> Maybe you go to a school in a poor area, or with a lot of violence, or far too many students for the teachers to pay any individual attention to; or, relatedly, maybe you’re required to spend a lot of time caring for siblings or parents, working a low-skill job, or holding your family together or preserving your safety in some way. The disadvantages of this case are obvious, but there are a few advantages too; the strategy, as with everything, is to mitigate the impact of your disadvantages while using your advantages to the maximum. I don’t know enough to say what the best tactics are for these cases, but I have a few theories.
I work in exactly the type of school this describes, with exactly these kids. I’m genuinely awed by the hubris it requires to just plow ahead with advice/theories about their advantages vs. disadvantages despite having no clue whatsoever what they’re talking about. It makes me genuinely angry. This person can take their theories and shove them up their ass, until they bother spending time in my shoes and really coming face-to-face with the profound systemic and otherwise deep long-term issues kids in this environment have to confront… just to make it to tomorrow. While navigating being a fucking teenager.
Yeah, working a full-time job throughout high school didn't exactly maximize my potential. I had minimal time for much else, and it didn't exactly foster the best habits when I crammed 1st period homework into homeroom, hoped the 1st period teacher didn't call me out for doing second period homework in 1st period, and continuing that practice throughout the day trying to "just in time" my learning, as the article suggests.
It wasn't all as bad as that, not all of the time, but that characterizes much of it.
You know where & how I "escaped"? With dumb luck and public University scholarships & federal grants. The dumb luck was some quirk of genetics that put enough horsepower in my brain that I could get away with awful learning habits. So I learned fast enough that grades & test scores needed for scholarships & grants allowed me to significantly cut back on the low-skill job hours. Then during college I learned enough that I got a semi-skilled job during the end of my college years, and went on from there.
I've done the research on populations of kids that come from these backgrounds vs. others, and success rates are shitty. Sure, when I dig into the qualitative side I usually see a bit of determination on the part of those who were successful but there's always a lot of dumb luck too.
This genre of pontificating that amounts to "Anyone can do it if they just try hard enough!" completely ignores the fact that the ability to try is itself highly influenced by outside factors beyond an individual or family's control. Problems of this sort can't be solved merely by attempts to motivate the individuals, they have to be accompanied by environmental changes and interventions.
I went to a school like this for most of my youth and I’m with you. The only real strategy is to be lucky, whether it’s by having good parents or by incidentally avoiding the abundant pitfalls.
Edit: resisting peer pressure shouldn’t be worried about because it’s “the spice of life”? Yikes
99% of the time it is not hubris, just the author missing some viewpoint/info/awareness.
The author seems to have put in a lot of thought. And would be open to putting in more thought if you illustrated where he is incorrect or missing info. Otherwise the content is appealing to a lot of people.
> 99% of the time it is not hubris, just the author missing some viewpoint/info/awareness.
That's sort of the definition of hubris. Coming to a topic they don't have anywhere near enough knowledge but assuming they know it all because they put some thought into it.
I’m gonna try to not write like a jerk here, but OP is pretty grating, so I’m sorry if I fail.
Parent didn’t say so explicitly, but there’s really no blog post you can write that is “how to escape from poverty as a teen in high school.” Thus, the problems with this one are not fixable. Off top:
* what’s the opening line of Anna Karenina, again? There are so many disparate challenges that poor kids can face that are more urgent than “get good exercise and send cold emails for jobs” that you couldn’t even fit them in their own book.
* even writing the blog post at all assumes these kids are reading hacker news which is, uh, cavalier. there are zillions of people hawking advice that these kids would need to sift through to even decide to follow this blog. Parents, friends, teachers, influencers, Andrew fucking Tate are all prescribing life strategies, why would they listen to your blog? Moreover, if you’re an impoverished kid who has somehow found HN and for some reason values its advice, you’re already on a better track than your peers, and you likely don’t need the advice!
* in fact, this blog is anti-advice for these people. Probably the single most valuable decision I made in my youth was to always refuse all peer pressure no matter what until I was out of my hometown. Peer pressure is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS for these kids. They’re not Brock Turner, they’re not getting off easy and free because of daddy. one mistake can derail their whole lives. To read this guy say “don’t worry about peer pressure, it’s the spice of life” frankly pisses me off.
The real answer for these kids, again, is to get lucky until we get our shit to get as a country to make life less treacherous and unforgiving for those with less means. Unpopular here on HN, I guess, but the US is not a meritocratic libertarian tech utopia, some situations don’t have a reliable self-directed escape strategy, and not everything can be fixed by the perfect blog post.
edit: also the audacity to be like “here are some advantages of being underprivileged that you can leverage” is its own headache entire… “you won’t have to unlearn as many wrong ideas about the world”? Absolute nonsense
Hi, author of the post here. See my comment in response to light_hue_1 farther down – in the spirit of Cunningham's Law, I'd be curious about your answers to the same questions.
I’m one of the kids that “made it” out of these situations and it took me until I was over 40 and making FAANG money to START thinking in terms other than “not being like my dad” or “ending up poor”.
My longterm plan was “to be an electrician or work with computers.” Which was the plan I formed in 1st grade. (It took until high school to realize I meant EE not electrician, but that’s how little the actual plan mattered.)
> preserving your safety in some way
Even a comment as small as this is assuming a lot in poor areas. The only safety I had was in my own head or in my STEM classes because I could immerse myself in them enough to forget about life outside them.
Look up the problems associated with complex-ptsd, childhood neglect and parentification.
It was all about racing as hard as possible away from where I was, not about looking forward in any way. For most of my twenties my timeframe in planning was weeks or months if I felt confident.
I just got lucky I got hooked on computers and had a couple teachers that praised me for that and math.
In fact, I nearly dropped out in 9th grade to work at a Burger King so I had access to some kind of money. Instead I called CPS and moved in with my narcissistic mother who was at least financially stable. But it was a coin toss at the time.
My first job was in a factory and then in the Army, I didn’t have a plan or wants other than stable living situation and enough money for basic bills.
whenever you see the word "systemic," you can be sure that what follows is going to be painting in broad strokes at a population level and not something that is actually relevant to decisions an individual can make.
To be fair, the person that the parent is responding to is also giving extremely broad strokes. On its face listing out a set of really big barriers followed by “but they have advantages too!” can easily be seen to me like the “have you tried yoga” of being disadvantaged.
Like I can imagine a whole set of specific examples where “there are also advantages” would be incredibly offensive to say so handwavily. If someone tried to tell a teenager their experience with being sexually abused as a prepubescent child “has advantages” I would promptly try to remove that person from being near that or any other child for example.
> really coming face-to-face with the profound systemic and otherwise deep long-term issues kids in this environment have to confront
Are there any good books on this topic that you would recommend? I don't expect you to write a point-by-point rebuttal to every blog post like this that comes along, but I'd sure love to do some of that work myself and well-regarded popular books on the subject are a good place to start.
The Amazon results from a search on "books about systemic issues in inner city public schools" are all over the place. Bonus points if you have a more left-leaning recommendation, because I'm already familiar with the arguments from Lukianoff, Haidt, Sowell, et al and would like to read a good counter to them.
The systemic issues start at home. Not having safety or stability in their home life leads to almost all of the negative adults outcomes you hear about.
Cptsd, parentification, and physical/emotional/social neglect (abuse too, but it’s more obvious than neglect) are the biggest things to solve based on my lived experiences.
Solving those would solve most of the “school” issues I believe.
