

Why Do We Expect So Little of Our Youth? - yo-mf
http://bch.me/P6uJlW

======
fusiongyro
The dichotomy between STEM and liberal arts isn't real. For some reason we
declare some kids math-oriented and some art-oriented, but it's bullshit. I
have a nephew who loves computers and reads three grades higher than he
should, and a nephew who is two grades higher at math and can't use them at
all. The one wants to be a programmer, the other a veterinarian. To them,
there is no STEM/liberal-arts dichotomy--they will be taught that by some
well-meaning adult idiot. Kids don't emerge from the womb as STEM or liberal
arts; they have a variety of strengths and can learn any subject with enough
time and energy.

The idea that you can appreciate a complex metaphor in a poem or a complex
philosophical concept but not solve for x is absurd. It's fashionable to be
bad at math and lots of people indulge in the fashion. The proper tool to
address this problem is shame coupled with better education. When your niece
tries to be cute by saying she's too pretty for math, you give her the
disdainful disappointed look that says this shit won't fly and then ask her
what she's having trouble with.

Teaching and learning are hard. We keep looking for a simple way out of doing
it. Maybe if we teach less of this and more of that, remove this requirement,
write this software, etc, it'll be easy. In reality, it's just like diet and
exercise. In America, we want a magic pill, but the truth is that some things
are just hard. The sooner we stop complaining and start doing, the better off
we'll be.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Math and science are taught extremely poorly in our schools. It's mostly a
matter of memorization (often of trivia rather than fundamentals), plug-and-
chug, and rote busywork.

~~~
njs12345
Liberal arts teaching is hardly brilliant for many either, although teachers
have a fair bit more leeway..

------
PaulHoule
The big problem with the liberal arts is the subjectivity of grading.

The algorithm that works best in the liberal arts is "guess what the teacher
wants to hear and say it."

The horrible truth is that this is an unreasonably effective algorithm for
functioning in management. At worst, it's used by scam artists like Madoff and
Ken Lay. Many executives have left a trail of destruction, moving from one
company to another just before reality sets in.

If there's any attribute that will cause mankind to end up like the dinosaurs,
it's like this. It's got everything to do with our inability to deal with
problems like global warming and it drives the everyday mediocrity that drags
us down.

Back in college I remember some of the humanities profs were known to be
liberal and others were conservative. Students who had different politics
frequently believed they weren't graded fairly.

The mediocracy hates STEM and has waged a war against math because, often, we
can say results in STEM are objectively right or wrong.

For instance, one time I pointed out an error that a math prof made on the
board and he was happy to be corrected -- it's a bit of evidence that he's
succeeding at his job. But after class, a student told me he was shocked that
I'd been arrogant enough to think the teacher was wrong!

On the other hand, if you don't agree with what a humanist says about
Shakespeare, for instance, she might reply that "different people can believe
different things" or she can be bullheaded and not admit the subjective
element.

I remember having a English teacher in high school who was the most respected,
but I couldn't get better than a "D" in her class because she thought I
couldn't write.

A few years later I had a strech when I got most of my income from writing and
copy editing so there.

~~~
rdtsc
> The big problem with the liberal arts is the subjectivity of grading.

I think you are doing it some disservice. Critically analyzing a piece of
literature is similar to deconstruction a programming puzzle. It involves
finding patterns & relations between characters and events. It involves
summarizing and breaking your ideas in sections.

Even for something as ridiculously subjective as art, you can still have a
formalized course. Ask students to set a goals or make a proposal of what they
want to accomplish, then grade them on how well they accomplished that.

> Back in college I remember some of the humanities profs were known to be
> liberal and others were conservative.

In my American college (certainly a mediocre school, not a fancy shmancy Ivy
League) I had most professors behave rationally. Even the super liberal
feminist professors graded fairly those that wrote well research and well-
thought out paper. So that is mostly about bad professors than it is
necessarily about some fundamental flaw in the subjects.

