I find the statement towards the end that in the United States now achievement has been virtually decoupled from self-esteem to be both true from my own anecodotal experience, and frightening.
With no connection there at all, it removes one of the largest motivators, especially in elementary and middle school when for many people there is very limited pressure to work for academic success in the first place. This decoupling is likely to cause a decrease in the overall amount of work put in by the students.
>This decoupling is likely to cause a decrease in the overall amount of work put in by the students.
I'm American but I live in a post-Communist country, and what I've seen in terms of the generations who have had their ambition destroyed is heart-rending. Yet I feel I'm seeing the same in the U.S. as these newer generations have their ambitions stoked and their work ethic demolished.
Just this morning I went to Disney.com with my 3-year-old and there was a "kite-flying" game. All you had to do was hit the enter key to make the kite do tricks. And the voice over was: "You're amazing!", "You're very good at kite tricks." and "I've never seen such incredible tricks." She was hitting the enter key randomly.
And I thought, "This is so American," and I turned it off. I want her to know that she is talented, but that if she wants to be good at anything she'll have to work her ass off. The cure for the low-self-esteem disease is not mindless, superfluous praise; it's recognizing each step in the journey and encouraging the next one.
I remember visiting my cousin in Pittsburgh, P.A., in high school (from Germany, where I went to school) and they were handing out candies for solving simple arithmetic problems in math class. I was like... what???
There are many examples on how American society acts very encouraging towards kids, as opposed to Europeans.
The self-esteem thing is really out of control in the US right now. I've heard that in many schools, they do things like have prima facie competitions, but at the end all of the students "win" the award. This "every child is special" thing is nonsense.
Let's face it, some kids are just not very talented. To claim otherwise is a disservice to the really talented kids, and it's also dishonest and harmful to the others. If we give them a more realistic view of the world early on, it will eliminate the just-graduated-what-to-do-now haze that everyone here goes through after highschool and college.
Talented or not, if you boost their self-esteem without making them earn it, why would they bother putting in the effort?
Someone who's quick on his feet and unusually coordinated would be worthless on a tennis court if they don't bother to practice, learn good technique and strategy, and practice.
What will happen is worse than rewarding those who don't show talent -- it encourages those who DO have talent to not bother to develop it.
Honors programs and the like have been under assault for the past 20 years or more as the egalitarian juggernaut rolls on in the public education system.
In Cupertino, where the Asian population has flocked in search of excellent public schools, there is a new form of "white flight," i.e., Caucasian families moving out of the area so that their kids will escape going to schools that have high standards.
I am not making this up. I got it from an article in the Merc about 2 or 3 years ago.
"Caucasian families moving out of the area so that their kids will escape going to schools that have high standards"
Now that epitomizes pathetic. Or maybe the American way 2.0: "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
It's hard to say what's worse, litigation making it into actual courts to force science teachers to add 'intelligent' design to science classes, or people fleeing from schools because their standards are too tough for their brats.
"Talented or not, if you boost their self-esteem without making them earn it, why would they bother putting in the effort?"
This. I was looking for a long time for a reason why just boosting self-esteem unconditionally is wrong, but could not find a proper wording - thank you.
Telling people they are "smart" or "talented" can make them defensive about that and afraid to fail, or think that putting in effort is a failure in itself.
Of course not being afraid to fail, and putting in effort, is how you become "smart" and "talented" in the first place.
(It's worth noting the book itself is a bit "American" and fluffy in parts, but the theory is good)
Quote from the Wikipedia page:
Education:
Mindsets have origins, and parents, teachers and coaches happen to be key in their development. Every word or action they send is a message that can be either judgmental or developmental. The problem here is that the majority of the time parents, teachers and coaches do what they think is best for the child, without realizing that they are doing exactly the opposite. Sometimes, by praising children, they diminish them. Praise should be given to the effort and persistence rather than intelligence or talent. For example, if a child worked hard on his homework then he must be recognized, but if another child did the homework without much effort at all, but achieved the expected results, instead of praising him you should give him a more difficult task. The growth mindset in education focuses on expanding the students' knowledge and ways of thinking and investigating the world. Grades are not seen as an end in themselves, but as a means to continue to grow. The best thing to do is to teach children to love challenges, be intrigued by mistakes, enjoy effort, and keep on learning.
“Praise should deal, not with the child's personality attributes, but with his efforts and achievements“. - Haim Ginott
One of the top researchers on the topic of self-esteem being snake oil, along with Roy Baumeister, is Jean Twenge. She has a couple books: Generation Me [1] and The Narcissism Epidemic [2]. The online presence for both is strong:
Or lead to new, possibly more motivating, reasons to work for academic success.
Perhaps teaching will have to change and therefore improve. Maybe instead of spending time memorizing data for fear of a bad grade, students spend time really learning about the subject now that the focus is on the subject rather than the grade.
It would be excellent if that were to happen, unfortunately, I do not think that is the logical outcome at least for the majority of individuals.
I think that when I were in high school if I cared nothing for my grade, I would pay rapt attention in those classes that interested me personally (for me it was math and physics). I would almost completely ignore the other classes and in best case I would spend that class time reading about physics, but more likely daydreaming.
Putting the focus on the subject I think would work quite nicely when it is intinsicly interesting to that student, but for all other subjects I believe there needs to be some form of external motivator.
If the students see grades as important (because their self esteem and pride is at least partially involved for instance, or because they fear not getting into their chosen college) then that can be the external motivator. Otherwise some other reason will need to be fabricated.
Just because you weren't interested in those subjects doesn't mean you can't become interested in them. There are already enough external motivators, such as being forced to be on time and in class or face detention and I believe even eventually jail time.
Basically, the students are already forced to be there.