The next level would be at the “nickeled and dimed” [0] level. Poor opportunities and little mobility is all most of these kids can look forward to. So instead they spend their downtime distracting themselves from how shitty their lives are or will be.
My life only got better after I quit school at 15. At the end, I had so much outside distraction, that I couldn't put up the front at school anymore. I just needed sometime free from chaos.
> And by the time you’re in your mid-teens, you’re probably as smart as you’re going to be – not as worldly or wise as you will be later, but the raw brainpower is mostly there.
I strongly disagree with this. I don't know if it is genuinely true in a biological sense, but in my life experience it is not even close to true. There are lots of things I do that are so far beyond my abilities as a teenager. It could be due to other factors, but my gut suggests those other factors are much more important than this comment about mere brain power leads us to believe.
You weren't an idiot as a teenager. You were just uneducated and inexperienced.
Personally, my decaying mental performance over the years is almost palpable. I feel like I am half-dead now compared to who I was 20 years ago. Sure I was nuts due to the powerful emotions, but that just means I was alive, not a talking corpse that I am now.
Yes but when does it start dropping? Not likely in the teens. As I'd always heard and other commenters also suggest, peak brain power is usually ten years later than this article proposes. Brains are still developing in our teens, and are not at their peak yet.
Yes, the scientific consensus right now is that the prefrontal cortex does not generally finish developing until the mid to late 20s, and this is the main locus of executive functioning. Perhaps according to some very narrow definition of “raw brain power” one could say, as TFA does, that this is all done in one’s teens - there seems to be consensus that IQ peaks around 19-20, though even short term memory (which I think would be unambiguously classed amongst “raw brain power”) is thought to peak in the mid 20s.
It seems to overly intellectualize a problem that has a whole spectrum of factors outside of being "smart". Long term thinking, risk/reward, motivations, emotions, hormones, all that stuff is either first forming or in total chaos and it's in no way as simple as smarting your way out of it.
I think the neuroscience here has really gone through the pop-sci wringer. The original research was specifically about impulse control and not anything else. I think there has been some more evidence about pattern recognition etc recently.
It's always struck me as funny when people say 25 is when you're fully mature. After this point, you start to experience declines in ability. It's not maturity; it's the moment you start dying.
Beware of unquantifiable words like "matures". It might just mean minor ongoing changes. Or it might even mean deterioration. In the end, performance is what matters, not morphology.
There's no sense in rationalizing with folks who want to quantify intelligence in the first place. They're chasing statistical phantoms. Even if we take a generous view of what they said and interpret it to mean that brain development finalizes in the mid-teens, it's still a completely myopic view of what it means to be "smart."
Author is just another grifter peddling pop-psychology/bro-science nonsense like thousands and thousands of others, since it generates like, views and even conversation (like at HN).
This is an interesting article, but I think it is heavily skewed toward the author’s goals in life and who they innately are. A guide for a more introverted person, or sports-oriented person, or highly social person would be vastly different.
In particular, I think the author makes the mistake of believing everyone must be a creator. The reality is most people aren’t good at it, don’t like it and don’t pursue it. And that is OK.
It also underestimates how young 14 really is, and how much still needs to be learned in general, not just in school but in life.
I don't think they realize how lost teenagers can be either. Some kids have a driven vision, but a lot don't. They are still going to hang around the same parking lots and it's not because school is getting in the way.
I agree that the article over generalize several aspects of High School education. High School in most cases is the last chance people will be able to share each other experiences/lives. Afterwards people dive into the compartmentalized world of their careers and social status. Learning is just one part of the whole thing.
Yeah, I do and have done creative things and enjoy the creative output of others immensely. But given the choice, I'd rather ride my bikes, ski, sea kayak, etc. Fortunately creators have created some amazing machines and prosthetics to enable such pursuits.
Something that bugs me today is the way music education was handled at my school, and probably other schools.
I got to a pretty good technical competence with my trumpet but at the end of the day I could only play what was on the sheets. Maybe some of that is my bad, but I switched to keys after highschool and when I show up to jam, most wind players seem like musical cripples without a lead sheet, and my fakesheets of just chord sequences and important hits are not sufficient for them.
Part of it is just the nature of the Program (wind band is a highly synchronized large group activity and you cant have too much screwing around), but I also think the nature of a wind instrument where you have limited endurance and can only play one note at a time is stunting without proper instruction. Despite having great sense of rhythm and phrasing, I don't think I really understood music until I started getting chord shapes into my hands on the piano and could noodle without worrying about spending my limited endurance.
edited to add: And to be clear I do think the music programs are Good and Valuable. It's an excellent group activity and kids will work on something for months for the big concert. I did not have any other single school project with that kind of runtime and that's a valuable experience on its own.
tldr if your kid likes music dont let them settle for just wind band. Get them a guitar or a piano too. But it's fine to just like the band for what it is, too.
> I got to a pretty good technical competence with my trumpet but at the end of the day I could only play what was on the sheets.
This is pretty much how music is taught to all students learning 'classical' and was my experience as well. Most never really learn anything about music at a fundamental level, and can even have an entire career in the classical world not really knowing anything about what's going on in the music. Random story, but one night here in NYC I got asked by someone to bring out a visiting musician from Spain to hear some music, who had been playing in a major symphony there since the 80s (can't remember if it was Barcelona Symphony or Spanish National Orchestra). Brought him to Smalls in the West Village to catch whoever was playing that night. He was really impressed, kept on leaning over asking "how is that piano player doing that with no sheet music???". It's just not part of a regular classical musician's training, unless they're working to be a composer as well.
But back to your point, I felt the same way with music in my schools growing up. No one ever taught you how to actually play music, they just gave you sheet music and said "play this". It wasn't until much later that I started working with a jazz teacher privately that I got introduced to all the chords, scales/modes, and theories that'd you need to improvise or play music with others. Honestly, I probably would have been better off in high school if someone had told me to drop music classes altogether, handed me a bass or guitar or synth, and said go have fun with a few friends in a garage.
As far as I am concerned, classical music in conservatoire includes music theory and instrument trainings. To play in an orchestra, especially semi famous one, most likely you would need to follow an university/similar degree.
Any exam is done without a music sheet, music theory always include composition.
Chord progressions comes surely later in music theory but harmony is key from classic repertoire,and counterpoint from baroque era repertoire.
> I got to a pretty good technical competence with my trumpet but at the end of the day I could only play what was on the sheets.
Without commenting on the dire state of music (and arts) education in the schools, the same is true of all subjects. Mathematics is mostly taught as syntactic manipulation; physics as memorizing a bunch of "laws" and doing "experiments" that have a right or wrong answer (chemistry and biology are even worse in this regard) and so on. Even literature and history are not taught as an exploration and inquiry of possible themes but as structured topics (often one per book) that you learn as being "right" or "wrong".
The emphasis on testing, and in particular standardized testing, has made this worse, since teachers who don't "teach to the test" are often penalized.
The problem is time. Getting 140+ people to learn their instruments is hard enough, mixing in Music theory is just gonna add to the frustration, for which most of the band will never need to know.
That even holds true for everything but the smallest of jazz combos. Could you imagine listening to a group of 20 musicians all playing from Fake Books? It would be a mess of noise.
> for which most of the band will never need to know.
What do you mean by "need"? I think, for the purpose of playing music, music theory is more useful than reading. But no one really needs to do music in the first place. It's recreation and fun and expression.
20 musicians can work together. They'd need to know how to listen and make space.
Couldn't agree more. I think the issue is that school budgets are limited and music programs are perennially on the chopping block because they are among the most expensive and are seen as the least critical to education. The band directors fall into a cycle of needing to justify the investment by getting the kids to play the most impressive piece that they are capable of playing, even if the kids learn absolutely nothing along the way.
