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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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!

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.