I won’t jump down your throat here, I’m genuinely curious what these forbidden ideas are. I assume you mean by “sounding like Charles Murray” talking about IQ, and viewing it as (mostly) heritable. Does that tell us anything about how best to educate? Or only about the possible limits of education?
In other words, do you think there are effective education methods whose only drawback is ideological unpalatability?
To be frank, I think that the level of ideologically driven delusions in the modern American educational system—fueled both by venal interests and honest true believers, two categories by no means disjoint -- has reached Soviet levels in recent times. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that us non-Americans need not worry, since ideological influences are nowadays going exclusively in our direction.) Just like the U.S.S.R. was a horrid failure because its official, all-permeating ideology was insane and there was a limit to how much compromise with reality was possible, the U.S. educational system is a failure except to the extent that it compromises with reality against the ideological consensus under various euphemisms and rationalizations.
Regarding IQ, you don’t even need to assume that intelligence is heritable—merely that it varies and is somewhat non-malleable. Even if it varied in completely random ways, it would mean that the prevailing blank-slatism is out of touch with reality. (Again, we see one of those compromises with reality here: the universities use de facto IQ tests for admission, justified with the euphemistic rationalization of “scholastic aptitude,” and stick to their guns when questioned about it.)
Now, you ask:
Does that tell us anything about how best to educate? Or only about the possible limits of education?
Clearly, an accurate view of reality does tell us how best to educate. The trouble is, many would presumably not like these answers.
In my view, the key insight is that the educational system together with the labor market and other social institutions, both formal and informal, must provide a gainful and dignified path for people in all percentiles of intellectual ability. For this, two things are necessary: an educational system (and other supporting institutions, primarily functional families) that effectively direct people of all ability levels towards occupations that are realistically within their reach, and of course an economy offering gainful and dignified employment to people at all ability levels. Without either of that, what results is a large underclass with the most awful social pathologies rampant.
It should be noted that it’s not only leftists who are out of touch with reality in this regard, but also many libertarian/neoliberal free-trader types, who believe that the U.S. could outsource all its menial and physical work abroad and let the American work force specialize in highbrow intellectual pursuits in the global economy. Clearly their ideology is also threatened by a realistic appraisal of the situation.
Ok, so in a word, you recommend tracking. In a few more words, de facto IQ tests, and education geared towards employment at each ability level.
Thanks for explaining. (I don’t think the substance of your views is anywhere near as scary as your tone makes it out to be. It all sounds at least plausible.) It’s more an educational policy/social engineering set of ideas, though, than what I think OP was looking for, namely hypotheses about which teaching methods are most effective at conveying skills and understanding. (Or do you think teaching methods matter at all?)
Ok, so in a word, you recommend tracking. In a few more words, de facto IQ tests, and education geared towards employment at each ability level.
Tracking and IQ tests will be done one way or another if the educational system is to perform any useful function at all. Nowadays these things are buried in pious rationalizations and baroque rituals, but they are still there, and they are essential for those parts of the system that actually work tolerably well. People in the academic establishment understand this perfectly well at the gut level, regardless of all the pious proclamations to the contrary (which I think are usually honest doublethink).
As for these ideas not being scary, I can only repeat what JoshuaZ already said. Try discussing these things publicly without the usual pious rationalizations and see what the reactions will be.
(Or do you think teaching methods matter at all?)
They do matter, but less than commonly assumed. A great teacher can certainly be a crucial positive influence on a kid’s life (and a bad teacher a negative one, of course). What needs to be recognized, however, is that while a good teacher can make kids interested in smart and useful things that are within their level of ability by making these things appear cool and fascinating, it’s impossible to raise this level much. Moreover, contrary to the assumptions of the present system, it’s impossible to select good teachers by formalized bureaucratic and credentialist procedures. Their ability is simply not amenable to formal bureaucratic evaluation, certainly not in a way that would be immune to Goodhart’s law.
Moreover, contrary to the assumptions of the present system, it’s impossible to select good teachers by formalized bureaucratic and credentialist procedures.
Full agreement
Their ability is simply not amenable to formal bureaucratic evaluation, certainly not in a way that would be immune to Goodhart’s law.
We could at least use a metric that’s resistant to gaming, or that would provide useful data even when gamed, like using formal tests regularly, and comparing the progress of the classes a particular teacher tought against the average.
In my view, the key insight is that the educational system together with the labor market and other social institutions, both formal and informal, must provide a gainful and dignified path for people in all percentiles of intellectual ability. For this, two things are necessary: an educational system (and other supporting institutions, primarily functional families) that effectively direct people of all ability levels towards occupations that are realistically within their reach, and of course an economy offering gainful and dignified employment to people at all ability levels. Without either of that, what results is a large underclass with the most awful social pathologies rampant.
How is what is realistically within people’s reach to be judged, and who does the judging? I’ve seen enough accounts by low SES people who were told they couldn’t do things they actually ended up accomplishing.
On the one hand, people really do have intellectual limits, and on the other, status enforcement is a pervasive habit. It’s very hard to tell whether you’ve got your tracking right, and keeping capable people away from what they could be good at is also a serious problem.
One related problem is that even when one doesn’t sound like Charles Murray, opponents will try to spin things to sound like they are racist claims. For example, try arguing that cultural attitudes matter for how much kids are willing to learn, and then see how long it takes to get accused of racism.
Frankly, when I mentioned Murray, I didn’t even have in mind these most controversial and incendiary topics he’s ever written on. (This was in my opinion a mistake on his part, since his association with them now automatically detracts from other interesting stuff about which he’s written much more.) As you note, you don’t have to go anywhere as far to get to ideas that will be unacceptable to the modern mainstream ideological consensus about issues of education, which will provoke angry denunciations that deny any legitimacy to your position instead of rational debate.
