Interestingly, my dad just sent me the article by David Brooks yesterday. I read it last night and was very inspired! One because it makes a lot of sense! And two because it made even more clear the value in what we are provide in self-directed learning environments like the Pathfinder Learning Center in Arlington where I work and my kids attend. When David wrote about curiosity and a study that showed that kids between the age of 14 months and 5 years old made an average of 107 inquiries an hour however in kindergarten that goes down to 2.4 times every 2 hours and by 5th grade .48 times, it made me realize the power and value we are giving to kids by listening to and engaging with every question a student asks at the Pathfinder center. We engage and explore the question with the child. This sends the message to the child that what they are thinking about matters and promotes more questions and more curiosity that will serve them well the rest of their lives! Also the idea that in a self-directed learning environment all learning is intrinsically motivated so kids stay in touch with and dive into their interests and passions is one of the keys to living a happy life:-)
Thank you Peter for your newsletter and advocacy for children!
Another factor is that in 1950 the US population was less than half of what it is now. The Ivies were largely regional schools, with few international students. The number of kids now vying for these colleges whose classes have not increased all that much has exacerbated the problem.
It's the whole college industry (b/c it is a big business). Current mainstream culture has been bombarding us with the idea that only through higher education, can one achieve the American dream. "Education" is the key to success. By "education," it means acceptance to an elite college to get an elite job. By Elite job - it means a high-paying job. We all know those big name firms only recruit from certain colleges. Widespread competitive culture is suggesting that an elite job is guaranteed success and happiness. And current intensive parenting culture is saying to be good parents, we need to do whatever it takes for our kids to be in the race. But the elite college admissions system has always been rigged for the wealthy. Introducing the SAT's was just a facade for "merit-based" systems.
Something that really stands out to me is how we want to measure everything by numbers. I wonder when that came about.
It has cause me to think of this situation:
In my church, we assign members to minister to each other. We used to have everyone report in monthly if they visited their assignments in their home and shared a message. A few years ago, we stopped the monthly visit requirement and associated tracking, and encouraged people to minister more by becoming a friend and really being involved in the person's life.
And then we interview the members quarterly to see how their ministering is going. As a leader, I now see more ministering happening this way - people are free to minister in the way that works best for their assignments. However, without the tracking system we had before, many leaders who don't do these interviews feel like no ministering is getting done and fear that nobody is aware of the needs in the group - because they can't see the numbers showing how many times someone was prayed over or called/texted!
There is more to humanity than what can be tracked and measured on paper!
I found John Taylor Gatto's assertion quite curious, that many notable high achievers did not just go to elite colleges, but actually to elite high schools beforehand. In particular I found Philips Exeter's "Harkness Method" quite curious as an example of the habits of the elite that in fact cost little to nothing to implement. You don't even really need a conference table, you only need the attitude of respect and cooperation made into a ritual. How many world changing decisions happened in conference rooms? But how many student's ever interact with teachers or fellow students in that way? Being treated with respect is a great way to grow into confidence. Carrying that confidence with you when you interact with people of higher social or political ranks is one of the best ways to be seen or noticed by the people whose attention it's really worth having.
My daughter is a freshman at an Ivy League college studying biochemistry. She achieved her success all on her own. During high school she worked part time, competed at dance and track, played an instrument and was valedictorian. She scored well on SATs without a course and did not have any help with the college application process. I was fortunate to be home when my kids were young and I chose a preschool that focused on play. She innately loved to read, and still does. She deserves to be where she is on her own merit and I am so proud of her accomplishments. My son is at a state school and has the same drive for success. Even though school isn’t his favorite, I know his future will be just as bright. I think if you focus on raising a good human, the rest will work itself out!
I think Brooks conflates creating an admissions system based on objective criteria (albeit a peculiar set of objective criteria) with meritocracy. Elite schools use the screening methods they use not to get the smartest but to get the class they want (if they just wanted the smartest all along by test scores, they wouldn't have needed quotas to keep Jews and then Asians out, would they?) The final giveaway on how admissions works is what came out of the various law suits against them over affirmative action in admissions. In one of the earlier ones, where Harvard was arguing its sophisticated system of alumni interviews allowed it to craft a class, the interview notes contained things like "He has big ears." Test scores and grades are measures of ability and effort, and not particularly good ones in many respects but good ones in other respects. As they became more important, they got worse - people gamed the system, getting fake diagnoses of learning disorders to get their kids extra time, outright cheating as in Varsity Blues, etc. None of this is surprising if you think about it from the point of view of economics - we have to allocate a scarce good (admission to Harvard, etc.) and we can't just sell it to the highest bidder. Is it any surprise that under the table payments start to be part of the process? (Some colleagues and I expound on this at length here: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss1/6/ ). Things are very different down the food chain - the vast majority of US colleges are effectively open admissions or only slightly selective. Harvard, etc. are but a tiny sliver of higher ed. For most people, that's what college means - and I don't think Harvard's admissions policies are seen as relevant by people headed to non-selective schools.
