to come up with may be the ideas, and he solicits those for free. It's a bit of scam, really. What holds true for some tiny percentage of people engaged in Silly-Valley startuppering is not that which holds true for most of us in most of our lives.
I don't quite see why the quote from PG doesn't hold true for the rest of the population. I've come to the personal conclusion that tokenadult's last paragraph holds true for everything in life. I don't believe life is deterministic as you seem to imply, that your genetic makeup and upbringing set in stone. I see it as more like a tree, even if a tree grows in wind and bends, you can always straighten it out (to a certain age/size), it's hard but not impossible.
In reality, the hardest things to come up with may be the ideas, and he solicits those for free. It's a bit of scam, really.
I don't understand how else an investor-founder relationship would work. Should he pay to listen to ideas/pitches before deciding whether or not to invest? Do you think NDAs should be the industry norm? Please elaborate.
In reality, the hardest things to come up with may be the ideas, and he solicits those for free. It's a bit of scam, really.
I don't understand how else an investor-founder relationship would work. Should he pay to listen to ideas/pitches before deciding whether or not to invest? Do you think NDAs should be the industry norm? Please elaborate.
Real discussions are bidirectional. By assuming a haughty 'we hold the cards' position, and soliciting info from those looking for funding, they often ask for lots of details before promising even a comment. A better service might provide a forum for Q&A in both directions before details were shared. Ideally, it would also be global, and take centralized parties out of the equation entirely.
You've misunderstood me. The part I've found motivating was that these seemingly amazing people are also regular people. I'm also more interested in bootstrapping my business without funding so I was never part of "PG's business model" as you would put it.
Cool. :)
Have you read "Outliers" from Malcolm Gladwell? There he was mentioning that most of the successful hockey players have a pattern in their birthdays and I found it quite similar:
"in any elite group of hockey players the very best of the best 40 percent of the players will have been born between January and March,30 percent between April and June, 20 percent between July and September, and 10 percent between October and December."
"The explanation for this is quite simple. It has nothing to do with astrology, nor is there anything magical about the first three months of the year. It's simply that in Canada the eligibility cut off for age class hockey is January 1. A boy who turns ten on January2, then, could be playing along side someone who doesn't turn ten until the end of the year and at that age, in preadolescence, a twelve month gap in age represents anenormous difference in physical maturity."
"in any elite group of hockey players the very best of the best 40 percent of the players will have been born between January and March,30 percent between April and June, 20 percent between July and September, and 10 percent between October and December."
"The explanation for this is quite simple. It has nothing to do with astrology, nor is there anything magical about the first three months of the year. It's simply that in Canada the eligibility cut off for age class hockey is January 1. A boy who turns ten on January2, then, could be playing along side someone who doesn't turn ten until the end of the year and at that age, in preadolescence, a twelve month gap in age represents anenormous difference in physical maturity."
This is very interesting to me because I had the opposite experience - my parents had me start school early. I went to a private grade school that allowed me to start kindergarten while still 4, a few weeks before my 5th birthday (I was born in mid-September).
I don't think it was an issue at all academically - I was able to skip another grade, starting 2nd grade at 5. However, the school and my parents decided to stop it at that point, which was probably a good idea. However, I ended up starting middle school at 9, high school at 12, and college at 16, which made things difficult socially. Although things worked out, being any younger would probably have been detrimental to the experience.
I don't think it was an issue at all academically - I was able to skip another grade, starting 2nd grade at 5. However, the school and my parents decided to stop it at that point, which was probably a good idea. However, I ended up starting middle school at 9, high school at 12, and college at 16, which made things difficult socially. Although things worked out, being any younger would probably have been detrimental to the experience.
You're saying you excelled academically despite always being the youngest? That's the point of the linked article.
My age was less of an issue at the grade school level, where students of multiple grade levels were in the same classroom (because it was a small school). However, things were not so easy socially once I moved to a public middle school, where everyone else in the classroom was of around the same age. The article refers to both social and academic benefits to being younger - my experience was the opposite for the former. Things were a lot easier when my classmates didn't know I was younger than them.
Similar experience. My parents enrolled me in a private kindergarten for a day so that they could re-enroll me in the public kindergarten on the grounds that I'd already been in kindergarten, so couldn't go to preschool. I turned out (academically) pretty good. In middle school, I was taking math classes with high schoolers (my public middle school and high school were merged), so that can maybe attest a little bit to the benefits of mixed-grades, in my case..
I like that story because my kid has such a birthday that will make us have to decide.
But it is a bit annoying that now there are conflicting statements: some research seems to claim the disadvantage of being the younger kid is statistically significant throughout the whole life (or at least university, not sure about jobs), and now this which claims the opposite.
I guess they cancel each other out. Perhaps it is best to not think about it at all and just let things run their "natural" course, and leave it to the kid to deal with whatever the world throws at him :-/
But it is a bit annoying that now there are conflicting statements: some research seems to claim the disadvantage of being the younger kid is statistically significant throughout the whole life (or at least university, not sure about jobs), and now this which claims the opposite.
I guess they cancel each other out. Perhaps it is best to not think about it at all and just let things run their "natural" course, and leave it to the kid to deal with whatever the world throws at him :-/
I wondered through the whole thing, could it simply be that the children who start late have had their education postponed? We already know a young brain is very impressionable, and that starting things like reading early is good for kids. So why shouldn't enrolling in primary school earlier also be better? As opposed to the child that languishes until they are 6 to start kindergarten.
Presumably, if the primary effect is having a slightly lower kid around, then younger siblings would also tend to outperform only children, or those with a sufficiently large gap to the next older sibling. Anyone know if there's any research on this?
In terms of birth order and IQ, the results show the opposite actually. Oldest children tend to have higher IQ's than their siblings, with the exception of youngest children when there's a large gap, who also show increased IQ.
I have a summer birthday, and our schools use a September cutoff, so my parents had me do kindergarten twice, so that I would be the oldest, rather than the youngest. Instead, I ended up skipping 1st grade after that, negating my age boost.
There is a whole chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers dedicated to this.
Youngest kid is smartest, oldest kid is smartest... as an only child I reckon I win either way.
did you read the article? It's about relative age in the classroom, not between siblings.
There was one full time teacher, and a second who was part time. That's actually a pretty good student to teacher ratio compared to the overfull classes of today.
Perhaps half the days activities were done in a single group and the other half we would be split in to two groups to do academic work.
I think that having mixed age group was very positive. It allowed kids to learn from the older ones but in addition everyone moved forward at their own pace. The school had to be designed to handle each student being at a different place in their education by it's very nature.
When I moved to a larger secondary school at age 11, I was miles ahead of my new peers. It was at least a couple more years before any of the content being taught caught up to what I had learned in primary school.