What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html
81 comments
I'll have a stab at an explanation.
I'm Danish, and I suspect that the Danish school system is similar to the Finnish. It also seems that Danes are held in some regard internationally - so an explanation rooted in the Danish educational system is probably not much off.
The Danish scchool system doesn't only teach you answers, it also teaches you which questions to ask. Schoolkids are encouraged to come up with their own ideas and explanations - and to be able to argue their validity. This ingrains a different kind of knowledge: Instead of kids that are able to recite the periodic table you get kids that are able to explain why it is put together the way it is. I think this is the pivotal point.
I don't think Danish, or Finnish, kids are smarter per se, but they are better at holistic thinking, reasoning and abstract thought because they learn from a young age to ask interesting questions and demand coherent answers.
I'm Danish, and I suspect that the Danish school system is similar to the Finnish. It also seems that Danes are held in some regard internationally - so an explanation rooted in the Danish educational system is probably not much off.
The Danish scchool system doesn't only teach you answers, it also teaches you which questions to ask. Schoolkids are encouraged to come up with their own ideas and explanations - and to be able to argue their validity. This ingrains a different kind of knowledge: Instead of kids that are able to recite the periodic table you get kids that are able to explain why it is put together the way it is. I think this is the pivotal point.
I don't think Danish, or Finnish, kids are smarter per se, but they are better at holistic thinking, reasoning and abstract thought because they learn from a young age to ask interesting questions and demand coherent answers.
> It also seems that Danes are held in some regard internationally
We're actually just flattering you so you won't come pillage our coasts anymore. ;-)
We're actually just flattering you so you won't come pillage our coasts anymore. ;-)
There are almost no other activities, no special classes, no school sports (only p.e. for everybody), no advanced classes and teaching is mostly done with books, paper and board.
Maybe this is good.
Maybe this is good.
When I read that part I immediately thought of your essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular."
Maybe there's a bit of psychology at play here. There might be a lower out casting of nerds if the popularity gap is smaller. Going off the essay, maybe it's far more acceptable to become more intelligent (both intellectually and scholastically) in this type of environment.
If that's the case, it sounds like a school full of nerds who are cool with nerds--sign me up!
Maybe there's a bit of psychology at play here. There might be a lower out casting of nerds if the popularity gap is smaller. Going off the essay, maybe it's far more acceptable to become more intelligent (both intellectually and scholastically) in this type of environment.
If that's the case, it sounds like a school full of nerds who are cool with nerds--sign me up!
True. We don't have any athlete superpower or fierce popularity contests. I don't even remember that if anyone had been bullied over being good at school. Of course some kids are more popular than others, and there are always few tough guys, which are mostly regarded kind of sad cases.
But still for a half-nerd like myself, school was not a very intresting place to be. I was more interested in the real world and computers. School is like mundane job where you go because you have to, you have no control over it and nothing is real. Equal minds is great thing to have, but it means that you can't have so many best minds.
While our education may excel in PISA, still even our schools are not very inspirational places, which I think they should be.
But still for a half-nerd like myself, school was not a very intresting place to be. I was more interested in the real world and computers. School is like mundane job where you go because you have to, you have no control over it and nothing is real. Equal minds is great thing to have, but it means that you can't have so many best minds.
While our education may excel in PISA, still even our schools are not very inspirational places, which I think they should be.
As another Dane I can say that a lot of the things that Paul laments in his essays do not exist in our schools. Honestly we grimace at the notion of a 'prom queen' or a 'homecoming' celebration of a sports team.
I think in part we feel it absurd in the extreme to focus so overtly on physical prowess in an educational context, and another part of it is that it just goes against our very egalitarian culture.
Ironically, where the higher focus on actual study works in favor of a nerd, the egalitarianism works against him. Lets just say I became a crack pencil artist courtesy of countless and countless hours spent waiting for the class to catch up.
I think in part we feel it absurd in the extreme to focus so overtly on physical prowess in an educational context, and another part of it is that it just goes against our very egalitarian culture.
Ironically, where the higher focus on actual study works in favor of a nerd, the egalitarianism works against him. Lets just say I became a crack pencil artist courtesy of countless and countless hours spent waiting for the class to catch up.
agree except the sports part.
most of the discussion are of low quality and can be done with a smarter audience on HN or some other newsgroups.
But sports teams are good. it really encourages self-discipline, work ethics, and a competitive spirit.
most of the discussion are of low quality and can be done with a smarter audience on HN or some other newsgroups.
But sports teams are good. it really encourages self-discipline, work ethics, and a competitive spirit.
"Teachers maybe still care little bit about there students and think the main difference is that we are expected to learn and know more from the start. I started learning a second language when I was on first grade and third language on fifth grade."