One related problem is that even when one doesn’t sound like Charles Murray, opponents will try to spin things to sound like they are racist claims. For example, try arguing that cultural attitudes matter for how much kids are willing to learn, and then see how long it takes to get accused of racism.
I won’t jump down your throat here, I’m genuinely curious what these forbidden ideas are. I assume you mean by “sounding like Charles Murray” talking about IQ, and viewing it as (mostly) heritable. Does that tell us anything about how best to educate? Or only about the possible limits of education?
In other words, do you think there are effective education methods whose only drawback is ideological unpalatability?
To be frank, I think that the level of ideologically driven delusions in the modern American educational system—fueled both by venal interests and honest true believers, two categories by no means disjoint -- has reached Soviet levels in recent times. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that us non-Americans need not worry, since ideological influences are nowadays going exclusively in our direction.) Just like the U.S.S.R. was a horrid failure because its official, all-permeating ideology was insane and there was a limit to how much compromise with reality was possible, the U.S. educational system is a failure except to the extent that it compromises with reality against the ideological consensus under various euphemisms and rationalizations.
Regarding IQ, you don’t even need to assume that intelligence is heritable—merely that it varies and is somewhat non-malleable. Even if it varied in completely random ways, it would mean that the prevailing blank-slatism is out of touch with reality. (Again, we see one of those compromises with reality here: the universities use de facto IQ tests for admission, justified with the euphemistic rationalization of “scholastic aptitude,” and stick to their guns when questioned about it.)
Now, you ask:
Clearly, an accurate view of reality does tell us how best to educate. The trouble is, many would presumably not like these answers.
In my view, the key insight is that the educational system together with the labor market and other social institutions, both formal and informal, must provide a gainful and dignified path for people in all percentiles of intellectual ability. For this, two things are necessary: an educational system (and other supporting institutions, primarily functional families) that effectively direct people of all ability levels towards occupations that are realistically within their reach, and of course an economy offering gainful and dignified employment to people at all ability levels. Without either of that, what results is a large underclass with the most awful social pathologies rampant.
It should be noted that it’s not only leftists who are out of touch with reality in this regard, but also many libertarian/neoliberal free-trader types, who believe that the U.S. could outsource all its menial and physical work abroad and let the American work force specialize in highbrow intellectual pursuits in the global economy. Clearly their ideology is also threatened by a realistic appraisal of the situation.
Ok, so in a word, you recommend tracking. In a few more words, de facto IQ tests, and education geared towards employment at each ability level.
Thanks for explaining. (I don’t think the substance of your views is anywhere near as scary as your tone makes it out to be. It all sounds at least plausible.) It’s more an educational policy/social engineering set of ideas, though, than what I think OP was looking for, namely hypotheses about which teaching methods are most effective at conveying skills and understanding. (Or do you think teaching methods matter at all?)
SarahC:
Tracking and IQ tests will be done one way or another if the educational system is to perform any useful function at all. Nowadays these things are buried in pious rationalizations and baroque rituals, but they are still there, and they are essential for those parts of the system that actually work tolerably well. People in the academic establishment understand this perfectly well at the gut level, regardless of all the pious proclamations to the contrary (which I think are usually honest doublethink).
As for these ideas not being scary, I can only repeat what JoshuaZ already said. Try discussing these things publicly without the usual pious rationalizations and see what the reactions will be.
They do matter, but less than commonly assumed. A great teacher can certainly be a crucial positive influence on a kid’s life (and a bad teacher a negative one, of course). What needs to be recognized, however, is that while a good teacher can make kids interested in smart and useful things that are within their level of ability by making these things appear cool and fascinating, it’s impossible to raise this level much. Moreover, contrary to the assumptions of the present system, it’s impossible to select good teachers by formalized bureaucratic and credentialist procedures. Their ability is simply not amenable to formal bureaucratic evaluation, certainly not in a way that would be immune to Goodhart’s law.
Full agreement
We could at least use a metric that’s resistant to gaming, or that would provide useful data even when gamed, like using formal tests regularly, and comparing the progress of the classes a particular teacher tought against the average.
No, thank you for explaining. I was having trouble deciphering all the vitriol to work out just what I was supposed to get outraged at.
How is what is realistically within people’s reach to be judged, and who does the judging? I’ve seen enough accounts by low SES people who were told they couldn’t do things they actually ended up accomplishing.
On the one hand, people really do have intellectual limits, and on the other, status enforcement is a pervasive habit. It’s very hard to tell whether you’ve got your tracking right, and keeping capable people away from what they could be good at is also a serious problem.
One related problem is that even when one doesn’t sound like Charles Murray, opponents will try to spin things to sound like they are racist claims. For example, try arguing that cultural attitudes matter for how much kids are willing to learn, and then see how long it takes to get accused of racism.
Frankly, when I mentioned Murray, I didn’t even have in mind these most controversial and incendiary topics he’s ever written on. (This was in my opinion a mistake on his part, since his association with them now automatically detracts from other interesting stuff about which he’s written much more.) As you note, you don’t have to go anywhere as far to get to ideas that will be unacceptable to the modern mainstream ideological consensus about issues of education, which will provoke angry denunciations that deny any legitimacy to your position instead of rational debate.
One related problem is that even when one doesn’t sound like Charles Murray, opponents will try to spin things to sound like they are racist claims. For example, try arguing that cultural attitudes matter for how much kids are willing to learn, and then see how long it takes to get accused of racism.