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.

Comments

They're probably correct

[Anonymous Coward]

There. I said what we're all thinking.

Re:They're probably correct

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder about children these days. When I was in school everyone studied mathematics, science, history, grammar and literature, and often a foreign language from primary/elementary grades through graduation. In high school the girls tended to outperform the boys in most subjects including mathematics and sciences. It seems children born after after 1979 have been coddled and told it is alright not to challenge themselves.

Re:They're probably correct

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:They're probably correct

[plover]

When you were in school, Leibnitz hadn't yet invented his Calculus, so there wasn't as much STEM to learn.

I know, I'll get off your lawn.

Re:They're probably correct

[TWX]

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.

Re:They're probably correct

[Trax3001BBS]

There. I said what we're all thinking.

I was self teaching myself Quantum Physics, I read every book the library had, in the end I decided I needed to do the math myself so had a Quantum Physics math book sent from some university.

I laughed when I saw the book it was just all math no text and so over my head, I'd never seen math like that even more amusing (to me) was the first pages were of corrections so people had done the math and caught many errors (read the book).

So over my head I couldn't even begin to "do the math" I'd never seen math so uncomprehensible I even showed it off to friends.

I sent the book back on time and never again thought of doing the math.

Yes I can see why some would quit that field alone.

---I can for one do Nuclear Physics and tell you when a reactor will go critical by it's construction and other variables (there's an equation you use for this), my mistake was thinking Quantum Physics math would be similar.

Re:They're probably correct

[JustOK]

So, you're saying things got worse after integration in our schools?

Re:They're probably correct

[I'm New Around Here]

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?

Re: They're probably correct

[quenda]

Hasn't racial segregation just been replaced by postcode segregation?

Its getting more that way in Australia, with large variation in average scores of different schools.
Smart people in poor suburbs tend to send the kids to private schools (often Catholic), or get them into specialist programmes in non-local schools.

Re:They're probably correct

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

Re:They're probably correct

[Zorpheus]

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.

Re: They're probably correct

[jones_supa]

You seem to be one of those guys who post angry messages day after day. Whatever, thanks for the correction.

Re:They're probably correct

[StefanWiesendanger]

Actually, the kids from 1975 are the ones who invented smartphones, PDF and the Internet.

Re:They're probably correct

[GLMDesigns]

Rote memorization is very important and is seriously undervalued. Try learning an instrument or a sport w/o rote memorization. Memorizing, and developing the capacity to memorize is important. We need more rote memorization, not less.

Re:They're probably correct

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck cares.

Nobody is going to give them a job anyways.

Re: Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a science grad I wish I had been smart enough to pick up a trade instead of buying into the whole "smart enough for science" thing.

Re: Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got biochemistry PhD. And I had to leave the USA to find work. But if I had one wish, it wouldn't be to have chosen a different career, it would be to have never been born. I used to think that if I suffered enough as a child then I would be happy as an adult. Then I thought that I must have done something horribly wrong to have such a miserable life as an adult. Finally, I realized that life is just generally miserable for most people no matter what they do. It really doesn't matter what career you have unless you somehow get lucky and end up a member of the tiny hereditary ruling class.

Re: Pfft.

[DrunkenTerror]

Hugs, AC! May you have a great tomorrow.

This.

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:This.

[lgw]

Oh, geez, are we back to "teach self esteem" and "participation trophies"? We need to teach some self-discipline and determination - if we don't teach kids to keep going especially when it seems hard, how are they going to find success as adults? A proper "positive self image" is the result of success. You do the hard things not because you think you're great, but because you don't give up.

What you advocate leads to college grads who don't know what to do when no one hands them a great job at graduation, so they can only complain instead of persevere.

Re:This.

[Anne Thwacks]

There is plenty of good, strong scientific evidence that telling kids "thats great" when they are well aware it was crap is a very depressing experience for the kid, and leads to them going slowly off the rails It is not just useless, it is actually a very bad idea.

Unfortunately, a lot of the school system is allergic to science - so it is hardly surprising the can't teach it.

Everyone aknowledges some footballers are top rate, and some are not even so-so, but it is not acceptable to the union to admit the same for school teachers. This prevents meaningful discussion of the best way to deploy teachers with different abilities.

And the guy who said they wont get STM jobs anyway was right.

We Totally Got it Right This Time

[wisnoskij]

Psychology professor proves that parents retarded their children's development by listening to psychology professors. But totally has the right answer this time.

Re:We Totally Got it Right This Time

[Kjella]

Most parents would do great if they only let go of their ego and the proxy competition through their children. They want their children to be smart and successful and end up setting unrealistic standards and goals that makes children feel like failures when reality isn't that easy. And negative feedback on how they're falling short only makes it worse. Don't inflate their ego, don't crush it. Take your children for what they are, motivate them to do better. Show them that through effort they can improve. Recognize the improvement, no matter if it's D to C or A to A+. Encourage them to set their own goals, support them in reaching it, celebrate if they do, comfort if they don't. Don't think you can dictate the results.

The study I want to see...

[NotQuiteReal]

"Too many grown-ups go into politics because they think they are smart"

my kid

[Charliemopps]

I'm doing the same with my kid. I grew up in the middle of all this. My parents basically told me I was a genius from the time I was a toddler. The result? I didn't even try. It was all beneath me. I got out of high-school with a C average. Luckily I actually was smart enough to do very well on the ACT after I realized maybe I'd screwed up my grades.

My kid gets praised for effort. Telling someone they are smart is no more beneficial than praising them for being handsome, or tall. It's something they have no control over and cannot improve. So why praise it? Praise something they can control, perseverance.

Re:my kid

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! What an awesome comment. You're so smart!

Re:my kid

[ljw1004]

Someone told me that Golden Retrievers are a particularly smart breed of dog.

I replied "You shouldn't say that: you should just say that they try hard"

Re:my kid

[Charliemopps]

Wow! What an awesome comment. You're so smart!

I'm also quite handsome!

This was known at the time

[AK Marc]

I don't have any cites. I got a psychology degree years ago, during the "praise everything" movement. And it was known at the time that it didn't work. "You are so smart" said to a child is heard as "everything should be easy because you are already good at it." This was known at the time. The correction is "You are such a good problem solver" where the child hears that they can solve every problem, but must work at it. This has an effect closer to the intended "you are so smart" praise.

This was known 20 years ago, but it's take 20 years for the change to make it to public knowledge.

spare the rod, spoil the child

[swell]

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.

Cynical view...

[hyades1]

Too Many Kids Quit Science Because They Don't Think They're Smart

The problem is, too many of them are right.

Time to re-post the classic

[berbmit]

The importance of feeling stupid: http://jcs.biologists.org/cont...

Re:The worst thing you can do.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Not Enough Fear

[quenda]

Very funny. Except that Einstein emigrated to the US in 1933. In 1905 he lived in Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...