I've heard people speculate that learning more than one language early on encourages a certain "flexibility" of mind that helps with knowledge acquisition in general.
I've heard people speculate that learning more than one language early on encourages a certain "flexibility" of mind that helps with knowledge acquisition in general.
Sounds like education in East Asia as well, except classical musical instrument lessons being the only extracurricular activities, which are almost as demanding as schoolworks.
Could you explain why having a classmate that didn't speak Finnish natively is helpful for keeping up the bar?
Suppose you have an excellent transfer student who could do everything you did, but not in Finnish. Wouldn't your interaction be some kind of training for effective communication? Assuming again that said student is excellent, you would expect them to pick up the language in about a year, and wouldn't expect they become a hindrance during, would you?
Suppose you have an excellent transfer student who could do everything you did, but not in Finnish. Wouldn't your interaction be some kind of training for effective communication? Assuming again that said student is excellent, you would expect them to pick up the language in about a year, and wouldn't expect they become a hindrance during, would you?
I was thinking more about elementary education. I also excluded exchange students since they probably don't take the test. You are right. It could be helpful in other ways, but probably not in the scoring of PISA.
I would assume that learning won't get any easier when you don't know the language. If you get bad start early on, it can hurt you later on or even frustrade you. So even it might be small aspect, it seems that PISA-test rewards for homogenous.
I would assume that learning won't get any easier when you don't know the language. If you get bad start early on, it can hurt you later on or even frustrade you. So even it might be small aspect, it seems that PISA-test rewards for homogenous.
"Assuming again that said student is excellent"
That's a pretty big assumption. Realistically, they'll be about average. If you have significant numbers of immigrants, many of them will be below average (and many will be above)
Besides, that's still a year in which the teacher has to repeat parts of the lesson for the student, clarify words, and generally move somewhat more slowly to help the new student comprehend what's going on.
That's a pretty big assumption. Realistically, they'll be about average. If you have significant numbers of immigrants, many of them will be below average (and many will be above)
Besides, that's still a year in which the teacher has to repeat parts of the lesson for the student, clarify words, and generally move somewhat more slowly to help the new student comprehend what's going on.
I agree with you. The issues involved seem way more complicated than either of our posts cover. Now I am wondering whether exchange student programs are all that useful in the long run, in terms of GDP or some other national metric. In terms of national testing averages, I don't see a quick answer to whether non-native speaking students affect the average at all.
I'm curious about competitiveness: Are your grades public? Do people know how much other people scored in tests, etc.?
No. We only have one nation wide test, which is a marticular exam(consisting of atleast four subjects: math, natural/social sciences, Finnish, English) in end of the high school. Even there they only publish(with your permission) if you passed or failed. At the ceremony where you get your final report and certificate, they usually state in loud if you scored Laudatur(10) or Eximia(9)(in scale of 4-10) and thats about public at it gets.
In elementary you only get grades at the end of the school year, and for first years you only get stated that if you're good or not so good in some subjects. At junior high to high school you usually get grades(4-10) on single courses which are then averaged and rounded to annual grades. So particular exam scores are not so important. If you're a good and active student, a one bad exam won't affect your annual grade so much or even at all.
So grades aren't public, but usually other students and teachers know who is doing well and who isn't.
And I would add that none of our exams are multiple choice. In social sciences they are mostly essays and open questions, in languages vocabularity, listening, grammar, and writing tasks, math is math, and natural sciences are math and essays/open questions. So you cannot probably even fully compare your answers since sometimes there are more than one right answer and a way to answer it.
In elementary you only get grades at the end of the school year, and for first years you only get stated that if you're good or not so good in some subjects. At junior high to high school you usually get grades(4-10) on single courses which are then averaged and rounded to annual grades. So particular exam scores are not so important. If you're a good and active student, a one bad exam won't affect your annual grade so much or even at all.
So grades aren't public, but usually other students and teachers know who is doing well and who isn't.
And I would add that none of our exams are multiple choice. In social sciences they are mostly essays and open questions, in languages vocabularity, listening, grammar, and writing tasks, math is math, and natural sciences are math and essays/open questions. So you cannot probably even fully compare your answers since sometimes there are more than one right answer and a way to answer it.
Part of the reason surely has to do with the economy. In Finland, two sectors are highly subsidized via R&D: Information Technology (Nokia) and Forestry (which is highly scientific).
Interesting article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127....
These two drivers for the economy surely reinforce the importance of science and math in school. Students are more focused on areas of study with practical applications (jobs) in their own country - hence high math and science scores. And where you have more competition you have a positive feedback look (Kenyan Runners: http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/11/kenyan-runne...)
My two cents anyways.
Interesting article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127....
