
Educationism: A Hidden Bias We Often Ignore - andrewl
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171219-the-hidden-judgements-holding-people-back
======
ahartman00
This article did make some good points. But as a first generation college grad
who went to a good school, it also rubbed me the wrong way at times.

"It wasn’t so much overt stigma, but the hidden injuries of social class that
kept emerging – people kept having to explain themselves"

You're going to meet people from different backgrounds. You're going to have
to explain yourself to them. You're going to have to listen to them. I don't
know how many times I've had to explain that having your parents buy a $30,000
car isn't poor, just because peers got a $60,000 car. There are people whose
parents can't buy new cars. But that's the environment they grew up in, of
course they can't understand. I had a hard time imagining that an adult would
think buying a 16 year old a sports car is a good idea, given their higher
accident rates and poor decision making skills.

Are we really lowering the standard this much? You can't be expected to have
to meet people from different backgrounds? Which brings me to:

"If you have low expectations of the kids they'll sink to the level of
expectations"

Exactly. Maybe setting the expectations that they never feel uncomfortable,
never have their ideas challenged is a bad idea?? In the articles defense,
they did mention telling all kids to set their goals high.

"Bourdieu pointed to the fact that the education system was invented by the
ruling classes", "Here in Switzerland they abolished grades in one place but
there was an uprising mainly due to parents who all of a sudden couldn’t
figure out how their kids were doing"

Maybe I am reading too much into these quotes, but really? The article
mentions that education is linked to success, but also seems to try to paint
the picture that the ruling class invented education to keep the lower classes
down? And those evil parents, caring how their kids did in school? Can someone
tell me if I am misinterpreting these quotes?

~~~
throwanem
> also seems to try to paint the picture that the ruling class invented
> education to keep the lower classes down

In a word, yes. It's not the first time I've seen such an argument made; Gatto
(1) does so at considerably greater length and rather more forcefully,
motivated by his own experience as a teacher and finding considerable
substantiation in the published writings of many of those who worked to design
and implement education in the modern style.

The tl:dr; version might be that, in purpose, this modern reinvention of a
strictly regimented child-gardening scheme was of a piece with the Progressive
Era's many other enthusiastic attempts at methods of engineering a more
perfect society, and has proven to be no better advised or more humane than
any - that, having been given an ample period to prove its value and having,
at least in Gatto's judgment, signally failed to do so, the practice merits a
place alongside eugenics in the intellectual and moral junkyard.

I tend to agree, and to find myself reminded somewhat of that marvelous satire
of Progressive Era utopianism, _Brave New World_ , besides. But it would be
remiss of me not to note that my own experiences may have predisposed me to do
so, and to exert less effort than I otherwise might in seeking contradictory
evidence. From the sound of it, you are unlikely to harbor similar confounding
motivations, and I'd be most interested to hear your evaluation of Gatto's
rather sensationally named, but nonetheless substantial, work.

(1)
[https://archive.org/details/JohnTaylorGattoTheUndergroundHis...](https://archive.org/details/JohnTaylorGattoTheUndergroundHistoryOfAmericanEducationBook)

~~~
ahartman00
Wow, 440 pages, that is longer. I will try to respond back here, but it wont
be tonight or likely tomorrow. I see you have contact info, so I will be in
touch there.

"But it would be remiss of me not to note that my own experiences may have
predisposed me to do so, and to exert less effort than I otherwise might in
seeking contradictory evidence"

Refreshing to hear this :) Seems all to often people confuse their opinions
with facts. Looking forward to the discussion :) Some thoughts so far(page
10):

"an assistant principal screamed at her in front of an assembly, "BIANCA, YOU
ANIMAL, SHUT UP!"" ... "Do I make too much of this simple act of putting a
little girl in her place?" ... "I picture this animal Bianca grown large and
mean"

I think he does make too much of this. To put it simply, kids do not act in
their best interest. IIRC, they do not start really taking long term
consequences into account until 25 or so.

I remember hearing teachers tell kids they needed to try harder, and hearing
the kids say, "but Einstein didn't pay attention in school". Unfortunate as it
may be, and having known these kids since kindergarten, they are unlikely to
be Einsteins. There is a difference between being bored because of a lack of
challenge, and because they just want to play outside.

Now depending on what your view of a more perfect society is, this might be
irrelevant. But it would seem to me that without an education, our society
would be much more like animals. Between growing up in a rural area, and
nature documentaries, I have witnessed many animals disciplining their kids.
Why? Because they care more about play than finding food. So I am not seeing
the alternative here.