On anther level I agree. There are too many students going into those fields
expecting to eventually get jobs in that field. That will just not happen. I
think someone needs to sit down and have a chat with them.

~~~
PaulHoule
I agree with you that there's a lot of value in writing, literature, reading
critically and all that. There's value in formal courses too.

On the other hand, school teaches bad lessons as well as good.

------
lkrubner
My girlfriend is from Poland, and the educational system there is different,
compared to the USA. When she went to college, she did a 5 year program that
left her with a degree that is normally translated into the USA system as a
masters degree. Her focus was Polish literature.

When she got to the USA, she did a 2nd degree, this time in marketing. She was
surprised by the USA system, in particular, the number of courses that she had
to take that had nothing to do with marketing. She tells me that in Poland
general purpose "learn a little bit about everything" classes end with high
school. Once you go to college, the assumption is that you are becoming a
specialist in a particular field, and all of your education goes to that
specialty. Computer programmers are not forced to take literature classes, nor
are those studying literature forced to take math classes.

I have the impression that in the USA, the universities are used to fix what's
often seen as a broken K-12 educational system. We know that many young people
arrive at college with educational deficiencies, therefore we load up the next
4 years with all the stuff they should have learned during their K-12 years.
If they want to become specialists in something, well, that is what graduate
school is for, after they turn 21.

I am generally impressed with what comes out of the Polish system. I've had a
chance to work with Polish programmers, and they were very good, at very young
ages. And, likewise, those who study Polish literature seem to understand it
deeply, having spent 5 years reading all the classics (without the distraction
of having to take unrelated classes).

I think the USA would be wise to fix its K-12 system, and then allow colleges
to be places where people can specialize in what they want.

~~~
streptomycin
FWIW, Poland and the USA get very similar results from their K-12 systems,
both rank quite well compared to the average OECD country:
<http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf>

For some reason there is a perception that American schools are failing, but I
don't see it in the data.

~~~
rdtsc
The perception is vis-a-vis the perception of economic, social and political
status.

Continuing with the pun on the title, everyone expects more from America and
America in turn also expects more from itself. When they hear "FWIW, Poland
and the USA get very similar results from their K-12 systems" they can say "Oh
good for Poland. This used to be a communist country and now it is as good as
US in Education" or they can also say "Holy crap. America is now on par with
an Eastern European country that was ruled by communists just couple of
decades ago, how sad, we could do some much better".

Now, note, I don't endorse this binary view. I want all the countries to have
good education, especially my country.

Also, I grew up in Eastern Europe and can also say that my high-school
education there emphasized math, physics, literature and English (or other
foreign language) a lot more than my American high-school (I also went to an
American high-school for a one year btw, so I can compare a bit). I came to US
in the 10th grade and was taking math courses along with high-school seniors
and tutoring them. I was only above average at home in those subjects.

Overall, what I think works well for US high-schools:

* Kids have a choice already to specialize because they can each take an individualized curriculum. Some took more literature and English some took more physics. That's great.

* Frequent and objective testing. A lot of objective testing and quizzes. Keeps you on pace.

* More approachable and more informal teachers. Teachers that care seem to be really good. Yeah there are the ones that don't. But I noticed in my other high school even teachers that cared acted pretty un-approachable and just showed their care by signing you up for math and physics contests (Olympiads) we call them.

What doesn't work well for US high-schools:

* Too many what I see pointless after-school activities, too much emphasis on sports. Are all these kids going to become professional athletes. So why are they spending all afternoons bumping into each other at high speeds and getting injured.

* Social scene is fucked up and detracts from learning. Because there are so many activities and so much individualized choice on what classes to take. People form cliques and end up being not very approachable. There isn't a group of people you get to know and spend your whole day and years with. There was just less drama and mental effort spent on who is friends with whom and who cheated on whom.

* Too much emphasis on passive media aids (video) for teaching. There was a lot of "here watch this video kids".

* Too much emphasis on group projects. On a certain meta level they are great because it teaches everyone how group function and don't function. How to take advantage of others and how others get to take advantage of you. There were very few times when groups are evenly matched and everyone puts a fair share of work and end up with a great result.

What doesn't work well for East European high-schools:

* Corruption to the core. Everyone cheats. Teachers take bribes. Principles take bigger bribes. Kids cheat from each other. Those that don't cheat get left behind because those that cheat make the exams and test look like a piece of cake, so those get harder and harder ("Oh so it looks like everyone in this 10th grade knows about derivatives so well. Let's bring on the double integrals then!")

~~~
hetman
I find it odd that you've decided to equate communism with poor education. The
Soviets put the first man in space, I'd say they must have been doing
something right (edit: I should add they were still doing plenty wrong
elsewhere but we're only talking education here). Having the resources to
apply that education is a whole other matter of course.

Having said that, Poland is hardly a typical example of an ex-communist
country here, they always tended to have fairly high education standards. Of
the former communist states in the OECD stats linked by parent, they lead the
pack with only Estonia slightly ahead.

~~~
rdtsc
I am not personally equating it. If you actually read my post you'll see that
science and math were emphasized more in a Soviet-influenced area. What I was
talking about is perceptions. That is how people in America (mostly) see that
part of the world.

------
hetman
I suspect a lot of these issues have a deeper cause and one that might be
summarised rather simply: there is an assumption teenagers are incapable of
contributing to society. This is not an original idea but I wonder if it gets
enough notice. I would argue this problem is worse in the West (at least this
seems to be in line with my own experience).

It doesn't take much to put together the pieces. With increasing affluence,
parents were given a greater opportunity to protect their children from the
realities of life. It is clear that children are not always capable of facing
real life challenges. However, the age for just when they are ready for many
of them, seemed to gradually shift further and further. (Something that was no
doubt encouraged by the longer periods of time required to complete the
education for many vocations.)

Until we arrive at the present day. Teenagers are more or less assumed to be
parasites on society, incapable of true contribution to it. Until, that is,
they are magically transformed at the arbitrarily chosen 18 year mark into
full fledged members of society.

I would argue that all this impacts how we teach kids in schools today.
Instead of introducing them to truely independently useful skills, there is an
uspoken rule that they aren't actually capable of anything useful just yet.
Instead we play pretend, teach them some ideas that might one day lead to
something useful, and expect they'll be satisfied with the experience.
Highschools often cram kids' heads full of mundane method after mundane
method, with little explanation as to how they work or why they are relevant.
There is a litany of seemingly random factoids to be memorised. Abstract
thinking is a lofty skill reserved for the adults and we needn't waste our
time trying to evoke anything of the sort with these kids.

So yes, in a way I think our expectations of what our kids are capable of, do
need to change. Not only on a superficial level where we just get them to work
harder within the existing broken system. But a new approach is required where
their full potential can be challenged.

It's easy to make such grandiose sweeping statements of course, but I maintain
one of the keys is not stopping short with purely theoretical methods but
extending them to practical realities. Yes, that is more challenging. Let's
stop assuming that the challenge is out of grasp for these young people.

~~~
godarderik
That's really interesting, I had never really thought about it like that
before. Can you elaborate a little more about your in experience in the West
versus somewhere else?

While I do agree this is an issue, how would you actually go about solving it?
I mean, what useful contribution can someone make in math without having
learned algebra first? You need to start with the fundamentals before you can
do actually important things. In fact, it seems that the ability to suck it up
and "just do it" without any immediate gratification is what sets other
cultures apart with respect to education.

One area where I think young people can do potentially important things is
with computers, especially with programming. With only a small base of
knowledge, it is possible to do many original and useful things. When I was
15, I wrote apps that were used by hundreds on thousands of people, and I
don't think it requires any special talent.

~~~
gizmo686
They don't necessarily need to do something productive for society, but they
can still 'create'. For example, my early math classes were designed around
questions. When we came into the room we would break up into groups, and spend
the first half of (the 90 minute) class trying to answer between 1 and 5
problems, after which their was a class discussion on the problems and any
tangents they lead to, and they teacher may, or may not, point out things we
missed.

------
TimPC
A newspaper or blog post is probably the wrong medium for this question. It's
one I explored in detail when I was evaluating an opportunity in the education
space between September and January. There are a variety of big problems in
the education space, most of which centre around the problems of bureaucracy.
Here the fundamental issue is that it's extremely difficult for school boards
that are offering the same salary scale to everyone regardless of
skills/subjects (which is the norm in Canada and much of the U.S.) to get
similar levels of teaching talent for subjects that are highly in demand. This
tends to lead to a notion of progress that involves reducing the math
curriculum to the point where the "math" teachers you have can actually teach
it well. This is often spun as giving everyone more opportunity for success or
presented as innovation to curriculum, and many buy into that spin. The answer
of teaching better is the best solution when it's actually possible, but the
combination of convincing government to spend it, and convincing the unions to
allow it to be spent well is nearly impossible. The net result is something
similar to the system we have. Perhaps worst of all, entrepreneurs get scared
away from the space because there isn't anything worse than dealing with
enterprise style sales processes for sales numbers that simply are not.

------
borplk
The biggest hurdle in U.S. and western education that I see, especially with
maths and engineering is this strange culture of nerd stereotype and 'too
pretty for math/homework' etc... I just can't figure it out. I'lived in other
eastern countries where these stereotypes are non-existent and not so
surprisingly, over there, you see many pretty girls who are exceptional
mathematicians and programmers and they aren't considered strange or special.

------
j_baker
This entire post seems to be predicated on an invalid premise: Math is hard
and liberal arts is easy. There are certainly some liberal arts majors that
are easy blowoff majors. But there are also plenty of very challenging liberal
arts majors.

Rather than make this a simplistic question of "Should we challenge our kids
or not?", we should be asking the question "What should we challenge our kids
with?". And it's not clear to me that every liberal arts major _needs_ a good
algebra foundation. So why not replace it with something equally challenging
that will be more useful to the students?

~~~
philwelch
> Rather than make this a simplistic question of "Should we challenge our kids
> or not?", we should be asking the question "What should we challenge our
> kids with?". And it's not clear to me that every liberal arts major needs a
> good algebra foundation.

It doesn't have to be algebra specifically, though algebra is probably the
most immediately applicable and simplest set of mathematical concepts to
teach. It's a more general sense, that those who are comfortable with
mathematical concepts are better at constructing abstract ideas that are
rigorous and consistent, which is generally a positive virtue in liberal arts.
For instance, this is what distinguishes the logic-driven analytic school of
philosophy from the hand wavy and largely meaningless wasteland of continental
philosophy whence postmodernism was born.

Liberal arts is indeed challenging-- _if you do it right_. Not doing it right
is the problem though, and it arises from from letting bullshitters pass
themselves off as people making an honest attempt. This goes all the way from
the top down in some fields, but less so in others.

------
JamesLeonis
I remember poignantly an argument I had with my cousins about education. They
themselves are teachers, two elementary and one specializes teaching kids with
special needs. All of them are extremely dedicated and very passionate (to the
point of tears) about learning and teaching. They love their jobs and the kids
they work with.

The argument I had was that it wasn't teachers that were the problem. It was
the institution of education that allows the problems we see. Unfortunately
for my cousins and I that I was too inarticulate in showing them they weren't
the problem.

Ken Robinson did my thoughts far more justice in his TED video about education
paradigms [1]. To summarize, why do we educate our children along a yearly
conveyor belt with compartmentalized subjects and standardized testing? The
whole system mimics the factory assembly lines, complete with specializations
and quality assurance.

We allow process to educate children instead of people. We can effectively
replace any teacher with another and our expectations and the system itself
doesn't change in any meaningful way. We squash the organic and relational
learning with rote memorization and rigid structure. We don't foster curiosity
or exploration. We value conformity to structure and authority. There isn't
any opportunity for kids to "scratch their itch" unless it falls within the
existing structure.

I do have hope for the future. Places like Khan and Wikipedia allow for the
curious exploration of subjects, and the Internet allows for participation and
dialog that weren't available a few decades ago. I believe we are waking up to
a different paradigm of learning that has the ability to transform education
from it's Industrial Revolution roots. I also believe this will give
passionate teachers, like my cousins, the freedom from the rigid structure
that allows them to foster the natural interests of their pupils.

If we allow this form of organic learning, then Standardization is effectively
impossible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. This gives more flexibility to
tailor the education to the kids' interests. However this means we will have
to accept that some people will want to grow their kids in ways that are hard
to swallow. Creationism comes to mind. I don't have a good idea how to counter
this.