And have you ever tried to get 50 kids to do the same thing for five minutes? Even if that thing is sitting still, it's virtually impossible. If it's playing a song at the limit of their musical ability? You'd have a better time swallowing a shovel.
For what it's worth, contra to the other agreeing comments, this didn't happen to me. I'm sure this is all locally contingent upon an instructor with the ability and interest, but we had a jazz band I was a part of in middle school (in LA County early 90s) and we very much learned to compose and play music that was not written down on a sheet. I don't know that that kind of thing was feasible for the larger concert band, which had like 140 kids or something and one teacher.
I also played brass, for what it's worth, but never felt limited by breath endurance. I was a ~5:00 mile runner as a 12 year-old, though.
This reads to me like wanting to learn sports, and then disliking that your soccer instructor didn't teach you how to throw a ball. There's a lot you can learn about music in the classical framework, but the focus there is certainly not improvisation based on chord sheets. Generally learning about improvisation in a high school context would happen in jazz band, although in my experience lots of people in jazz band (including myself) are not too interested in improvisation either. A separate music theory class might also help although dedicated classes for that are probably even less common than having a jazz band, although if a student is particularly motivated and interested and the school is at all flexible, you can sometimes work out a deal with the band teacher to do a special run of such a class. Also music theory is just theory, it's totally insufficient without also actually practicing improv as doing it in real-time is a much harder challenge.
I wouldn't doubt if learning guitar or piano would help with this aspect, but I know plenty of people who learned it just fine on wind instrument if they want to. It's not too surprising especially for those learning wind instruments - taking a solo in high school is already scary for a lot of people, and even more so when they don't even have music to play or practice ahead of time. Also there is admittedly probably a higher barrier of entry to improv on wind instruments so a lot of the focus necessarily has to be on achieving a baseline technical proficiency before it even makes sense to think about improv (if they don't put in the prerequisite technical work, it would be hard to move to improv). For example, with guitar or piano, right off the bat I can play any note in tune and sound at least halfway okay. On a wind instrument, even playing the most basic note will sound quite bad at first, and generally the range of frequency is limited for beginners and learning to extend it can take many years. Playing in tune likewise takes years.
Anyway, all that said, I entirely agree, if someone really likes music, it's hard to go wrong with also learning guitar or piano. Piano in particular, as one of the most versatile instruments, used in so many genres, and can help with learning fundamental theory, composition, and even gives a very good sense of rhythm as the two hands have to act independent of each other in a way that other instruments normally don't have to. If I had to go back and learn a different instrument, piano would be a likely candidate.
Being in Band, one learns Music; being in aband, one learns music. The attrition rate of band students in extracurricular or post-high-school musical endeavors is a bit disappointing. It is similar to the kids forced through piano lessons who quit whenever they have a chance.
"Maybe you go to a school in a poor area, or with a lot of violence ... I don’t know enough to say what the best tactics are for these cases, but I have a few theories."
This pretty much says it all right here. The author comes from an incredibly privileged background and clearly believes they are smarter than people who have spent their lives studying education.
How we educate children isn't a perfect system, but educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles, and are stuck balancing what's important with the crap forced on them by legislatures, parents, and (hopefully) well-meaning people like the author.
At least in public schools we've been teaching people how to read incorrectly for decades because of a trend out of New York that got pushed on everybody else
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have went from laughing stocks to already middle of the pack nationally by dumping the new system and going back to phonics
If the "people who have spent their lives studying education" are using learning styles it isn't hard to be smarter than them, it has been roundly debunked.
The article you cite doesn't actually provide any data for their claims, and only links to another article on the same site which, again, doesn't actually provide any data. In fact, even checking the articles in their "Research" section, there is no information about the actual data provided, and all links I've seen were only to other articles on the same site. It leads me to believe that the people behind the site have a specific agenda they're pushing, rather than "...presenting the facts as best they can be determined, giving voice (without fear or favor) to worthy research, sound ideas, and responsible arguments..." as they claim in the About Us section.
> educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles,
the rational adult in me want to to believe you and hoping the current crop of teachers really have started changing it up.
the part of me that still remembers what school was actually like would vehemently disagree. it took 8 years of deprogramming AFTER highschool before I really started to get my shit together and start to work on a path to success.
Don’t agree, I think it’s a very good list of well intentioned advice.
Eg try to become an apprentice to someone talented. This would indeed be extremely valuable to anyone trying to learn a skill. The author then goes to great lengths giving advice on how to land a position like that when young.
Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
Parents love to think that because they have had one child (or maybe a couple), they know how to educate children writ large. Compounding that, most people went through the education system as students, so they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works. Usually their advice on how to fix the system is geared toward fixing the frustrations they personally felt as a student.
In reality, most people are only exposed to the education system as consumers, and therefore know next to nothing about how it actually works. Doesn't stop them from spouting off what they think they know on internet forums and blogs though. They enjoy pointing out what they see as problems, and are happy to offer quick fixes born in ignorance that have either already been tried and don't work, or don't solve the problem for reasons obvious to people currently working on it. Or better yet, the supposed problem isn't one at all, but a boogeyman that politicians are currently pushing to scare voters.
If you want to fix education, get into the mix and actually help. Sitting on the sidelines complaining isn't helping anyone. If your perspective about the education system is along the lines of "people who can't, teach", as seems to be in vogue these days, then you're really part of the problem.
The example of phonics vs. sight reading shows that professional educators are just the blind leading the blind. Parents have known for years that phonics work, but institutionalists dismissed their complaints as spouting off from the sidelines. Challenging established authority is the engine of progress in science and society. Appeal to authority is the last resort of those who have no other ground to stand on. If you want to elevate the discourse, engage with what people are actually saying, with their ideas, instead of dismissing them as idiot outsiders.
> Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
I read this and was expecting /s but apparently not.
Please address something concrete! In the US, there are significant problems with the educational system. It's ok to write a theoretical piece thinking about ways to do things differently.
The author has some good ideas that do not deserve to be dismissed lightly. They can even be applied within an existing educational system. Examples that I think should resonate on HN:
Many people practice teaching in a variety of settings. Their demonstrated ability has little correlation with their credentials.
If someone gets stuck on an amateur plumbing or construction project, they call a professional. In other words, the professional competence is trivially demonstrable and applicable. Can you imagine needing a credentialed teacher to get you out of a bind?
> they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works.
Although the average person may be incorrect about how to fix it. It's not a good sign that almost everyone leaves with the feeling that something is deeply wrong and almost any alternative would make more sense.
> because they have had one child
Merely being exposed to more examples isn't data, you also need superior methodology. Even in educational academic studies you will find a lot to be desired in this regard.
The people I know who are most vocal about education have many children (4-8+). And they put their money where their mouth is and homeschool. Also, their children tend to grow up with a wide variety of personalities and lifestyles.
> get into the mix and actually help
The system is designed to remove autonomy and responsibility from teachers. They are overwhelmed by curriculum, and program mandates from school, district, and state. The best teachers I had were essentially opted out. A few completely donated their time and refused to participate in any school trainings or events outside their classroom.
The best way I can see to get involved is probably to advocate for vouchers and organize teaching in your neighborhood.
> Yes, don't we all hate it when people come into our job and tell us how to do it?
Teachers apparently need to be told, because they spend YEARS teaching kids how to do arithmetic on paper instead of handing out calculators and focusing on high-level mathematical modeling instead. There are lots of such insanities in the curriculum, not to mention loads of propaganda (not a US citizen, but AFAIK there is a lot of propaganda in US schools too).