Stop worrying about how everyone is measuring up against each other and the rest of the world. If you leave out the measuring stick and just focus on teaching and learning, yes there will be people who still don't learn but, imo, its an overall win and not by a small margin.
Your external motivators are for being phyiscally present in class, not for paying attention much less doing the homework and much less going beyond the recommendations.
Yes, I am certain I could become interested in them, but there would have to be a reason for it. I am not intrinsically interested in them. This means that for me to actually put effort into them some external motivation would be necessary. When I went through, grades and their tie to college admission (and my parents emphasis on them) was quite sufficient. But if I thought lower grades were just fine, then I would still have learned a great deal about the subjects I was interested in, but very little about the others.
Hrmm. Many essays extolling the virtues of grit (see 'current issue), but how are they measuring it? Why do people have grit in some situations and not others? Do people with especially low self-esteem have more or less grit? There's a lot of hand-waving going on.
The gritty person approaches achievement as a marathon.
So make marathon running a criteria by which people are evaluated. I'm not even kidding. Doesn't matter if it takes them 6 hours, since we're measuring character, not athletic ability.
Then what would happen to all the smart people who would think "why in bloody hell am I running a (filthy) marathon when I could be doing something important???"
That kind of evaluation works only when you're trying to breed a certain type of worker, like West Point is doing. But in a dynamic world (like our own capitalist environment), you can't predict where success is going to come from. Look at Bill Gates, he's a dropout...under that evaluation system he would have no "grittiness" whatsoever. What if he had approached achievement as a marathon? He probably still would have been "successful", but I doubt he would be bloody rich.
It's not grit that matters, nor is it self-esteem. The only thing that correlates with success/achievement in our day and age, for students and all of the above, is exploiting opportunity. Those who do, win. Those who don't, lose. Plain and simple.
Then what would happen to all the smart people who would think "why in bloody hell am I running a (filthy) marathon when I could be doing something important???"
You only think that for the first few miles. Then your mind enters a zone where you can really think about that tricky problem you were working on...
Olympic sprinters wouldn't qualify, even though being competitive at that level requires extreme dedication. But you make a good point; I suppose it's one reason many employers look favorably on resumes which include sporting hobbies.
This is the problem with the “self-esteem at all costs” message. Self-esteem should be earned. I find that parents today, at least those in a high socioeconomic bracket, never want to say anything critical of their children.
Really? I've noticed this phenomenon in the exact opposite end of the socioeconimic spectrum.
I've heard the same story time and again from friends from disadvantaged backgrounds; how they regularly were mocked by friends and family for using proper grammar or for even going to college at all.
Education and self-improvement were seen as nothing more than pretension while their friends were damned proud of their own ignorance.
I completely agree about the excesses of the self-esteem craze. My kids were in a gymnastics program once where, at the end, there was a mini "olympics" and everybody got a gold medal. Pathetic. (Admittedly, this was in San Francisco.)
That being said, I think it's too early to tell what this will turn out to have been: a harbinger of decadence or an overreaction against previous generations' inhumane treatment of children. There was an awful lot of violence and degradation to react against; still is, of course, but surely less so than there used to be. It's understandable if, in the course of correcting that, the pendulum swang too far the other way for a while (a generation, say). Signs are beginning to appear of American society waking up from this nonsense. I hope it does.
Oh and in the process, perhaps we can also lose the sickening "everything revolves around the children" parenting style that goes along with it.
> I’d say that self-discipline is at least as important as IQ for earning good report card grades.
Or giving a shit. It's unfair to judge one's self-discipline based on their performance in an activity they deem unproductive. People often hold compulsory education in the same esteem as at-will employment, analyzing it as though it were the student's "job," which is an error. Juvenile studies that fail to acknowledge this critical factor in the K-12 experience are useless when applying their findings to adults and general human behavior.
The article is discussing people who are good at ignoring short-term gratification in favor of long-term achievement. These people care about their future, so they have to give a shit about the present.
That being said, I agree that the current educational system makes it pretty hard to have this attitude. I certainly didn't.
My conviction, having taught for some years, is that what the American school system asks children to do is not groundbreaking intellectual work. One of the reasons self-discipline is so incredibly important is that almost anybody really can do the work if they want to, though, of course, not all children want to.
On another thread, I mentioned that there was a myth that all degrees are equally worthwhile, that the subject didn't matter because really you were "learning to learn". Now that's obviously complete nonsense, so where could it have come from? But that's obvious too: it comes from teachers, who themselves did some random artsy degree, then their teacher training, and having never had an industrial job, really believe it themselves.
I'd like there to be a minimum age for teaching, say 50 or 60, so that we don't get kids (in the sense of experience of the real world) teaching kids. That'd neatly solve the ageism problem too, it would be normal to work in industry for 30-40 years, then go into teaching until you feel like retiring.
I couldn't agree more. The quality difference between my artsy professors and my semi-retired from industry professors is so stark as to be comical. There is no substitute for understanding exactly why something is important to learn.
The number of people credentialed to be teachers in the United States is something close to double the number of people currently working as teachers. What's sad is that studies of teacher competency
tend to show that the best teachers get squeezed out of the occupation the most rapidly, with lousier teachers hanging on to enjoy the job security and other nonsalary benefits. And probably at present the lack of attraction of (public sector) teaching to some job applicants results from the known low quality of many workers in that sector.
Over the past few years I have become convinced that some endeavors, like philosophy or teaching, really only work with older people. There's just too much frame-of-reference stuff that is required to do these well.
With no connection there at all, it removes one of the largest motivators, especially in elementary and middle school when for many people there is very limited pressure to work for academic success in the first place. This decoupling is likely to cause a decrease in the overall amount of work put in by the students.