"understand the personality of your particular child or anything significant
about your family, culture, religion, plans, hopes, dreams"

A good teacher should try to learn about your kid. Easier said than done,
especially in larger schools. As for culture, while I agree that
multiculturalism is good, I see it like a Venn diagram. The differences are
important, as there might be better ways of doing something, inspiration from
one domain applied to another can yield breakthroughs. But there needs to be
something in common, so that we can understand one another. Otherwise it
breaks down into tribalism, which I believe to be much less perfect. That's
what the school system provides, a shared culture/experience.

"The cost in New York State for building a well-schooled child in the year
2000 is $200,000 per body when lost interest is calculated. That capital sum
invested in the child's name over the past twelve years would have delivered a
million dollars to each kid as a nest egg to compensate for having no school"

I believe it is well documented that a large portion of lottery winners end up
broke. Not understanding things like compound interest, inflation, or even
basic math would make it hard to use that $1mm effectively. While I would not
blame the 2008 financial crisis on lack of education entirely, I do think more
education could have averted that, or at least mitigated it. I'm not sure what
his point is here.

Okay, since this already got long, I plan to email you further.

~~~
ctchocula
One nitpick is that the $200k turning into $1M in 12 years is equivalent to
14% compounded annually. For context, the 90-year average annual growth of S&P
500 index before inflation (a commonly used standard benchmark) is only 9.8%
(I'm guessing they backtracked this number since S&P 500 has only existed for
60 years) [1]. In 12 years, the expected value of that $200k would only be
$614k. It's clear Gatto has cherrypicked his numbers by picking 1988 and 2000,
which marked one of the biggest bull markets in recent history is by no means
representative. What's more, the state can hardly be expected to invest in a
pension fund composed of 100% equity, 0% bonds, so the expected return would
likely be less than $614k.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/18/the-sp-500-has-already-
met-i...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/18/the-sp-500-has-already-met-its-
average-return-for-a-full-year.html)

~~~
throwanem
Gatto may have cherry-picked to enhance his argument, I can't say, but if so
it's severable - even the principal alone, even in unadjusted 2017 dollars,
would be enough to make a solid start in life, whichever route one chose, so I
think it's fair to consider that his point still stands.

------
h0l0cube
This article highlights some interesting studies I think people should be more
aware of, and a good defense of the argument that privilege compounds itself:

'“examiners” scored individuals lower on the same task when they were told
that the pupil came from a less privileged background.'

'Those who were told they were “low status individuals” performed worse on
both financial decisions and basic cognitive tasks.'

~~~
ashark
> '“examiners” scored individuals lower on the same task when they were told
> that the pupil came from a less privileged background.'

I'm not sure how well-backed-up the assertions actually were (I've not
followed up on the references) but the well-regarded and sometimes
recommended-on-this-very-site _Influence_ by Cialdini has a chapter on the
effects of appearance on others, and especially of wealth/class markers. In
particular, it claims a study was conducted that found that pretty much no-one
_thinks_ they would defer more readily, when driving, to an expensive-looking
car than a cheap-looking one, but _in fact_ people do (in this case, IIRC,
waiting longer for them to go after their light turns green before honking)
and to a _very_ large degree.

Apparently these kinds of results are pretty typical for research along those
lines, i.e. self-reported versus actual deference to people who simply _look_
rich/"classy"/powerful, even absent any directly-relevant hierarchy in the
equation (i.e. just strangers on otherwise equal footing).

------
hprotagonist
when i was about 11, i visited my distant cousins on their farm in southern
Illinois. My eldest cousin, about 30 at the time, was and is a high school
graduate who finished, turned around and went right back to work farming
cattle and corn.

i figured that 1. i was obviously hot shit at chess and 2. there was no way
this hayseed could possibly beat me.

when the inevitable humiliating defeat was meted out to me, i did not forget
it.

On the other side of the coin, i’m still trusting MDs with my medical
problems, not the guy down the street whose grandmother has strange ideas
about the curative power of crystals, prayer, and raw garlic enemas.

------
ageek123
The scary part is when enough politicians start believing this nonsense about
"ableism" and "educationism" that the government decides to forbid companies
from discriminating based on applicants' abilities. We're frighteningly close
to that point already with demands from activists that every possible group be
hired, paid, and promoted at exactly the same rate.

~~~
closeparen
That would be a silly reaction. A more reasonable one might be increased
support for progressive taxation/redistribution/social safety net, if we
consider one’s station in life to be more inherited than earned.

~~~
tomjen3
True, but politicians often make objectively silly arguments.

------
bearmobius
"A subtle form of discrimination exists towards those who are less educated
and it divides society in a number of ways."

Wrong - it's not always so subtle! For instance, there's widespread, _blatant_
discrimination against people lacking medical degrees for performing complex
surgical procedures. We should really work to correct this systemic bias for a
more equal and inclusive society.

/sarcasm

~~~
chongli
You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in
the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring
to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics.