>Parents love to think that because they have had one child (or maybe a couple), they know how to educate children writ large.
They don't care about how to educate children writ large. They care to the extent that they think you are failing their child, specifically. You would do well to remember that as an educator, you have a responsibility to the public. If you really find parents concerns to be beneath your dignity, perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher.
Teaching is not nearly as hard as you lay it out to be.
The problem is teaching is los pay and low status in most places, and as such mostly attracts people who are terrible teachers.
Our kids are in private school now because our public school is a dumpster fire of bad teachers and admins. The private school teachers don’t get paid a lot but they are valued and highly motivated to actually reach kids. The difference is astounding.
And the private school teachers aren’t doing anything exotic or difficult. They are teaching just like kids were taught decades ago. Heck, my fifth grader is learning Latin.
or they're just being honest, it was a nicely written piece and no one knows everything
educators are garbage because they don't work empirically, they experiment on kids and the experiments have been failing since the 60s, causing mass amounts of fatherlessness but none of them are even willing to see themselves as the issue because no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible
Interestingly, the advice in this article pretty much aligns with what I did, although I can't claim I did what I did with any grand strategic vision. I mostly blew off high school doing the bare minimum necessary to graduate, while spending as much time as possible in-person and online with adults who worked in tech and would mentor me, working on side projects, and volunteering on open source. I went to college, but ultimately dropped out, with my most valuable time at community college where I was able to get tech certifications as part of my classwork.
It's been more than 20 years since I left high school and I've had a very good career and life despite having no degrees and a piss-poor high school GPA, because ultimately none of that actually matters in the real world. All that matters is who you know and whether you can do the job. If you know people who will give you a chance and you can actually succeed at the job, you'll do fine. Learning actual skills that other people care about and value is far more important than being able to regurgitate bullshit for a test to get a piece of paper that's meaningless. My only real regret is that I didn't just drop out of high school and get my GED so I could focus more time on my side-projects at the time.
> Learning actual skills that other people care about and value is far more important than being able to regurgitate bullshit for a test to get a piece of paper that's meaningless.
Reminds me of the quote "the A students lead the C students, who are the bosses of the B students"
You're right that today's high school diploma has little meaning. There's nothing wrong with the idea of the diploma, but plenty wrong with the institution that issues it.
For example, you found tech certifications to be valuable to you, and indicated a GED was valuable as well.
Yep, I was privileged to have a computer at home and family members who worked at a university so I could get a dial-up SLIP Internet connection and access to Usenet and IRC.
So what. How is that even a remotely useful response to my comment?
Especially this: Make sure you aren’t just doing a glorified version of trying to earn good grades.
So many people failed on this, mostly because of parents. Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
Just small nitpick to #1
Learning just in time =/= learning via practice
Learning just in case, the opposite of JIT makes sense too, but is "unpredictably effective" - the stuff you learned may be needed and put you ahead, but may not.
I'd add something about living your own life (career, relations, hobby) instead of being "locked" by your friends. Dont go to X school just because your friends go there.
Friendships decrease/end too. You may barely see them 5 years later due to... life
>Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
They aren't worthless.
Grades make it easier and cheaper for you to go to college. Good grades in college make it far, far easier to get jobs and can get you in the door to significantly better and higher paying jobs or grad school.
So not worthless, just not the be all and end all.
It is almost certainly not worth your time to try to be in the top 10 in your class.
Nearly everyone is much better off doing other things with their time than studying to try to get an elite college for a good deal.
There's little evidence that where you go to school matters.
If you take Albert Einstein and you put him in a community college, he's still going to be Albert Einstein, and you're still going to just be you at Harvard.
Basically, high grades aren't the end-all, be-all of school. They aren't a way of defining ones' worth. The analogy of treating school like a job really applies here. TFA also points out the risk of bad grades.
I should point out that TFA's advice works for conventional high school, but less for prep school. I had so much homework in prep school that it was nearly impossible for me to pursue the kinds of things TFA advocates for. Had I known better, I would have insisted on going to public school. (But all my friends were going to prep school; another mistake from TFA that I fell into.)
> Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
I have this archetype which I constructed over the years, that I named "34-year-old Patrice".
By just looking at him, you wouldn't be able to tell that 34yo Patrice dropped out of high school, took some odd jobs in his youth which eventually got him into trouble, so he did time. At age 26 he got out and started turning his life around and despite all this hardship is currently a functional member of society and in some regards even more successful than his peers.
Point being, life is more complex than just taking and passing tests. I feel like more teenagers should be told this as early as possible.
"Never let schooling interfere with your education"? That's how I always approached it.
One of my middle school teachers observed with chagrin that I would rush my classwork, accepting a high B or low A when they were sure I could have gotten a 100% if I had "tried", so that I could go back to reading my book. Unfortunately, there was no reward for a 90 vs a 100 (beyond buffer to your overall grade being an A), so I just did as little as possible to get the maximum reward out of the system, and then went back to doing what I liked to do - learning.
It's also a bit funny to me that the program that was ostensibly supposed to support kids like me - "Future Problem Solvers" if I recall the name right - rejected me because they test they administered to determine if I should be invited was extremely weird to me - I mostly remember it asking me to, given a set of random lines, draw a picture using them. I think I mostly turned them into smiley faces because I was bored and confused by what they wanted. I'm sure, in retrospect, that they wanted me to show creativity in making interesting art out of the "constraints" of the lines. But alas, I just wanted to get back to reading what (given my age) was probably a book about space or a CS Lewis book or something. My best friend got in, and he ended up dropping out of college after 2 semesters of drinking, so I guess maybe it wasn't a very good program anyway.
> Learning just in case, the opposite of JIT makes sense too, but is "unpredictably effective" - the stuff you learned may be needed and put you ahead, but may not.
This is also a place to tailor things. If you are particularly good at learning ahead of time, then you can learn a lot of things "just in case" at a low cost, increasing the chances that something you learned is useful.
If you aren't especially good at it, then you're going to have much lower chances and JIT learning makes sense for all the reasons in TFA
> Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
I'd like everyone who makes this claim to try submitting resumes of a fresh college graduate with a low C average to a dozen companies and see if even a single one of them calls back.
Grades are a means to an end, which is different than being worthless.
Personally, I’ve always felt that schooling is a waste of time, money, and resources. The default model of civilization is that children are absent from life. This means that kids are missing out on seeing adults interact, so they mature more slowly, and it also means that their life experiences are limited to what happens in a building. Importantly, after 18 years, people in the USA leave school in debt and are no better suited to professional life than when they entered school at 4 or 5. If I could wave a wand and changing things, I’d restructure civilization to expect children to be present everywhere with their parents or other family members, learning by being part of civilization as every young adult currently does.
My parents do not speak fluent English, they have zero grasp of the sciences or even basic math (they still have trouble grasping percentages and fractions), and are very susceptible to scams by cult leaders from their country of origin. Same for almost all of my aunts and uncles, who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away.
I would have been doomed without an external setting where I got to interact with much more qualified people.
Would that not utterly stratify social classes? Upward social mobility would be near impossible if not for general education?
Children would have no approaches other than what their family already has access to. The son of a smith becomes a smith, the son of a carpenter becomes a carpenter, the son of a lawyer becomes a lawyer and so on.
And schools also function in part as day care. Parents can devote hours of the day to work, focused and without worry for their child. If all parents had to bring their children to work, would that not diminish their ability to work?