Peter, thanks for sharing Brooks' work with us. Overall his points are sound, although I would expand on sin number 5, "The meritocracy has damaged the psyches of the American elite," to say that this system of supposed meritocracy has harmed many more than just the elite. Nearly everyone who is raised in this system internalises it to some degree, and those who try but do not "make it" (into a well-paying job) are often dealt a terrible blow to their self-worth.
I have seen this phenomenon play out in the lives of my low- and middle-income peers who were raised (by parents or by their schools) to believe that college is THE ticket to success in life. The pressure can be especially strong for children with immigrant parents, many of whom feel the need to achieve economic success to make their parents' sacrifices worth it. Many of my peers went to a four-year university straight out of high school because it was expected of them, took out tens of thousands of dollars in loans to afford college, and have ended up in an oversaturated market where they are unable to find a job in their field of study. Afterwards, they are blamed for having made the wrong choices—because after all, if it's a meritocracy, then you only have yourself to blame if you don't succeed.
After years of compulsory schooling in which they were being told what to do all the time and had little time to explore their own interests, many of my peers were not prepared to choose a course of study right out of high school. I have met many such people who wish they had taken a gap year to figure things out, or gone to community college first to save money, or pursued some other vocational path.
In my experience, those who have ended up in more successful careers were often those who took their time to decide when and if to go to college and what to study. Those who had family support (i.e. a place to live with family while going to school) were able to get through college with less (or no) debt, enabling them to have less pressure as they searched for a job in their chosen field. Additionally, not all degrees lead to better job prospects, and those who were not rushed into college were able to take their time to research and consider whether it was worth it financially to pursue a given path of study. They also were more likely to learn about and pursue apprenticeships, two-year programs, trade schools, and self-employment.
I should add that my peers who have ended up in well-paying, satisfying careers have not necessarily been those who attended a prestigious university. Many of them simply attended the nearest public university to where they grew up.
I think your questions hinge on another question: what's the purpose of college? Is it to seek the truth? Is it to learn? Is it to get a job? Is it to attain status? Is it different for every person?
The over emphasis on getting into an elite college is particularly bad in some communities in New England, would be healthy to push back on this.
Over the past couple of decades, we have already made many changes in the direction that David Brooks suggests, test results have been deemphasized test and students are assessed on a wide range of attributes. These changes have included ramping up the grading of homework, meaning a student's grades reflect attributes like conscientious and compliance more than it does academics.
Peter's article raises the issues of students continuously being judged by adults, isn't this what David Brooks is essentially proposing, that we judge everything instead of limiting assessment to a few tests and exams?
I read this article and agreed with many of Brooks' points, but I did feel like his point about needing to take other factors than intelligence (as measured by test scores) into account didn't go far enough. Considering that these other factors aren't as easily measurable, it seems like we need larger-scale reforms to actually incorporate them.
I agree with kids needing curiosity, agility and social intelligence. The only problem I see is that most Social Emotional programs today do have a focus on social justice instead of just plain treating others right and improving yourself in positive ways without labels. Our district has moved to much more CTE (career and technical training) which I feel is a bonus, however if they are not given time early on to be able to explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes they may choose the wrong CTE path. Good article. Not every person should attend a college but rather the college of life. To do that we need to rework K12.
> and wealthy families help their kids boost that score by hundreds of points by putting them into expensive SAT prep courses.
I constantly hear this "hundreds of points" claim repeated. What's the actual evidence? Seems like the prep courses would be trumpeting it ad naseum. Amazed I missed this as the parent of a HS Junior!
This study says 33 points:
> The College Board, the supervising body responsible for organizing the SAT, studied more than 2,000,000 students who sat for the SAT (Kobrin, Evan & Anderson, Andrew [2019]), and found that students who were tutored, took online courses, and prepared via SAT study books scored 33 points higher on average than students who did not do extra work to prepare.
Yeah im surprised no one else pointed this out. You can't game the SATs _that_ much. Any criteria that is used for admissions is going to get gamed in some way or another. SATs involve preparation for a few months tops. Better that than sob story essays that people undergoing actual hardship feel too sensitive to talk about and which disproportionately favor people who are already elite.
I wonder if the recent election of President Trump will finally have an effect of reducing the power of elites? I think a large majority of Trump supporters, are also anti elitist, and are unhappy with the situation that elites, and elite families control the country.