Not letting someone without a medical degree practice medicine is
discrimination based on _relevant_ characteristics. Not letting a licensed
surgeon practice because he uses non-standard English in a way that marks him
as having an underprivileged background is discrimination based on irrelevant
characteristics.

Nobody is arguing that we should allow blind people to drive cars. However,
you'll face heavy resistance if you try to suggest that only people with a
university degree should be allowed to drive cars.

~~~
gizmo686
The problem is that there is no distinction of kind between these two types of
discrimination. The only difference is of accuracy.

For instance, say I am consciously biased against hiring black people because
I believe them to be generally less qualified. This is the same type of
discrimination as not hiring a credentialed doctor because I believe them to
be less qualified; not only difference that one of these beliefs is
_factually_ inaccurate. When you say that activists are only talking about the
"bad" discrimination, you implicitly sweep under the rug questions about the
factual basis for discrimination; and end up treating questions of fact as if
they were questions of morals.

Unfortunately, determining relevant characteristics is incredibly hard
(especially if people know what measures you use). Instead we use our
intuition and gut feeling. It is important to be aware of _inaccurate_
intuitions we have to improve our assesments. However, there is no easy way to
tell a-priori what discrimination is based on an accurate signal, and what
discrimination is not.

------
nitwit005
The intro example here is a bit confusing. It seems to suggest that the
student was less educated than the others, but presumably he had roughly the
same education level as the other new students. He just came from a poor
background, and had an accent. That seems more like conventional class
discrimination.

------
digi_owl
The worst element of this is the idea that seemed to wash over the European
labor parties in the 80s. That all social ills can be solved with a more
educated populous.

End result was that said parties has taken a more rightward turn in their
policies, and are only just starting to maybe realize their folly.

------
Rubinsalamander
If you have a Bias about something you dont have to "spend" as much brainpower
to reach a conclusion. Its what allows us to function in our life because
thinking everything over again would be too taxing. We would get nothing done.
So we rely on social cues(thats the way most people do it...) our own
experience in the past( biased data..) to make decisions.

So biases are kind of the necessary. But in some instances the extra effort
for unbiased decisions is worth it. Ignoring "Educationism" as a recruiter
should be one of it. But to eradicate a bias is kind of Impossible. Its just
possible to change or replace it with another one.

------
nugi
A poorly written article for a real issue is frankly, a disservice. Luckily,
skill based hiring is quite common, at least in most 'hands on' industries.

~~~
intopieces
Where in the article is hiring mentioned?

------
anabis
Its called "学歴主義" in Japan, and talked about a lot here (565,000 hits on
Google vs 9,000 for "Educationism")

One of the most egregious example is that when scheduling for a job interview
via Web form, when you graduated from a low-ranked university its always
"schedule full". This is called "学歴フィルター(filter)."

------
aportnoy
Who said bias is bad?

~~~
throwanem
I mean sure, if you're not interested in accurately perceiving reality so as
to act most effectively in the world and thus discharge the responsibility a
share in which you inherited just as we all do, why care?

------
ghostcluster
> A new report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology named the term
> “educationism”

More shoddy activism handwaving as 'science' for media attention and social
policy change.

Coin a term for an "effect" with shoddy research meant to advance your
poltical ideology. See: Stereotype threat, implicit bias. Sounds suspiciously
close to "scientism" as well.

> the education system is “motivated to maintain the status quo” – where the
> children of highly-educated parents go to university, while children with
> less exposure to education go into vocational training or apprenticeships

This whole article is thinly veiled political ideology mixed with pop
psychology BS. It's a charade.

> “It wasn’t so much overt stigma, but the hidden injuries of social class
> that kept emerging"

Uh huh.

~~~
549362-30499
> Uh huh.

You're casually dismissing a reference to a pretty well known and important
work in sociology: [https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Injuries-Class-Jonathan-
Cobb/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Injuries-Class-Jonathan-
Cobb/dp/039331085X)

I'm happy to buy a copy for you if you send me your address and promise to
read it!

~~~
chewxy
Ooh can I get one? I promise to read it and review it on my blog

~~~
throwanem
Email me at either of the addresses in my profile to let me know where you'd
like it shipped.

(eta: Also, have a look at the book linked from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16007116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16007116),
which is probably more on point to the subject of this thread. The next person
I talk to who's also read it will be the first, and as I describe there, I'm
interested to hear what others with an interest in the subject at hand think
of it, too.)