Can an electrician focus on his work when a young child is with him? How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
Edit:
This is also a rather amerocentric take. What of other countries educational systems where you can choose more directional high schools. Where the final year of highschool IS an apprenticeship in some vocation? Where you leave school, with no debt and with experience on the job.
And all the countries where education is free. Countries where relevant experience is a part of the degree? Where courses in teamwork, leadership and other skills are a part of higher education?
To discard educational systems because of the defects of a single country's defects seems poorly thought out.
> Can an electrician focus on his work when a young child is with him?
Yes, of course. This doesn't mean a 4 year old is coming along on a traditional 8 hour US electrician's shift. It doesn't mean the 10 year old is coming along to the dangerous industrial jobs. When kids get put into reasonable contexts they adapt, it's kind of what we excel at as a species.
However, I was absolutely learning how to do basic home wiring (at a semi-useful level for some tasks) and electrical theory before I was in my double digits in years. By the time I was 10 or 11 (hard to recall precisely) I was wiring up my own circuits (alarm on my door to not be caught reading at night) at home and doing dangerous things with line current. I certainly knew enough to be dangerous, but also did understand the basics of how AC and DC circuits worked.
To this day I can still do basic electrical work such as bending conduit, wiring in work boxes - essentially everything past the demarc. These were all skills I learned before I was a teenager by helping out on job sites.
> How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
How many working electricians understand things to such a deep level? While I certainly understand more these days than I did at age 12, I can't really say any of it would be useful on a typical residential job site. The safety aspect is pretty well handled by a few standard rules of thumb that don't require much deep theory-level knowledge.
I'm very much not anti-school, but anyone who thinks our current system remotely challenges most individuals seems to have an incredible lack of imagination to me. Yes, this requires far more effort from far more adults across the entire spectrum of society.
Edit: All I do know is that sequestering kids away from 'real life' is damaging, and I'm unsure anything can convince me otherwise at this point in my life. We can never go back in time and give someone those experiences later in life (brains stop making neural connections as quickly) so I do often ponder what is truly being lost forever.
Not today. Schools no longer have monopoly on education. They actually prevent kids from learning by overloading them with the official curriculum, leaving no time or energy for informal education.
Isn't this how we end up with a lineage of uneducated blacksmiths? I am from a rural town focused on oil and gas and some agriculture. There were no software developers were I was from and the internet was only dial-up before I left. A lack of schooling would see me in a O&G work camp right now because I would have been exposed to nothing else.
> The default model of civilization is that children are absent from life.
There's nothing "default" about Civilization, which entailed intentional centralization and creation of bureaucracy.
We don't live in a society where 80% of people farm shitty land to survive, and no one of sound mind wants to turn back that dial. We're not bringing our kids to roam sheepishly around oil rigs, mines, labs, sales floors, whatever.
I think everyone has an opinion on how education could improve, but there's no superior (or viable) substitute for it at scale.
Notwithstanding, this isn't zero sum in the first place: parents can teach their kid at leisure, and they do. They expose them to their interests and their work, to some extent.
And lastly, there's no such thing as "absent from life". Even if this is only meant to convey the idea that schooling shelters kids away from any and all interesting things in society, this is untrue (and by extension, it would suggest that you're "absent from life" if your shit job doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria, or otherwise that your shit job is "full of life" but school isn't).
> Importantly, after 18 years, people in the USA leave school in debt and are no better suited to professional life than when they entered school at 4 or 5.
I'm not aware of anyone in the US going into to debt for school before the age of 18.
Are you confusing the free public education that's offered throughout the US with the optional college education that some, though definitely not most, take out loans to attend?
I love this idea. It's done a teeny tiny bit in the form of work experience, but actually we should make a scheme where workplaces get some kind of incentive to let the kids come and hang around, maybe even do some work depending on what it is.
I would sprinkle this around the school calendar so that you had a few weeks a year where you could sit at various places of work and see what was going on, instead of little weeklong academic breaks plus a mega long summer holiday. Not everyone loves the academic side of things and this could be a good break, plus it might provide some motivation for the question of "why am I learning this" that everyone has at various points in their education.
As I read the parent's point, I think he is advocating for kids seeing their parents work more often. As it is, kids in US don't experience the reality often. More than that, parents shield them from the reality as long as it is possible, because the reality mostly sucks.
I would think of it as 'take your kids to work', but more often. I am not a big fan. I was coming to my dad's car shop after school and I can't honestly say that I learned anything useful ( I could have, but did not ).
Not just that they should be working, but they should only be exposed to their parents' social circle. There should be no opportunity for children to meet people from different social backgrounds.
Readit News
I work in exactly the type of school this describes, with exactly these kids. I’m genuinely awed by the hubris it requires to just plow ahead with advice/theories about their advantages vs. disadvantages despite having no clue whatsoever what they’re talking about. It makes me genuinely angry. This person can take their theories and shove them up their ass, until they bother spending time in my shoes and really coming face-to-face with the profound systemic and otherwise deep long-term issues kids in this environment have to confront… just to make it to tomorrow. While navigating being a fucking teenager.
It wasn't all as bad as that, not all of the time, but that characterizes much of it.
You know where & how I "escaped"? With dumb luck and public University scholarships & federal grants. The dumb luck was some quirk of genetics that put enough horsepower in my brain that I could get away with awful learning habits. So I learned fast enough that grades & test scores needed for scholarships & grants allowed me to significantly cut back on the low-skill job hours. Then during college I learned enough that I got a semi-skilled job during the end of my college years, and went on from there.
I've done the research on populations of kids that come from these backgrounds vs. others, and success rates are shitty. Sure, when I dig into the qualitative side I usually see a bit of determination on the part of those who were successful but there's always a lot of dumb luck too.
This genre of pontificating that amounts to "Anyone can do it if they just try hard enough!" completely ignores the fact that the ability to try is itself highly influenced by outside factors beyond an individual or family's control. Problems of this sort can't be solved merely by attempts to motivate the individuals, they have to be accompanied by environmental changes and interventions.
Edit: resisting peer pressure shouldn’t be worried about because it’s “the spice of life”? Yikes
Dead Comment
The author seems to have put in a lot of thought. And would be open to putting in more thought if you illustrated where he is incorrect or missing info. Otherwise the content is appealing to a lot of people.
That's sort of the definition of hubris. Coming to a topic they don't have anywhere near enough knowledge but assuming they know it all because they put some thought into it.
Parent didn’t say so explicitly, but there’s really no blog post you can write that is “how to escape from poverty as a teen in high school.” Thus, the problems with this one are not fixable. Off top:
* what’s the opening line of Anna Karenina, again? There are so many disparate challenges that poor kids can face that are more urgent than “get good exercise and send cold emails for jobs” that you couldn’t even fit them in their own book.
* even writing the blog post at all assumes these kids are reading hacker news which is, uh, cavalier. there are zillions of people hawking advice that these kids would need to sift through to even decide to follow this blog. Parents, friends, teachers, influencers, Andrew fucking Tate are all prescribing life strategies, why would they listen to your blog? Moreover, if you’re an impoverished kid who has somehow found HN and for some reason values its advice, you’re already on a better track than your peers, and you likely don’t need the advice!
* in fact, this blog is anti-advice for these people. Probably the single most valuable decision I made in my youth was to always refuse all peer pressure no matter what until I was out of my hometown. Peer pressure is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS for these kids. They’re not Brock Turner, they’re not getting off easy and free because of daddy. one mistake can derail their whole lives. To read this guy say “don’t worry about peer pressure, it’s the spice of life” frankly pisses me off.