Hi Peter,
Interestingly, my dad just sent me the article by David Brooks yesterday. I read it last night and was very inspired! One because it makes a lot of sense! And two because it made even more clear the value in what we are provide in self-directed learning environments like the Pathfinder Learning Center in Arlington where I work and my kids attend. When David wrote about curiosity and a study that showed that kids between the age of 14 months and 5 years old made an average of 107 inquiries an hour however in kindergarten that goes down to 2.4 times every 2 hours and by 5th grade .48 times, it made me realize the power and value we are giving to kids by listening to and engaging with every question a student asks at the Pathfinder center. We engage and explore the question with the child. This sends the message to the child that what they are thinking about matters and promotes more questions and more curiosity that will serve them well the rest of their lives! Also the idea that in a self-directed learning environment all learning is intrinsically motivated so kids stay in touch with and dive into their interests and passions is one of the keys to living a happy life:-)
Thank you Peter for your newsletter and advocacy for children!
Best wishes,
Emily
Another factor is that in 1950 the US population was less than half of what it is now. The Ivies were largely regional schools, with few international students. The number of kids now vying for these colleges whose classes have not increased all that much has exacerbated the problem.
It's the whole college industry (b/c it is a big business). Current mainstream culture has been bombarding us with the idea that only through higher education, can one achieve the American dream. "Education" is the key to success. By "education," it means acceptance to an elite college to get an elite job. By Elite job - it means a high-paying job. We all know those big name firms only recruit from certain colleges. Widespread competitive culture is suggesting that an elite job is guaranteed success and happiness. And current intensive parenting culture is saying to be good parents, we need to do whatever it takes for our kids to be in the race. But the elite college admissions system has always been rigged for the wealthy. Introducing the SAT's was just a facade for "merit-based" systems.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-152147679
Something that really stands out to me is how we want to measure everything by numbers. I wonder when that came about.
It has cause me to think of this situation:
In my church, we assign members to minister to each other. We used to have everyone report in monthly if they visited their assignments in their home and shared a message. A few years ago, we stopped the monthly visit requirement and associated tracking, and encouraged people to minister more by becoming a friend and really being involved in the person's life.
And then we interview the members quarterly to see how their ministering is going. As a leader, I now see more ministering happening this way - people are free to minister in the way that works best for their assignments. However, without the tracking system we had before, many leaders who don't do these interviews feel like no ministering is getting done and fear that nobody is aware of the needs in the group - because they can't see the numbers showing how many times someone was prayed over or called/texted!
There is more to humanity than what can be tracked and measured on paper!
But using numbers makes it science!
I found John Taylor Gatto's assertion quite curious, that many notable high achievers did not just go to elite colleges, but actually to elite high schools beforehand. In particular I found Philips Exeter's "Harkness Method" quite curious as an example of the habits of the elite that in fact cost little to nothing to implement. You don't even really need a conference table, you only need the attitude of respect and cooperation made into a ritual. How many world changing decisions happened in conference rooms? But how many student's ever interact with teachers or fellow students in that way? Being treated with respect is a great way to grow into confidence. Carrying that confidence with you when you interact with people of higher social or political ranks is one of the best ways to be seen or noticed by the people whose attention it's really worth having.
My daughter is a freshman at an Ivy League college studying biochemistry. She achieved her success all on her own. During high school she worked part time, competed at dance and track, played an instrument and was valedictorian. She scored well on SATs without a course and did not have any help with the college application process. I was fortunate to be home when my kids were young and I chose a preschool that focused on play. She innately loved to read, and still does. She deserves to be where she is on her own merit and I am so proud of her accomplishments. My son is at a state school and has the same drive for success. Even though school isn’t his favorite, I know his future will be just as bright. I think if you focus on raising a good human, the rest will work itself out!
I think Brooks conflates creating an admissions system based on objective criteria (albeit a peculiar set of objective criteria) with meritocracy. Elite schools use the screening methods they use not to get the smartest but to get the class they want (if they just wanted the smartest all along by test scores, they wouldn't have needed quotas to keep Jews and then Asians out, would they?) The final giveaway on how admissions works is what came out of the various law suits against them over affirmative action in admissions. In one of the earlier ones, where Harvard was arguing its sophisticated system of alumni interviews allowed it to craft a class, the interview notes contained things like "He has big ears." Test scores and grades are measures of ability and effort, and not particularly good ones in many respects but good ones in other respects. As they became more important, they got worse - people gamed the system, getting fake diagnoses of learning disorders to get their kids extra time, outright cheating as in Varsity Blues, etc. None of this is surprising if you think about it from the point of view of economics - we have to allocate a scarce good (admission to Harvard, etc.) and we can't just sell it to the highest bidder. Is it any surprise that under the table payments start to be part of the process? (Some colleagues and I expound on this at length here: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss1/6/ ). Things are very different down the food chain - the vast majority of US colleges are effectively open admissions or only slightly selective. Harvard, etc. are but a tiny sliver of higher ed. For most people, that's what college means - and I don't think Harvard's admissions policies are seen as relevant by people headed to non-selective schools.
