Slashdot Mirror
Too Many Kids Quit Science Because They Don't Think They're Smart
An anonymous reader writes: Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford, has done years of study on how students' attitudes affect their academic achievements. Her work began at the height of the "self-esteem movement," when parents were told to praise their kids' brainpower at every turn. But Professor Dweck found that praise for intelligence or talent — relatively immutable characteristics — only turned kids off of trying subjects they perceived as difficult, like math and science. Praising effort, perseverance, and problem-solving strategies works better. She also says, "There is such a thing as too much praise, we believe." Instead, she suggests engaging with kids about the process itself, showing interest and encouragement when they talk about how they did something.
Who the fuck cares.
Nobody is going to give them a job anyways.
This is where the whole "precious little snowflake" thing came from. People are only as smart as they think they are. This isn't the first study to show that. People will subconsciously cause themselves to fail in order to fit in with their self image. For all we don't like people getting praised for doing ok it's necessary for children (and adults) to build a positive self image before they can hope to succeed.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Psychology professor proves that parents retarded their children's development by listening to psychology professors. But totally has the right answer this time.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Be fair now. Some are coddled and told that it is alright not to challenge themselves. The rest are reminded that they are so screwed that the outcome of any amount of effort is likely to be equally unpleasant.
It also doesn't help that our education system isn't really designed to allow kids the room to actually struggle with a subject before attaining mastery without punishing their long-term prospects with bad marks on their records.
The addage, "the difference between the Master and the Novice is that the Master has failed more times than the Novice has tried," requires the person that becomes the master to have the latitude to fail during the education process without those individual failures costing them the right to advance, assuming that they manage to overcome those failures as they learn. That isn't to say that failure itself should be seen as a positive result, but if failure happens and can be overcome to demonstrate proficiency or mastery of the topic then the pupil should be able to continue.
It's not uncommon for those kids that are used to easy success without struggle to have quite a reality check once they're out of high school. Indeed, MIT even asks its applicants about their failures during the applications and admissions process; they want to be sure that a school full of kids that were valedictorians and salutatorians in their previous academic pursuits will not crack when they start struggling and failing there.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In the early 80s we were loading programs off tape drives and playing electronic football with four blips. You think smartphone interfaces would be too difficult to figure out?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes
he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... ]
Every child should read Alice in Wonderland. It's not easy reading, but they will get it. It presents a complex world that is not easy for young Alice, but she has pluck and forges ahead. It is an adventure that requires courage and confidence and a tremendous example for young people- boys and girls.
Challenge your children. Give them Poe, Swift, R.L. Stevenson, quality scifi, etc. Give them fine music & jazz, fine art and the opportunity to create art, give them geography, history, dinosaurs and bioscience. Don't numb their brains with superhero TV & games.
There is more to education than job training. There is life. Give them a head start. Love them.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Indeed, MIT even asks its applicants about their failures during the applications and admissions process; they want to be sure that a school full of kids that were valedictorians and salutatorians in their previous academic pursuits will not crack when they start struggling and failing there.
It's even more than that -- MIT wants students who will accept a system, unlike some other top tier schools, where you're not basically guaranteed an A once you're admitted. Grade inflation is a huge problem at top tier schools, and it's really hard to deal with since any professor who tries to give "real" grades will suffer -- poor evaluations, and just the annoyance of dealing with dozens of upset students who are used to getting A's in everything since kindergarten, no matter what effort they put forth.
MIT has a unique and rather effective way of dealing with this: first semester freshman year is "pass/no record". Not pass/fail, but no record -- meaning if you get an A, B, or C, your permanent transcript only says " P"; if you get a D or F, the class doesn't even show up on your external transcipt, so no one outside MIT gets to even know you took the class and failed.
Aside from giving students a chance to learn through failing with no immediate consequences, it also allows a bunch of valedictorians and people with perfect SATs to realize many of them are no longer the smartest person in the room, and they're going to have to work harder. Perhaps even beyond helping the students' egos and "self-calibration" to a new environment, it also allows professors to "set a standard" without creating permanent consequences for new students. If you do get a student running to your office -- with tears streaming (or worse, threatening a lawsuit, and yeah those things do happen) -- saying, "But, but... I can't get a B on my test -- I have to get into med school!" you can just tell them to take a deep breath and try their best in the future, since this grade won't influence their permanent record.
Then by the next semester, many of the freshmen have failed or gotten a low grade somewhere, so they've realized they just won't be handed an A for showing up. So they either try harder or realize that their effort is just now going to get them a B or even a C. A little bit of failure honestly changes the entire culture of the school.
What counts is what capabilities you have in the end. Why should it matter how you performed in first year? Someone who is behind in the beginning but catches up is probably better than someone who already knew half of the topic because his parents helped him before.
A wealthy friend of the family once told me: "There are two ways to become wealthy: out smart the other guy. The rest of us out work him."
Most people who are wealthy have wealthy parents. It is overwhelmingly the most common way to become wealthy. Virtually nobody makes it to "the top" solely through hard work. Wealthy people always extol the virtues of hard work, but the truth is that there is no amount of hard work will necessarily make you successful. There are too many people waiting with outstretched hands to take advantage of you, or feet waiting to trip you — mostly to assure that you don't threaten their success in this negative-sum game.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm not saying that rote memorization is the end-all-be-all or that it trumps critical thinking. It doesn't. But neither is it unimportant.
Try talking history and not know your dates. You needn't remember exact dates but knowing that Augustine lived around 360-430 and was not a contemporary of Aquinas (1225-1275) who was not a contemporary of Hobbes (born in 1588 - the year of the Spanish Armada) is important when in the field.
Knowing that Babe Ruth and Derek Jeter were not contemporaries is also import. Joe Louis did not fight Muhammad Ali who was not a contemporary of Mike Tyson. All these items (when people lived, when they were active in their respective sport) are facts - not critical thinking. Judging the relative merits of Joe Louis and Mike Tyson takes critical thinking.
Doctors memorize bones and muscles. It's important but rote memorization of these facts will not make them good doctors (and is probably not enough to graduate). Learning how to memorize helps one derive mnemonics - like the phone number 10-4-3-4-1-1-1. (Yes it's not a real telephone number) and then use that to help remember key facts. A US citizen should be conversant with the constitution even if they are not a constitutional lawyer. The Constitution has 7 parts (articles) each with different sections. The first article, which deals with the Legislative Branch, has 10 sections; the second article, which is concerned with the Executive Branch has 4 sections. The mnemonic 10-4-3-4-1-1-1 helps me remember, to mentally categorize key points about the US Constitution.
Will memorizing the constitution make me into a jurist ? No. But the effort of learning involves memorization.
Memorization is to cerebral activities what wind sprints and sit-ups are to athletes. It helps one become better and while sit-ups won't turn me into a world-class boxer or football it is a necessary part of becoming a world-class athlete.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond