
Genetics outweighs teaching, Gove adviser tells his boss - auggierose
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/11/genetics-teaching-gove-adviser
======
sentenza
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
> 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
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.

------
threeseed
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
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
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
Ideally you don't decide anything. You just give them the tools, and see what
they do with it.

~~~
jiggy2011
But how do you know what to teach and grade students on?

~~~
auggierose
I could imagine that something not unsimilar to how optimization algorithms
work. You start with all student doing the same material, and then you supply
the students with the amount and kind of material that suits them. Ideally,
you don't grade at all.

~~~
jiggy2011
How do you decide which material suits which students the best? What they
enjoy the most?

If you have a class of 20 , how can you teach 20 different curriculum?

~~~
auggierose
That's where computerised tools come in. You can give the students tasks to
do, the computer supervises how these tasks are completed, and suggests new
tasks to do depending on how previous tasks were handled. The task of the
teacher would then be that of a supervisor rather than that of an instructor.

------
wisty
> "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
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.

~~~
threeseed
> We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly.

This statement reminds me a lot of the movie Gattaca.

One should never discount the importance of ambition, work ethic and passion.

~~~
cliveowen
First of all thank you for bringing up the movie, I've seen it as a kid and
I've been wondering ever since what was the title, since I only remembered
bits. This movie has literally been bugging me for years, now I can finally
see it again.

That said, ambition, work ethic and passion are also important, but they're a
product of genetics too.

Take two guys, one is smart and spends his days trying to solve complex
problems, while the second one is just as smart but spends his days on
Netflix. What's the difference between the two? Mostly dedication, but what
provides the former with it? Yep, genetics.

~~~
honzzz
I think both extremes are bad. Ignoring genetics would be wishful thinking but
ascribing things like dedication to genetics? We already know how strongly
nurture affects motivation, work habits, self-control etc. Even genetic
potential for intelligence can be fostered or inhabited by (lack of) nurture.

~~~
cliveowen
Read my other answer to threeseed, who brought up a similar point.

------
johnchristopher
> 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
The entire paper (which includes references) is also available there, here is
a direct link:

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/dominic-
cummings-michael-gove-thoughts-education-pdf)

~~~
spindritf
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/8043...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/804396/some-
thoughts-on-education-and-political.pdf)

(The PDF also has clickable links, and lots of them, if anyone wants to chase
down the sources.)

------
thaumasiotes
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
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
Yes, I know. Why is the reform movement unified as to pre-college, but not as
to college?

------
pesenti
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
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
You are right. I should have written "Part of the UK system".
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_Engl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England).
But the point remains.

------
dasil003
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_
Yet brains of geniuses are physically different than those of ordinary men.

------
ekm2
"It is genetic" is the secular version of "because the Lord said so".It helps
explain anything we have no clue about.

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

~~~
DanBC
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-
gov...](http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/18/michael-gove-exams-
gcse-schools))

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-
thermo...](https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/newton-
thermodynamics-boyles-law-and-the-basics-a-lesson-for-michael-gove/)

~~~
auggierose
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.

------
PLejeck
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.

~~~
msohcw
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.

~~~
fit2rule
The point is, how does it help a person improve themselves if the entire
society is designed to reinforce the view that you can't help being dumb,
because your Dad was, so therefore .. why try?

Genetics isn't good for anyone but bigots and haters. There is absolutely
_nothing_ useful in the Genetics movement for the common man - fact is, the
entire movement to categorize humans genetically is a corporate one, with the
intent of providing insight into the nature of the consumers the corporations
paying for these studies wish to acquire as willing - or even unwilling -
subjects in their empire.

