This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Today's AXC book review (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-educated-mind) is about "The Educated Mind" by Kieran Egan. This is my second time reading half of it, skipping to the bottom, and feeling frustrated about it.
The reviewer is clearly invested, excited, and has put a lot of effort into their review. At the same time, I can't think of how the ideas, as presented, could possibly useful as a teacher, parent, or even if I were trying to design a new charter school or something.
A while ago, I went to a two hour lecture (with no breaks! In tight stadium seating, so it was impossible to even go use the restroom!) with someone going on and on about neural imaging and The Science of Reading (tm) and Background Knowledge and whatnot, with five minutes towards the end suggesting that perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into actual books or something sometime, as part of Professional Learning Communities (tm). These are, in general, things I'm interested in, but it was all about the five strands of something, which each split into three strands, which each have seven flavors, or something like that. There was no clever resolution as in the rhyme about the man going to St Ives.
This review felt kind of like that. It either is kind of the same as one would intuitively expect, and so doesn't need explaining (yes, of course we should tell stories. Clearly. Does anyone except Eustace Scrubb's parents disagree?), or it's something very complex that teacher's will struggle to follow and probably fail at (nobody is going to succeed at teaching "ambiguity, meta-skepticism, balance, lightness" in school, to ~30 assorted youth at a time).
A bit ago I was listening to Jordan Peterson interview a man who had opened up a private school in Wichita, Kansas (Zach Lahn, Wonder). The school sounded nice. I would plausibly send my children there, were I in a position to do so. They have a system with older students mentoring younger ones, a binary choice to discuss each morning, and one time they had a disrespectful student, but then they expelled him. It isn't just rich kids, he argued: he has a nurse working two jobs to pay the tuition! I stopped listening at that point, and felt a bit spiteful about it.
Maybe I should stop following this stuff, and just keep my head down. It's not like I'm planning to open up a new Eganian charter school in my city anyway. But educational discussions follow me around, haunting my steps, ever since growing on in a very countercultural, education aware household, reading John Taylor Gatto as a teen. I tried to go to in-person events, and it followed me. The ladies tea was talking about it, with a homeschooling mom of four, a mom with her kid in private school for culture war reasons, and someone getting people to sign a culture war adjacent education petition. I tried going to church, and the pastor's wife was talking in the nursery about Sunday School curriculum, with some sort of Montessori adjacent Catholic derived philosophy or something. I tried going to a friend's house, and they were also talking about Education. All of it sounds kind of exhausted and on edge.
One of my friends was asked to help develop parts of a national curriculum and tells me that teachers are pretty stupid, allergic to nuance and don't even follow the curriculum that much. Not all teachers and so on... But it was like there was some vast Power that was inserting errors of fact, errors of punctuation, errors of logic into the curriculum, that my friend was swimming against the tide. Endless anecdotes of frustration at incompetence.
I get the sense that mainstream education in the West is systemically broken, not something that can be fixed by tweaks around the edges. Sometimes you have to disassemble the whole thing and try again from another angle. It's like an auto-catalytic process: there's a force that makes certain dysfunctional teaching doctrines prestigious, so education professors teach bad dogma, smart people are filtered away by various incentives, bureaucracy proliferates out of control, behaviour and culture of school declines and everyone just asks for more money even as standards fall.
What can you do other than set up charter schools or similar outflanking? How do you change incentives if the institution is already rotten? If you reward schools with high graduation rates, they simply raise the graduation rate and everyone is worse off with grade inflation.
If the problem is that teachers are stupid and allergic to nuance, then structural changes are not going to have much effect. We're going to have to attract smarter, less nuance-resistant people to the teaching profession. And that is going to mean raising pay substantially. Because when I was teaching, we had plenty of smart, nuance-friendly Teach for America teachers, but the vast majority of them left to go to law/medical/business school.
Nah, just abolish teachers certificates -- anyone with a bachelor's in whatever can teach that subject. It's quite a comfy job for smart slackers, just that the pipeline tends to push those people on to something else -- which by the time they are done, another two years to get suitable indoctrinated is a bridge too far to consider.
That would not seem to address OP's concerns re improving the quality of education.
I am more qualified than the average high school teacher to teach any of math, physics, or computer science, at least -- I have a BSc, and therefore would need at least 2 years of indoctrination at the Education department before I would be allowed to teach high school in my jurisdiction.
I am a smart slacker, and could certainly get into earning ~80k p.a. for short days and summers off -- indeed I considered it prior to getting into remote software development. (yes I know most teachers do a lot of work outside of school hours -- they are not smart slackers)
But two more years of university is a bridge too far, so I find something else to do -- I submit that the population of people like me is much larger than the one that pursued teachers certificates -- so much so that even if there is no selection effect against being smart and nuanced in the teacher's certificate population, you would have many more such people considering teaching if you removed the need for an education diploma.
I hope this is clear?
Two more years is probably too long, and there's too damn much indoctrination going on, but in reality you can't just walk out of your college degree course and into a classroom and start teaching.
You can try, and this is the fun part of seeing student teachers doing practical work becasue the twenty or thirty eager little blossoms sitting before them in the classroom are quite likely to try and drive them crazy just for fun, but you do need practical instruction in pedagogical methods, supervision by experienced teachers, and learning how to control the little - darlings so they'll sit down, shut up, and learn something.
What about 10-20 years in industry? I would be an excellent CS teacher, and I'm quite sure I could wrangle math/physics to at the very least the low bar set by teaching diploma recipients who happened to take a couple of such courses at the 1-200 level during their four year indoctrination.
If you're talking about further/continuing education for adults, I'd agree. (Even 20 year olds might or might not be capable of sitting down, shutting up and learning).
But if we mean "average bunch of 12-15 year old kids, particularly boys" then nope. You can't use "your job depends on you not openly sassing your boss, which is me" against them to get them to sit down, shut up, and learn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I understand that your suggestion would increase the supply of teachers. But what I expressed skepticism about was that it would improve education. How is it that attracting slackers will improve education? I taught high school for many years, and there is no way that a slacker is going to be an effective teacher, with the possible exception of someone who is a genius.
I did specify smart slackers -- the goal is to provide some diversity of thought. Based on what I'm seeing with my kid that's going through this right now, this would be much more impactful than any 'quality' boost provided by teacher training. You think that I need two years of diploma to teach high school algebra? I'm already teaching it to my kid because his actual teachers seem to be failing miserably.
The teaching certificate may provide some sort of quality control, so you'd want to replace it with IQ and subject-matter tests (although those might be racist).
I (and probably gdanning) agree this would be a net benefit. But I think it'd close more like 5% of the gap between 'very intelligent teachers' and 'where we are now'. There are a four million teachers in the united states!
Also, why do we want very-smart teachers teaching not-smart students? It's probably better for 'society' that your time be used developing software, even if that software is p=.3 useful and p=.7 optimizing ads for video games or something.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, my point is that slackers are unlikely to be effective teachers, so a "more slackers" policy is unlikely to improve education. I an not arguing for requiring teacher training. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.
Eg: Bob teaches history. He requires students to write 10 papers per year. With 150 students and 10 minutes to grade each paper, that is 15000 minutes of grading per year. In contrast, Joe, a slacker, gives multiple choice scantron tests. Total grading time:3000 seconds. Which teacher would you choose for your kid?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link