I love this story. Very inspiring and it gives me hope that perhaps the education system in this country can still be fixed through innovation, hard work, and the investment of people who care more about results and making a difference than they care about how much they care (or how much they appear to care, but I digress).
I feel like most of the people on this site who think that the university system is obsolete and who think that college is overrated don't understand how privileged their perspective is. If you grew up middle class and came from a family where most people went to college, or even just a family where going to college wasn't looked down upon, then yeah, there are a lot of other paths that could work out just as well for you, from traveling to starting a company to self-learning to joining the military. Whatever. But severely underprivileged kids don't skip college because of their other options and because they think it's not the best way to learn. They skip it because the idea of college is foreign to the point of being laughable. Because bettering oneself hasn't been taught. Because education isn't valued. Sadly, for some people in these subcultures, higher education is not only ignored, but viewed with suspicion or even scorn.
The entire trajectory of these kids lives will be changed forever because they earned the right to go to college. The mere fact that the education system in this country enables that means that we're still doing something right.
I can't speak for everyone here who criticizes the credential-based university system, but you have actually touched on one of the reasons I do that. Credentialism creates artificial, unnecessary barriers that hurt the poor even more than it hurts the middle class.
You are looking at a story about a few of the "lucky" ones and declaring the system a success. What the story doesn't mention is the incredible damage credentialism causes in the first place.
Interesting...can you expound on this? Specifically on the "credentials" portion...are you talking about the granting of degrees, the barriers to entry to starting a university, or the barriers to attend university?
All of the above, combined with the legal privileges conferred on holders of credentials, which necessarily result in legal barriers for those without credentials.
Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability) that is encouraged throughout society, which adds more obstacles even where legal barriers don't exist.
While this hurts everyone, the poor are especially affected because it's more difficult for them to obtain credentials. Offering more and more state assistance to try to help them obtain credentials is akin to holding someone's head underwater and providing some dirty air once in a while.
>Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability)
Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability. A company looking for new hires can't give everyone a month-long trial to see what their ability is firsthand, so credentials like GPA and degree serve as a heuristic. It's not a perfect system, and in some respects you could even call it broken...but until someone comes up with a better way for companies to work out who to interview, it's necessary. Personally, I think it would be better to fix the problems than to remove the system entirely.
Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability.
Sure, that's the idea, but they're not. I'm not saying people should use any one system to evaluate people, but a variety of different ones instead. The one-size-fits-all approach is inherently broken and extremely expensive to boot.
I disagree with you. They may be a noisy measure, but they are not meaningless. If I have ten technical positions, and for each one I interview someone from MIT and someone with a two-year degree from community college, I'm pretty sure that at least 9 of those 10 positions are better filled by a MIT grad.
OK, but the fact that you said, "at least 9 of those 10" instead of "10 out of 10" suggests that we're not really disagreeing. I'm not saying they're completely meaningless, but they are extremely noisy, to use your term, and very expensive to obtain, in terms of time and money.
Don't focus too much on the S/N analogy. Remember, a legal barrier is equivalent to a claim of 100% accuracy, so even 90% (which wasn't my number, anyway) is terrible. What he and I apparently agree on is that the accuracy is less than 100%.
How is it a legal barrier? He's free to hire someone with the CC degree, or no degree at all. Degrees serve as an indication of knowledge (not to mention commitment), just like experience, test scores, or any other means of evaluating someone's merit. And I don't know anyone who thinks that a degree from any school is 100% proof of anything. It's just an indicator.
I think it's ridiculous to think that utopia is a world in which credentials are ignored. And they're only part of what helps people get jobs...this argument is like saying that we shouldn't use interviews for jobs because some people aren't very friendly and are therefore at a disadvantage.
The actual problem is not credentialism per se, but legal credentialing requirements that are pushed by the professional lobbies for the purpose of creating artificial barriers to entry.