These two drivers for the economy surely reinforce the importance of science and math in school. Students are more focused on areas of study with practical applications (jobs) in their own country - hence high math and science scores. And where you have more competition you have a positive feedback look (Kenyan Runners: http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/11/kenyan-runne...)
My two cents anyways.
Interesting article, I think that while America has a long way to improve our education system, Americans sell themselves short. America has sprawling metropolises with a lot of urban poor. Trying to improve their education by throwing a couple of books their way is dismissive of the large problem at hand.
But also on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a lot of the brightest minds in the world. Most of the top universities in the world are based in the United States, and our top students obviously do well in the global arena.
But also on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a lot of the brightest minds in the world. Most of the top universities in the world are based in the United States, and our top students obviously do well in the global arena.
"... one of the lowest percentages of immigrants of any Western European country: only two percent of its 5.2 million residents.
And a substantial fraction of Finland's immigrants consist of spouses of Finns, Finnish-speaking citizens of Russia (there are pockets of Finnish-speakers throughout the forests of northern Russia), Estonians, whose Uralic language is closest to Finnish, and Swedes (Swedish is the second official language). Third World immigrants make up less than one percent of the population."
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070319_diversity.htm
And a substantial fraction of Finland's immigrants consist of spouses of Finns, Finnish-speaking citizens of Russia (there are pockets of Finnish-speakers throughout the forests of northern Russia), Estonians, whose Uralic language is closest to Finnish, and Swedes (Swedish is the second official language). Third World immigrants make up less than one percent of the population."
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070319_diversity.htm
I'm pro-immigration, in the classic "the more the merrier" tradition of those with confidence in both markets and human innovation.
But to be intellectually honest, we have to acknowledge that immigrants of different languages, cultures, and economic backgrounds will bring many 'average' statistics of education (and health, etc.) down. This is even true if the immigration is a net-benefit to both natives and newcomers.
With that in mind, the massive downvoting of the parent comment (at -9 at one point) is a dishonest enforcement of political correctness.
Even if you disagree with the conclusions of the linked article, and the other views of that article's author, the comment here is factual and relevant to the topic at hand, and the linked article includes other useful facts about Finland.
If the submission question "What makes Finnish kids so smart?" is legitimate at all -- the study of why one country has different results than others -- discussion has to be free to consider major things that make that country different from others. In Finland's case, that includes its traditional and apparently legally-enforced homogeneity.
I would not want to live in such a place, but I don't want my understanding of such places crippled by a long list of "things you can't say".
But to be intellectually honest, we have to acknowledge that immigrants of different languages, cultures, and economic backgrounds will bring many 'average' statistics of education (and health, etc.) down. This is even true if the immigration is a net-benefit to both natives and newcomers.
With that in mind, the massive downvoting of the parent comment (at -9 at one point) is a dishonest enforcement of political correctness.
Even if you disagree with the conclusions of the linked article, and the other views of that article's author, the comment here is factual and relevant to the topic at hand, and the linked article includes other useful facts about Finland.
If the submission question "What makes Finnish kids so smart?" is legitimate at all -- the study of why one country has different results than others -- discussion has to be free to consider major things that make that country different from others. In Finland's case, that includes its traditional and apparently legally-enforced homogeneity.
I would not want to live in such a place, but I don't want my understanding of such places crippled by a long list of "things you can't say".
legally-enforced homogeneity
Honest question: Would you want to live in a country with legally-enforced diversity?
(Because that's where you're living.)
Honest question: Would you want to live in a country with legally-enforced diversity?
(Because that's where you're living.)
How about freedom of association? I heard that they tried that once. Seems like a good idea.
The question is too vague to answer. What kind of 'diversity' and how is it 'enforced'?
I haven't emigrated, and I prefer more open immigration than either Finland or the U.S. allow.
I haven't emigrated, and I prefer more open immigration than either Finland or the U.S. allow.
Yes.
Your neighborhood or mine? Is it okay if the good and decent men of congress choose your neighbors? Or should nationalist groups like La Raza be in charge of determining the country's composition? That's what I mean by "legally-enforced diversity": Powerful people, deciding for other people, whether they are acceptable, or whether they should be numerically marginalized.
If you are asking if enforced diversity as it exists in this country today is ok, as in one cannot be discriminated against based on nationality, color, creed, or sexual orientation, then yes. I prefer that to a nation where tiny city states can determine whether or not they want their neighbors to be all white, or bosses can decide if they only want to hire men. That's totally fine with me, even if it needs to be legally enforced.
La Raza is not a nationalist group, but an organization to help disadvantaged Latinos. Do you know La Raza members?
La Raza is not a nationalist group, but an organization to help disadvantaged Latinos. Do you know La Raza members?
I downvoted it, not because of political correctness, but because it seemed like linkbait. The account was only hours old and the post expressed no view of its own.