Peter, thanks for sharing Brooks' work with us. Overall his points are sound, although I would expand on sin number 5, "The meritocracy has damaged the psyches of the American elite," to say that this system of supposed meritocracy has harmed many more than just the elite. Nearly everyone who is raised in this system internalises it to some degree, and those who try but do not "make it" (into a well-paying job) are often dealt a terrible blow to their self-worth.
I have seen this phenomenon play out in the lives of my low- and middle-income peers who were raised (by parents or by their schools) to believe that college is THE ticket to success in life. The pressure can be especially strong for children with immigrant parents, many of whom feel the need to achieve economic success to make their parents' sacrifices worth it. Many of my peers went to a four-year university straight out of high school because it was expected of them, took out tens of thousands of dollars in loans to afford college, and have ended up in an oversaturated market where they are unable to find a job in their field of study. Afterwards, they are blamed for having made the wrong choices—because after all, if it's a meritocracy, then you only have yourself to blame if you don't succeed.
After years of compulsory schooling in which they were being told what to do all the time and had little time to explore their own interests, many of my peers were not prepared to choose a course of study right out of high school. I have met many such people who wish they had taken a gap year to figure things out, or gone to community college first to save money, or pursued some other vocational path.
In my experience, those who have ended up in more successful careers were often those who took their time to decide when and if to go to college and what to study. Those who had family support (i.e. a place to live with family while going to school) were able to get through college with less (or no) debt, enabling them to have less pressure as they searched for a job in their chosen field. Additionally, not all degrees lead to better job prospects, and those who were not rushed into college were able to take their time to research and consider whether it was worth it financially to pursue a given path of study. They also were more likely to learn about and pursue apprenticeships, two-year programs, trade schools, and self-employment.
I should add that my peers who have ended up in well-paying, satisfying careers have not necessarily been those who attended a prestigious university. Many of them simply attended the nearest public university to where they grew up.
I think your questions hinge on another question: what's the purpose of college? Is it to seek the truth? Is it to learn? Is it to get a job? Is it to attain status? Is it different for every person?
The over emphasis on getting into an elite college is particularly bad in some communities in New England, would be healthy to push back on this.
Over the past couple of decades, we have already made many changes in the direction that David Brooks suggests, test results have been deemphasized test and students are assessed on a wide range of attributes. These changes have included ramping up the grading of homework, meaning a student's grades reflect attributes like conscientious and compliance more than it does academics.
Peter's article raises the issues of students continuously being judged by adults, isn't this what David Brooks is essentially proposing, that we judge everything instead of limiting assessment to a few tests and exams?
I read this article and agreed with many of Brooks' points, but I did feel like his point about needing to take other factors than intelligence (as measured by test scores) into account didn't go far enough. Considering that these other factors aren't as easily measurable, it seems like we need larger-scale reforms to actually incorporate them.
This is why millions of families are now choosing to homeschool and unschool and almost 40% of the workforce in the US are freelancing.
There is an increasing trend to move away from traditional, centralized institutions towards more flexible education and work models.
I agree with kids needing curiosity, agility and social intelligence. The only problem I see is that most Social Emotional programs today do have a focus on social justice instead of just plain treating others right and improving yourself in positive ways without labels. Our district has moved to much more CTE (career and technical training) which I feel is a bonus, however if they are not given time early on to be able to explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes they may choose the wrong CTE path. Good article. Not every person should attend a college but rather the college of life. To do that we need to rework K12.
> and wealthy families help their kids boost that score by hundreds of points by putting them into expensive SAT prep courses.
I constantly hear this "hundreds of points" claim repeated. What's the actual evidence? Seems like the prep courses would be trumpeting it ad naseum. Amazed I missed this as the parent of a HS Junior!
This study says 33 points:
> The College Board, the supervising body responsible for organizing the SAT, studied more than 2,000,000 students who sat for the SAT (Kobrin, Evan & Anderson, Andrew [2019]), and found that students who were tutored, took online courses, and prepared via SAT study books scored 33 points higher on average than students who did not do extra work to prepare.
Yeah im surprised no one else pointed this out. You can't game the SATs _that_ much. Any criteria that is used for admissions is going to get gamed in some way or another. SATs involve preparation for a few months tops. Better that than sob story essays that people undergoing actual hardship feel too sensitive to talk about and which disproportionately favor people who are already elite.
I wonder if the recent election of President Trump will finally have an effect of reducing the power of elites? I think a large majority of Trump supporters, are also anti elitist, and are unhappy with the situation that elites, and elite families control the country.
John Dewey had something to say about this. And check out The Hiland Hall School.