For instance, lawyers used to be able to pass the bar and become a lawyer by simply self-studying and passing the tests. The bar associations wanted to raise the barriers to entry to the profession, so they passed laws requiring a Law school degree. Students then started taking correspondence courses. The bar associations then changed the accreditation rules to mandate a minimum amount of classroom face time. These artificial credentialing laws ended up hurting the poor. Because before a student could study with books from a library card and become a lawyer. Now he must pay a very expensive tuition bill. Also, the artificial barriers to entry drive up wages for the credentialed professions, which means everyone has to pay more for doctors, legal help, etc.
Something like 30% of all jobs in the United States now have a legal credentialing requirement. Other companies are forced to use college attendance as a proxy for IQ tests, simply because the Supreme Court made it illegal to use IQ tests in hiring.
Again, I'm saying that actual ability is more important than credentials, not that credentials will be completely ignored. As for legal barriers, it looks like bokonist has already addressed that here.
"A company looking for new hires can't give everyone a month-long trial to see what their ability is firsthand, so credentials like GPA and degree serve as a heuristic."
This is just corporate propaganda. GPA has no correlation with work performance, it's only used because it's a legal way to keep minorities out of the workforce.
I'd like to see some reliable studies to back up this statement. I don't see how this could be true when adjusted for variations in programs and schools. If I'm hiring twenty programmers from the same school who graduated from the same program at the same time, you're telling me that if I hire 10 people who barely graduated with a 2.0 GPA and ten people who busted their ass and graduated with a 4.0 GPA, the first group won't outperform the latter? Why would that be true?
It's only used because it's a legal way to keep minorities out of the workforce.
Bullshit. Corporations don't give two shits if there are minorities working for them, as long as they're making them money. This sounds like a viewpoint that drove whatever study came to the conclusion in the first part of your sentence, if there even was such a study.
My mother was a schoolteacher in the '30s - in a one-room schoolhouse - teaching all elementary grades. She didn't have a college degree - but her students all learned to read, write, and do arithmetic.
After working as a secretary in New York during WW II, she got married, had kids, and when we were all in school, wanted to go back to teaching. Unfortunately, by then that required a college degree in education, which she was unable to acquire (financial difficulties after my parents split). She ended her working career as the secretary to the director of special education (who had an EdD) for a small school district. The irony of that was that she had to write all his correspondence for him, as he was incapable of composing a coherent paragraph. I'd submit that it's possible the kids in that school district would have been better served if he was the janitor, and she a teacher or administrator.
I'd love to see a "five years later" kind of study on these kids.
Are these kids going to do better than other kids who made it into college from relatively harsh backgrounds?
Are these kids going to keep their good work ethic when the teachers in college don't care about them?
I wonder if getting into college has become the goal for the students like it has for the teacher/principal at their high school. If I had to guess: I expect the results to be quite polarized: some kids will drop out and accomplish little, others will keep their work ethic and do well.
Children come into this world innocent. They don't know what to admire or even what inspiration is. If our society valued education and encouraged reading books and learning and building the mind, then that's what children would do.
More than anything, children want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged. They'll do anything you ask if you love them for doing it. They don't know anything else.
Hey no offense but I'm guessing that you haven't spent very much time interacting with children that aren't your own. In my experience children lie and dissemble and deceive before they learn to talk. Think about all of the crying and malingering they do to manipulate adults into giving them food or anything else that they happen to want. Think about the vicious competitiveness of every sibling rivalry. They do want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged as you say, but they are perfectly capable of figuring out their own ways of getting these things - and are often willing to bend the rules if they are not disciplined.
I can't disagree with you more. I have spent time around other parents' children. Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents. Many of them are dismayed that the world treats them poorly because of their parents' bad behavior.
Lying is a natural. It is a gift that humans and few other species share. Every child that matures into a capable adult learns how to lie. They experiment with lying. They test their ability to lie. Children who don't learn to lie are emotionally and intellectually stunted.