The real answer for these kids, again, is to get lucky until we get our shit to get as a country to make life less treacherous and unforgiving for those with less means. Unpopular here on HN, I guess, but the US is not a meritocratic libertarian tech utopia, some situations don’t have a reliable self-directed escape strategy, and not everything can be fixed by the perfect blog post.
edit: also the audacity to be like “here are some advantages of being underprivileged that you can leverage” is its own headache entire… “you won’t have to unlearn as many wrong ideas about the world”? Absolute nonsense
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36630576
Would also be interested to hear from anyone else who's taught at or attended a high school that's poor or in a rough area, re: those questions.
I’m one of the kids that “made it” out of these situations and it took me until I was over 40 and making FAANG money to START thinking in terms other than “not being like my dad” or “ending up poor”.
My longterm plan was “to be an electrician or work with computers.” Which was the plan I formed in 1st grade. (It took until high school to realize I meant EE not electrician, but that’s how little the actual plan mattered.)
> preserving your safety in some way
Even a comment as small as this is assuming a lot in poor areas. The only safety I had was in my own head or in my STEM classes because I could immerse myself in them enough to forget about life outside them.
Look up the problems associated with complex-ptsd, childhood neglect and parentification.
It was all about racing as hard as possible away from where I was, not about looking forward in any way. For most of my twenties my timeframe in planning was weeks or months if I felt confident.
I just got lucky I got hooked on computers and had a couple teachers that praised me for that and math.
In fact, I nearly dropped out in 9th grade to work at a Burger King so I had access to some kind of money. Instead I called CPS and moved in with my narcissistic mother who was at least financially stable. But it was a coin toss at the time.
My first job was in a factory and then in the Army, I didn’t have a plan or wants other than stable living situation and enough money for basic bills.
Like I can imagine a whole set of specific examples where “there are also advantages” would be incredibly offensive to say so handwavily. If someone tried to tell a teenager their experience with being sexually abused as a prepubescent child “has advantages” I would promptly try to remove that person from being near that or any other child for example.
Are there any good books on this topic that you would recommend? I don't expect you to write a point-by-point rebuttal to every blog post like this that comes along, but I'd sure love to do some of that work myself and well-regarded popular books on the subject are a good place to start.
The Amazon results from a search on "books about systemic issues in inner city public schools" are all over the place. Bonus points if you have a more left-leaning recommendation, because I'm already familiar with the arguments from Lukianoff, Haidt, Sowell, et al and would like to read a good counter to them.
Cptsd, parentification, and physical/emotional/social neglect (abuse too, but it’s more obvious than neglect) are the biggest things to solve based on my lived experiences.
Solving those would solve most of the “school” issues I believe.
The next level would be at the “nickeled and dimed” [0] level. Poor opportunities and little mobility is all most of these kids can look forward to. So instead they spend their downtime distracting themselves from how shitty their lives are or will be.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
Deleted Comment
The chaos I had was mostly at home. School was my calm place.
Dead Comment
I strongly disagree with this. I don't know if it is genuinely true in a biological sense, but in my life experience it is not even close to true. There are lots of things I do that are so far beyond my abilities as a teenager. It could be due to other factors, but my gut suggests those other factors are much more important than this comment about mere brain power leads us to believe.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906299/
You weren't an idiot as a teenager. You were just uneducated and inexperienced.
Personally, my decaying mental performance over the years is almost palpable. I feel like I am half-dead now compared to who I was 20 years ago. Sure I was nuts due to the powerful emotions, but that just means I was alive, not a talking corpse that I am now.
It's always struck me as funny when people say 25 is when you're fully mature. After this point, you start to experience declines in ability. It's not maturity; it's the moment you start dying.
None of it is worth paying attention to.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/big-break...
It's analogous to athletics. Sure, you can have a talent for running. But you're not going to win races unless you train.
A mind is plastic, adaptable, and hence can be trained.
In particular, I think the author makes the mistake of believing everyone must be a creator. The reality is most people aren’t good at it, don’t like it and don’t pursue it. And that is OK.
It also underestimates how young 14 really is, and how much still needs to be learned in general, not just in school but in life.
The difference between 14 and 18 is a vast chasm.
I got to a pretty good technical competence with my trumpet but at the end of the day I could only play what was on the sheets. Maybe some of that is my bad, but I switched to keys after highschool and when I show up to jam, most wind players seem like musical cripples without a lead sheet, and my fakesheets of just chord sequences and important hits are not sufficient for them.
Part of it is just the nature of the Program (wind band is a highly synchronized large group activity and you cant have too much screwing around), but I also think the nature of a wind instrument where you have limited endurance and can only play one note at a time is stunting without proper instruction. Despite having great sense of rhythm and phrasing, I don't think I really understood music until I started getting chord shapes into my hands on the piano and could noodle without worrying about spending my limited endurance.
edited to add: And to be clear I do think the music programs are Good and Valuable. It's an excellent group activity and kids will work on something for months for the big concert. I did not have any other single school project with that kind of runtime and that's a valuable experience on its own.
tldr if your kid likes music dont let them settle for just wind band. Get them a guitar or a piano too. But it's fine to just like the band for what it is, too.
This is pretty much how music is taught to all students learning 'classical' and was my experience as well. Most never really learn anything about music at a fundamental level, and can even have an entire career in the classical world not really knowing anything about what's going on in the music. Random story, but one night here in NYC I got asked by someone to bring out a visiting musician from Spain to hear some music, who had been playing in a major symphony there since the 80s (can't remember if it was Barcelona Symphony or Spanish National Orchestra). Brought him to Smalls in the West Village to catch whoever was playing that night. He was really impressed, kept on leaning over asking "how is that piano player doing that with no sheet music???". It's just not part of a regular classical musician's training, unless they're working to be a composer as well.
But back to your point, I felt the same way with music in my schools growing up. No one ever taught you how to actually play music, they just gave you sheet music and said "play this". It wasn't until much later that I started working with a jazz teacher privately that I got introduced to all the chords, scales/modes, and theories that'd you need to improvise or play music with others. Honestly, I probably would have been better off in high school if someone had told me to drop music classes altogether, handed me a bass or guitar or synth, and said go have fun with a few friends in a garage.
Any exam is done without a music sheet, music theory always include composition. Chord progressions comes surely later in music theory but harmony is key from classic repertoire,and counterpoint from baroque era repertoire.
Without commenting on the dire state of music (and arts) education in the schools, the same is true of all subjects. Mathematics is mostly taught as syntactic manipulation; physics as memorizing a bunch of "laws" and doing "experiments" that have a right or wrong answer (chemistry and biology are even worse in this regard) and so on. Even literature and history are not taught as an exploration and inquiry of possible themes but as structured topics (often one per book) that you learn as being "right" or "wrong".
The emphasis on testing, and in particular standardized testing, has made this worse, since teachers who don't "teach to the test" are often penalized.
> teach to the test
How are you going to teach to the test when the test has questions like: "what is the sum of 647 and 296?"
> standardized testing
There's nothing cultural about math and science. Standardized testing is the only way to objectively measure progress and mastery of them.
That even holds true for everything but the smallest of jazz combos. Could you imagine listening to a group of 20 musicians all playing from Fake Books? It would be a mess of noise.
What do you mean by "need"? I think, for the purpose of playing music, music theory is more useful than reading. But no one really needs to do music in the first place. It's recreation and fun and expression.
20 musicians can work together. They'd need to know how to listen and make space.
https://youtu.be/_5drnz5B-c4?t=61
And have you ever tried to get 50 kids to do the same thing for five minutes? Even if that thing is sitting still, it's virtually impossible. If it's playing a song at the limit of their musical ability? You'd have a better time swallowing a shovel.
I also played brass, for what it's worth, but never felt limited by breath endurance. I was a ~5:00 mile runner as a 12 year-old, though.
I wouldn't doubt if learning guitar or piano would help with this aspect, but I know plenty of people who learned it just fine on wind instrument if they want to. It's not too surprising especially for those learning wind instruments - taking a solo in high school is already scary for a lot of people, and even more so when they don't even have music to play or practice ahead of time. Also there is admittedly probably a higher barrier of entry to improv on wind instruments so a lot of the focus necessarily has to be on achieving a baseline technical proficiency before it even makes sense to think about improv (if they don't put in the prerequisite technical work, it would be hard to move to improv). For example, with guitar or piano, right off the bat I can play any note in tune and sound at least halfway okay. On a wind instrument, even playing the most basic note will sound quite bad at first, and generally the range of frequency is limited for beginners and learning to extend it can take many years. Playing in tune likewise takes years.
Anyway, all that said, I entirely agree, if someone really likes music, it's hard to go wrong with also learning guitar or piano. Piano in particular, as one of the most versatile instruments, used in so many genres, and can help with learning fundamental theory, composition, and even gives a very good sense of rhythm as the two hands have to act independent of each other in a way that other instruments normally don't have to. If I had to go back and learn a different instrument, piano would be a likely candidate.
This pretty much says it all right here. The author comes from an incredibly privileged background and clearly believes they are smarter than people who have spent their lives studying education.
How we educate children isn't a perfect system, but educators really are trying to teach important information to all students, including figuring out ways to reach children with very different learning styles, and are stuck balancing what's important with the crap forced on them by legislatures, parents, and (hopefully) well-meaning people like the author.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curri...
https://archive.is/CxBcj
https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/2/14/23598696/nyc-teachers-coll...
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama have went from laughing stocks to already middle of the pack nationally by dumping the new system and going back to phonics
https://apnews.com/article/reading-scores-phonics-mississipp...
https://www.educationnext.org/stubborn-myth-learning-styles-...
the rational adult in me want to to believe you and hoping the current crop of teachers really have started changing it up.
the part of me that still remembers what school was actually like would vehemently disagree. it took 8 years of deprogramming AFTER highschool before I really started to get my shit together and start to work on a path to success.
Eg try to become an apprentice to someone talented. This would indeed be extremely valuable to anyone trying to learn a skill. The author then goes to great lengths giving advice on how to land a position like that when young.
Parents love to think that because they have had one child (or maybe a couple), they know how to educate children writ large. Compounding that, most people went through the education system as students, so they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works. Usually their advice on how to fix the system is geared toward fixing the frustrations they personally felt as a student.
In reality, most people are only exposed to the education system as consumers, and therefore know next to nothing about how it actually works. Doesn't stop them from spouting off what they think they know on internet forums and blogs though. They enjoy pointing out what they see as problems, and are happy to offer quick fixes born in ignorance that have either already been tried and don't work, or don't solve the problem for reasons obvious to people currently working on it. Or better yet, the supposed problem isn't one at all, but a boogeyman that politicians are currently pushing to scare voters.
If you want to fix education, get into the mix and actually help. Sitting on the sidelines complaining isn't helping anyone. If your perspective about the education system is along the lines of "people who can't, teach", as seems to be in vogue these days, then you're really part of the problem.
I read this and was expecting /s but apparently not.
Please address something concrete! In the US, there are significant problems with the educational system. It's ok to write a theoretical piece thinking about ways to do things differently.
The author has some good ideas that do not deserve to be dismissed lightly. They can even be applied within an existing educational system. Examples that I think should resonate on HN:
- 1C: Produce Instead Of Consuming
- 1D: Do Real Things, Not Fake Things
Many people practice teaching in a variety of settings. Their demonstrated ability has little correlation with their credentials.
If someone gets stuck on an amateur plumbing or construction project, they call a professional. In other words, the professional competence is trivially demonstrable and applicable. Can you imagine needing a credentialed teacher to get you out of a bind?
> they believe they have insider knowledge as to how the system works.
Although the average person may be incorrect about how to fix it. It's not a good sign that almost everyone leaves with the feeling that something is deeply wrong and almost any alternative would make more sense.
> because they have had one child
Merely being exposed to more examples isn't data, you also need superior methodology. Even in educational academic studies you will find a lot to be desired in this regard.
The people I know who are most vocal about education have many children (4-8+). And they put their money where their mouth is and homeschool. Also, their children tend to grow up with a wide variety of personalities and lifestyles.
> get into the mix and actually help
The system is designed to remove autonomy and responsibility from teachers. They are overwhelmed by curriculum, and program mandates from school, district, and state. The best teachers I had were essentially opted out. A few completely donated their time and refused to participate in any school trainings or events outside their classroom.
The best way I can see to get involved is probably to advocate for vouchers and organize teaching in your neighborhood.
Teachers apparently need to be told, because they spend YEARS teaching kids how to do arithmetic on paper instead of handing out calculators and focusing on high-level mathematical modeling instead. There are lots of such insanities in the curriculum, not to mention loads of propaganda (not a US citizen, but AFAIK there is a lot of propaganda in US schools too).
They don't care about how to educate children writ large. They care to the extent that they think you are failing their child, specifically. You would do well to remember that as an educator, you have a responsibility to the public. If you really find parents concerns to be beneath your dignity, perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher.
The problem is teaching is los pay and low status in most places, and as such mostly attracts people who are terrible teachers.
Our kids are in private school now because our public school is a dumpster fire of bad teachers and admins. The private school teachers don’t get paid a lot but they are valued and highly motivated to actually reach kids. The difference is astounding.
And the private school teachers aren’t doing anything exotic or difficult. They are teaching just like kids were taught decades ago. Heck, my fifth grader is learning Latin.
See https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-...
educators are garbage because they don't work empirically, they experiment on kids and the experiments have been failing since the 60s, causing mass amounts of fatherlessness but none of them are even willing to see themselves as the issue because no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible
It's been more than 20 years since I left high school and I've had a very good career and life despite having no degrees and a piss-poor high school GPA, because ultimately none of that actually matters in the real world. All that matters is who you know and whether you can do the job. If you know people who will give you a chance and you can actually succeed at the job, you'll do fine. Learning actual skills that other people care about and value is far more important than being able to regurgitate bullshit for a test to get a piece of paper that's meaningless. My only real regret is that I didn't just drop out of high school and get my GED so I could focus more time on my side-projects at the time.
Reminds me of the quote "the A students lead the C students, who are the bosses of the B students"
For example, you found tech certifications to be valuable to you, and indicated a GED was valuable as well.
Sounds like quite a privilege.
Cool. And?
Yep, I was privileged to have a computer at home and family members who worked at a university so I could get a dial-up SLIP Internet connection and access to Usenet and IRC.
So what. How is that even a remotely useful response to my comment?
Especially this: Make sure you aren’t just doing a glorified version of trying to earn good grades.
So many people failed on this, mostly because of parents. Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
Just small nitpick to #1
Learning just in time =/= learning via practice
Learning just in case, the opposite of JIT makes sense too, but is "unpredictably effective" - the stuff you learned may be needed and put you ahead, but may not.
I'd add something about living your own life (career, relations, hobby) instead of being "locked" by your friends. Dont go to X school just because your friends go there.
Friendships decrease/end too. You may barely see them 5 years later due to... life
They aren't worthless.