[1]:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_par...](http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html)

------
adrianbravo
> Our schools are not failing students because they are too hard. They fail
> because few schools expect anything from their students and shy away from
> challenging their minds.

I think this is close to the mark, albeit vague. Challenging their minds in
what way? Such a statement could be misinterpreted as, "We need more rigorous
test standards!" or some other specific solution that does not necessarily
meet the goal.

From personal experience, for classes other than upper-level math at my
college, people would constantly ask questions like, "Is this going to be on
the test?"

And I was always annoyed by that. It seemed indicative of the meaninglessness
of our education, and I can see why math classes are so difficult for people
who learn this pattern rather than the subjects. I don't know how different it
is at Ivy League or other schools perceived as high in quality, but when the
majority of testing is multiple-choice, true-false, or fill-in-the-blank, it
becomes easy to look at everything you learn as a task of rote memorization.
It's like that saying: when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The difference with math that makes it so "hard" is you often can't rely on
rote memorization. You have to actually learn the material (or understand
algorithms and memorize steps to finding solutions with different initial
conditions). People get discouraged (probably early on) by the fact that the
skills they use for academic success elsewhere do not always work with math,
and I think they associate those negative emotions with "math is hard."

I don't know the solution, but I think people need to at least realize that
rote memorization is not indicative of learning. It's an uncomfortable
realization because so many of our metrics for academic success rely on the
assumption that memorization equals learning or understanding.

Of course, that's unlikely. The status quo is always easier. Why do we expect
so little from adults?

------
JacksonGariety
Both articles are wrong. One makes the point that art should scaled down and
math should be scaled up, while the other argues that math is holding back art
and should be scaled the opposite direction.

Both are wrong. Math and art are one and the same. Yes, this article in the
link was correct that the problem lies in our education system, but there is
no distinction between math and art. Our math just isn't applied enough or
taught correctly, so students miss out on a true understanding of how math
works. Look at da Vinci, that is a man who made no distinction between math
and art.

~~~
gizmo686
Saying there is no distinction between art and math is like saying there is no
distinction between art and sculptury. Yes it is a type of art, but is is a
highly distinct skill set from painting. Of course the way math is taught is
about as much art as a coloring book, with a well defined key.

------
aakil
I don't agree that we need "less liberal arts degrees" but having more
stringent STEM courses that push students to excel is never a bad thing. Bill
Gates used to say "smart people go where the money is" and so if by the
author's assertion that the new economy needs people who are good at math,
then the market will reward those people and the system will change to focus
on math skills. This does not mean that liberal arts degrees are useless as
the best innovations usually come at the intersection of liberal arts and STEM
fields.

------
kenster07
I think what many fail to see is that the problem does not necessarily begin
with the education system. It begins with the popular culture.

In those countries where doing well in school is almost certainly the
difference between a decent life and a really bad life, there is a different
mentality at play than in America, where even if one goes to a middle tier
college, they can probably still lead a relatively comfortable life.

The second issue is that everyone in our society is encouraged to become a
scholar and intellectual. While noble in its intent, society may very well be
better off with a system like Germany, where many attend vocational schools
and learn a craft that can have a real effect on the economy.

------
bpyne
"What creates wide gaps in achievement in math (and many other subjects) in
minority students is lower expectations for success."

I found this sentence frustrating. It was simple-minded to an extreme, neatly
finding a solution to fit all minorities.

Minorities in the middle class, e.g., may have a completely separate set of
problems from minorities in poverty circumstances. Recent immigrant minorities
may face a different set of circumstances from second, third, fourth, etc.
generation minorities.

The author's message is essentially "try harder, think positive".
Unfortunately it does not address the different nuances of being a minority.

------
sopooneo
"What creates wide gaps in achievement in math (and many other subjects) in
minority students is lower expectations for success." And then it links to
[http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/feb0...](http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/feb04/vol61/num05/-Closing-the-Minority-Achievement-Gap-in-
Math.aspx)

But to attribute the entire discrepancy to lower expectations baffles me. How
is it that so many people are so _confident_ in their various contradictory
theories surrounding educational outcomes?

------
oneandoneis2
Seems like somebody who'd enjoy reading "A Mathematician's Lament"