It is effective parenting that instills in the child the knowledge that lying is only so effective. It gets you some distance, but when the lie is discovered you crash. People distrust you. They won't help you when you need it. Honesty has value as well.
If parents give in to the lies, because they lack the courage to punish them, the child pays the price later in life. If parents don't teach their children that lies and dishonesty have negative consequences, and if lies are continually rewarded, then that's what the child is going to learn best.
Parents who reward lies are doing their children a great disservice as well as the world who has to tolerate them as they grow up.
"Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents."
Huh? Do you have any hard data to back up this bizarre proposition? Certainly everything I've ever experienced speaks rather forcefully against it. The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation, not to be encouraged or preserved.
Methinks you are confusing the reality of children with what you wish or imagine children are. There is a reason "acting like a child" is not a compliment.
The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation
I think the problems you mention are largely caused by today's school environments, not cured by them.
there was a video on the news the other day that some kids with cell phones had recorded of this one kid beating the crap out of another kid and it was the kid getting beat up who was punished by the school.
Okay, that's a fair point. There are some very stupid policies concerning fights - I've seen my younger brother be penalized for defending himself as well. But it is silly to say that schools cause the fights in the first place, and/or that kids, left to their own devices, would be civil to one another.
You're not contradicting me, because I'm not saying schools are entirely responsible for the cruelty of children. However, the problems are exacerbated by the environment.
Yes, children lie and cheat. But children that are not loved/given affection probably won't even learn to talk, and become emotionally damaged. There has been an interesting study on the effect on absence of affection on monkeys. It didn't turn out pretty.
Kids who are loved are cruel, they lie and they cheat. Children that are not loved are simply even worse.
I really wish people would not use words like "innocent" in this context. Exactly what do you mean by your statement? Do you mean they are not guilty of a crime? What crime, the crime of being adult? Or free from moral wrong? A few minutes watching a young boy pulling wings off flies will disabuse you of this misconception.
I just can't stand this nonsense about children being these pure little angels who can do no wrong. A blank slate, yes, perhaps. Words like "innocent" are just plain inapplicable and say more about the speaker than they do the kids.
They are free of moral wrong, like a lion who tears a zebra apart. Or like a shark who attacks a surfer.
Actions that are morally wrong to us are not morally wrong for those who lack morals. And if you can do no wrong you certainly can't be guilty. Therefore, innocent seems an apt label.
"I don't really care much for semantic arguments."
Semantics, ie. meaning, is the whole point of language. I do not think that it is useless nit-picking to point out that your use of words is wrong. The word "innocent" has a positive bias; you could not criticise someone as being innocent. But lacking "societal norms, customs, virtues or values" (from the article you linked to) could not possibly be described as a positive attribute.
Language means what it means. If you mean something different, say that instead. You can't wave away criticism by just saying "well who cares about word meanings anyway".
No doubt you don't like them, because those definitions are instructive.
The first one, "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" is exactly what I am talking about. Think about the axioms implicit in that definition:
1. evil exists
2. there is no inherent evil, evil must be learned
3. we can therefore prevent "evil" by restricting knowledge
4. guilt and sin exist
And so on. These are exactly the kind of suppositions that people use when arguing against, say, sex education in schools. To protect "innocence".
You might think all of this is just irrelevant bickering but I think it's extremely important. "Innocent" is a highly loaded term, straining under the weight of its inherent assumptions - it's not a word, it's a whole potted worldview. I think it's useful to point that out. I've done that now, and the prosecution rests.
You know pj, deleting all your comments and thus ruining an interesting discussion doesn't make you right; it makes you a sore loser. The fact you have been reduced to such a childish "last word", rather than just admitting my point, speaks volumes.
I understand why some people love these kinds of stories. At first glance, it looks like a great story. But when I think about it, I see more senseless credentialism. To oversimplify, I see a large class of people being unnecessarily held down, with everyone cheering when a select few are permitted to rise back up.
