Slashdot Mirror
Should Kids Be Bribed To Do Well In School?
theodp writes "Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. did something education researchers almost never do: he ran a randomized experiment in hundreds of classrooms in Chicago, Dallas, Washington, and New York to help answer a controversial question: Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School? He used mostly private money to pay 18,000 kids a total of $6.3 million and brought in a team of researchers to help him analyze the effects. He got death threats, but he carried on. His findings? If incentives are designed wisely, it appears, payments can indeed boost kids' performance as much as or more than many other reforms you've heard about before — and for a fraction of the cost."
Why do you hate Science?
Have you stopped hating Freedom yet?
They didn't have to pay us to be good, we were good for nothing.
In Soviet Russia, bribes school YOU!
*ducks and runs from thread*
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
It's how we motivate adults at work so why not kids in school?
because kids aren't adults, and school isn't optional work?
why do you think adults require motivation?
Jocks.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Maybe the threats were from the teachers who felt it was THEM who should've been bribed to teach better
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Psychological studies have shown that the field of psychology is full of shit.
I'll only read that book if you pay me.
Citation please.
I wonder if paying you to read the article might have gotten a better result for reading comprehension.
AccountKiller
Hmm...
currency = work ethic
fiat * currency = fiat * (work ethic)
;)
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
He thought it was unfair that
#1 he had to pay for children's education
AND
#2 he had to pay for incentives so that children would take advantage of #1
For the entire statement to evaluate to TRUE (that is, it was unfair), both terms must be true. Therefore, you cannot short-circuit the statement unless the first statement is false. So, if we're saying that he doesn't need to pay for children's' education then it can be short circuited. This has nothing to do with the current conversation and wasn't really suggested which means that the only thing that matters is the second term. I may be pedantic, but I'm also right...
Perhaps the teacher's union? Maybe they are worried about losing a chunk of school funding to the kids...
I don't know how to make this more clear to you.
He might make better progress if you offered some sort of financial reward for his comprehension of your opinion,
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
But I'm a programmer and that's a hardware issue.