Thanks for that. I find the idea of a small effect to be totally plausible. But the results of the supposed study as described, in which one year of being treated as smart was able to turn dumb kids smart, and vice versa, along with the questionable ethics of allowing anyone to perform such a study in the first place, leads me to dismiss it as an urban myth until proven otherwise.
Don't know the study, but it seems worth pointing out that it probably didn't show dumb kids becoming smart and vice versa - it showed kids who were previously perceived as dumb to become perceived as smart, and vice versa.
I don't actually understand why it should be unethical? This happens all the time, at least in my country: pupils are sorted into different schools according to their perceived smartness (higher education or "lower" education). That might well be unethical, and such studies seem to be a good way to find out about it.
I don't actually understand why it should be unethical?
Because you are deliberately taking children identified as smart, and putting them in a group which is taught slowly, intending to slow them enough to see if they show up as dumb.
Essentially, wasting a year of their lives / schooling.
It's only unethical if you have hard data showing that one group would be poorly served by that division. You can't really get a read on that without doing these sorts of studies.