Grades make it easier and cheaper for you to go to college. Good grades in college make it far, far easier to get jobs and can get you in the door to significantly better and higher paying jobs or grad school.
So not worthless, just not the be all and end all.
Nearly everyone is much better off doing other things with their time than studying to try to get an elite college for a good deal.
There's little evidence that where you go to school matters.
If you take Albert Einstein and you put him in a community college, he's still going to be Albert Einstein, and you're still going to just be you at Harvard.
Grades are terrible due to bias, difficulty when it comes to comparing them and lack of transparency.
At best they show effort (or "caring" parents)
>Good grades in college make it far, far easier to get jobs and can get you in the door to significantly better and higher
Thats why there should be fair and transparent exam after college :)
This way everything is up to your score, not school name or cool prof who inflates grades
Basically, high grades aren't the end-all, be-all of school. They aren't a way of defining ones' worth. The analogy of treating school like a job really applies here. TFA also points out the risk of bad grades.
I should point out that TFA's advice works for conventional high school, but less for prep school. I had so much homework in prep school that it was nearly impossible for me to pursue the kinds of things TFA advocates for. Had I known better, I would have insisted on going to public school. (But all my friends were going to prep school; another mistake from TFA that I fell into.)
How do they make it cheaper to go to college?
Merit scholarships that are based mostly or entirely on grades are relatively rare and extremely competitive.
And the cheapest colleges are often the least selective ones (like community college or state schools).
I have this archetype which I constructed over the years, that I named "34-year-old Patrice".
By just looking at him, you wouldn't be able to tell that 34yo Patrice dropped out of high school, took some odd jobs in his youth which eventually got him into trouble, so he did time. At age 26 he got out and started turning his life around and despite all this hardship is currently a functional member of society and in some regards even more successful than his peers.
Point being, life is more complex than just taking and passing tests. I feel like more teenagers should be told this as early as possible.
One of my middle school teachers observed with chagrin that I would rush my classwork, accepting a high B or low A when they were sure I could have gotten a 100% if I had "tried", so that I could go back to reading my book. Unfortunately, there was no reward for a 90 vs a 100 (beyond buffer to your overall grade being an A), so I just did as little as possible to get the maximum reward out of the system, and then went back to doing what I liked to do - learning.
It's also a bit funny to me that the program that was ostensibly supposed to support kids like me - "Future Problem Solvers" if I recall the name right - rejected me because they test they administered to determine if I should be invited was extremely weird to me - I mostly remember it asking me to, given a set of random lines, draw a picture using them. I think I mostly turned them into smiley faces because I was bored and confused by what they wanted. I'm sure, in retrospect, that they wanted me to show creativity in making interesting art out of the "constraints" of the lines. But alas, I just wanted to get back to reading what (given my age) was probably a book about space or a CS Lewis book or something. My best friend got in, and he ended up dropping out of college after 2 semesters of drinking, so I guess maybe it wasn't a very good program anyway.
This is also a place to tailor things. If you are particularly good at learning ahead of time, then you can learn a lot of things "just in case" at a low cost, increasing the chances that something you learned is useful.
If you aren't especially good at it, then you're going to have much lower chances and JIT learning makes sense for all the reasons in TFA
> Dont put effort just for the sake of grades, they are worthless.
I'd like everyone who makes this claim to try submitting resumes of a fresh college graduate with a low C average to a dozen companies and see if even a single one of them calls back.
Grades are a means to an end, which is different than being worthless.
Even better - Ive found my first software job during 1st year and nobody asked me about grades, but this is not US.
Learn your stuff, have interesting stuff in CV and it should be doable, right?
I would have been doomed without an external setting where I got to interact with much more qualified people.
And schools also function in part as day care. Parents can devote hours of the day to work, focused and without worry for their child. If all parents had to bring their children to work, would that not diminish their ability to work?
Can an electrician focus on his work when a young child is with him? How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
Edit: This is also a rather amerocentric take. What of other countries educational systems where you can choose more directional high schools. Where the final year of highschool IS an apprenticeship in some vocation? Where you leave school, with no debt and with experience on the job. And all the countries where education is free. Countries where relevant experience is a part of the degree? Where courses in teamwork, leadership and other skills are a part of higher education? To discard educational systems because of the defects of a single country's defects seems poorly thought out.
Yes, of course. This doesn't mean a 4 year old is coming along on a traditional 8 hour US electrician's shift. It doesn't mean the 10 year old is coming along to the dangerous industrial jobs. When kids get put into reasonable contexts they adapt, it's kind of what we excel at as a species.
However, I was absolutely learning how to do basic home wiring (at a semi-useful level for some tasks) and electrical theory before I was in my double digits in years. By the time I was 10 or 11 (hard to recall precisely) I was wiring up my own circuits (alarm on my door to not be caught reading at night) at home and doing dangerous things with line current. I certainly knew enough to be dangerous, but also did understand the basics of how AC and DC circuits worked.
To this day I can still do basic electrical work such as bending conduit, wiring in work boxes - essentially everything past the demarc. These were all skills I learned before I was a teenager by helping out on job sites.
> How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
How many working electricians understand things to such a deep level? While I certainly understand more these days than I did at age 12, I can't really say any of it would be useful on a typical residential job site. The safety aspect is pretty well handled by a few standard rules of thumb that don't require much deep theory-level knowledge.
I'm very much not anti-school, but anyone who thinks our current system remotely challenges most individuals seems to have an incredible lack of imagination to me. Yes, this requires far more effort from far more adults across the entire spectrum of society.
Edit: All I do know is that sequestering kids away from 'real life' is damaging, and I'm unsure anything can convince me otherwise at this point in my life. We can never go back in time and give someone those experiences later in life (brains stop making neural connections as quickly) so I do often ponder what is truly being lost forever.
Yes. This is one of the outcomes the anti-school crowd is after.
Not today. Schools no longer have monopoly on education. They actually prevent kids from learning by overloading them with the official curriculum, leaving no time or energy for informal education.
There's nothing "default" about Civilization, which entailed intentional centralization and creation of bureaucracy.
We don't live in a society where 80% of people farm shitty land to survive, and no one of sound mind wants to turn back that dial. We're not bringing our kids to roam sheepishly around oil rigs, mines, labs, sales floors, whatever.
I think everyone has an opinion on how education could improve, but there's no superior (or viable) substitute for it at scale.
Notwithstanding, this isn't zero sum in the first place: parents can teach their kid at leisure, and they do. They expose them to their interests and their work, to some extent.
And lastly, there's no such thing as "absent from life". Even if this is only meant to convey the idea that schooling shelters kids away from any and all interesting things in society, this is untrue (and by extension, it would suggest that you're "absent from life" if your shit job doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria, or otherwise that your shit job is "full of life" but school isn't).
I'm not aware of anyone in the US going into to debt for school before the age of 18.
Are you confusing the free public education that's offered throughout the US with the optional college education that some, though definitely not most, take out loans to attend?
You are limited to your sorroundings with less ways to move up due to lack of awarness
I bet it would increase inequality hard
I would sprinkle this around the school calendar so that you had a few weeks a year where you could sit at various places of work and see what was going on, instead of little weeklong academic breaks plus a mega long summer holiday. Not everyone loves the academic side of things and this could be a good break, plus it might provide some motivation for the question of "why am I learning this" that everyone has at various points in their education.
I would think of it as 'take your kids to work', but more often. I am not a big fan. I was coming to my dad's car shop after school and I can't honestly say that I learned anything useful ( I could have, but did not ).