Your class warfare attitude doesn't seem justified. No one is holding people down, and no one is "allowing" these students to rise up. The story is that someone who wants to help people started a good school, and it's working. It's bizarre to try and cast this as a classist struggle.
The quickest way to fix the education system in this country is to basically pay kids to learn. The promise of future rewards simply isn't tangible enough for a lot of kids today -- especially ones who don't see any future for themselves. What if quarterly report cards were a way for students to earn some money? Not much... maybe only a few hundred dollars at maximum (As in all courses for example) Give the teachers incentives based on the same metrics.
I'm skeptical of the idea that, with enough money,, we can coddle kids into learning by revising how the information is taught or otherwise candy coating the material to be more accessible. It's a bad life lesson. Sometimes learning things is hard. Sometimes you have to work at it. Sometimes you need to learn a subject inside out to understand it and that is difficult. If you manage to find someway to make a particular subject easy to learn it only works to a certain degree because kids may be conditioned to believe that all information they need to learn in life will be presented in such a carefully engineered and optimized way. That is simply not reality. The reality of most people's lives is you work for your own best interest and are rewarded for it in a tangible way. Duplicating that model in public schools in some form would be a step in the right direction.
Hmm. Would Herbert have lauded the school if it had been a voucher funded private school? As far as I know, Herbert strenuously opposes school vouchers.
Repeatedly I see articles of this theme and the comments insisting that "education is broken." Well I would like to advance the argument that education in the United States at the present is better than any place else in the world and better than it has ever been. But with one caveat, and that is that children, like people, differ in their abilities and not everyone will or can become a great mathematician or engineer or writer. However, for the ones who are have talent, our educational system, at the secondary and post-secondary level is unique in its ability to nurture budding genius.
American education still has a emphasis on liberal education which practically only exists in the anglo world and most strongly in the US. For all the antagonism towards the general curriculum requirements here on HN, which IMHO is a strain of philistinism, our mental life, and the strength of our democracy depends on citizens well aware of the world around them and capable of critical argument. While some are innately born with this ability, a liberal education is the way to ensure it in those who are not.
Beyond this, for our most promising scientific minds are very well served by our educational system. Generally attending a strong public or good private secondary school, they will be recognized early in their ability and encouraged to supplement their mathematical and scientific coursework at a local institution of higher learning. During summers, they will work in the lab of a prominent university professor and get early exposure to research. This will continue in university as they become further familiar with the state of the art as an undergraduate and are better prepared for graduate school than someone without these benefits so early, say in India or China where the state of research is not so strong.
Do some talented individuals fall by the wayside? Yes, but not as many as imagined. The only real criticism of american education is that it leaves those who may not want or be capable of a high status creative profession underserved. But this is a uniquely american calculation in the interests of equity and idealism. We accept some measure of inefficiency here in our educational system to maintain coherence with our national mythos that all men are created equal, an ambiguous but politically useful statement. Otherwise we could follow a german model and single out the talented children from the rest around the age of 10 and send them to different schools. But I can't really imagine this working in the United States.
I feel like most of the people on this site who think that the university system is obsolete and who think that college is overrated don't understand how privileged their perspective is. If you grew up middle class and came from a family where most people went to college, or even just a family where going to college wasn't looked down upon, then yeah, there are a lot of other paths that could work out just as well for you, from traveling to starting a company to self-learning to joining the military. Whatever. But severely underprivileged kids don't skip college because of their other options and because they think it's not the best way to learn. They skip it because the idea of college is foreign to the point of being laughable. Because bettering oneself hasn't been taught. Because education isn't valued. Sadly, for some people in these subcultures, higher education is not only ignored, but viewed with suspicion or even scorn.
The entire trajectory of these kids lives will be changed forever because they earned the right to go to college. The mere fact that the education system in this country enables that means that we're still doing something right.