Also, the reference to "Third World" immigrants struck me as gratuitous, and suggestive in a negative way.
Also, the reference to "Third World" immigrants struck me as gratuitous, and suggestive in a negative way.
I agree with most of what you say. But I also think homogenity is not the whole story. How many non spanish speaking kids are there in a typical Mexican classroom? I know Mexico does have an indigenous population, but I think the share of Mexicans who don't speak proper spanish is very low. Probably even lower than that of native swedish or russian speakers in Finland.
My conclusion is that economic and teaching related causes are probably more significant than ethnic ones. I think you would find that mixed language elite schools anywhere in the world rank higher than the average Finnish school. Sadly, it's a poignant feature of most european immigrant populations that they are poor and uneducated. They don't just speak different languages, they don't speak any language particularly well. It's just averaging of course but that's what the PISA test does.
My conclusion is that economic and teaching related causes are probably more significant than ethnic ones. I think you would find that mixed language elite schools anywhere in the world rank higher than the average Finnish school. Sadly, it's a poignant feature of most european immigrant populations that they are poor and uneducated. They don't just speak different languages, they don't speak any language particularly well. It's just averaging of course but that's what the PISA test does.
"the massive downvoting of the parent comment is a dishonest enforcement of political correctness."
I don't read Sailer's blog, but from what I understand it's mainly devoted to proving that African-Americans have lower IQs because of inferior genetics. Now you might say, well if this really is true, then wouldn't denying it be intellectually dishonest? Here's the thing though. The black-white IQ gap has been almost entirely explained by controlling for SES and other factors. Anyone who spends all day quibbling over the last two or three points clearly just has an axe to grind for other reasons.
I don't read Sailer's blog, but from what I understand it's mainly devoted to proving that African-Americans have lower IQs because of inferior genetics. Now you might say, well if this really is true, then wouldn't denying it be intellectually dishonest? Here's the thing though. The black-white IQ gap has been almost entirely explained by controlling for SES and other factors. Anyone who spends all day quibbling over the last two or three points clearly just has an axe to grind for other reasons.
The black-white IQ gap has been almost entirely explained by controlling for SES and other factors.
I used to think the same thing. But when I actually spent some time reading and evaluating the evidence, it turns out that is far from the case. The official scientific consensus is that the jury is still out. But there is certainly a strong case for the genetic basis - see this article in Slate for example: http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
I used to think the same thing. But when I actually spent some time reading and evaluating the evidence, it turns out that is far from the case. The official scientific consensus is that the jury is still out. But there is certainly a strong case for the genetic basis - see this article in Slate for example: http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
Sailer's other writings are no good reason to downvote the factual, relevant excerpt above from user 'occam'.
And regarding those other writings, do you think you can give a fair summary, and a convincing refutation, when you haven't read them?
And regarding those other writings, do you think you can give a fair summary, and a convincing refutation, when you haven't read them?
I've read some of them, and I followed his spat with Gladwell. I also didn't vote down his comment. My point was more that Steve Sailer in general has never struck me as the model of intellectual integrity.
> it's mainly devoted to proving that African-Americans have lower IQs because of inferior genetics
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
[deleted]
Jesus, as if there weren't enough populist demagogues blaming every problem on immigrants already, now we have to put up with you here on HN.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
Have a look at the rankings at the bottom, and then explain why Canada, with about 3-4 times more immigration per capita, outscores the US.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
Have a look at the rankings at the bottom, and then explain why Canada, with about 3-4 times more immigration per capita, outscores the US.
Don't bait him. His SEO technique is to spam more popular blogs/forums with links back to his, and to get into these types of arguments, producing more link opportunities for him. Worse, we may get more of his constituency moving in. (There goes the neighborhood).
The best method to protect the site from being inundated with more stuff like this is to try to stay as hacker-focused as possible, perhaps relegating the race/gender/IQ trifecta to the same status as religion and political discussion, or to accept the likely degradation in discussion.
The best method to protect the site from being inundated with more stuff like this is to try to stay as hacker-focused as possible, perhaps relegating the race/gender/IQ trifecta to the same status as religion and political discussion, or to accept the likely degradation in discussion.
"Worse, we may get more of his constituency moving in. (There goes the neighborhood)."
We should do everything we can to keep out these immigrants.
We should do everything we can to keep out these immigrants.
The best method to protect the site from being inundated with more stuff like this...
You may be right. It may not (yet) be possible to have a sincere public discussion that isn't drowned out by PC ideologues on one side and racists and xenophobes on the other. It's not always easy to tell who's who, either: sometimes uttering "what you can't say" is an act of courage, sometimes it just means you're an asshole. Intentions and emotions are part of this, and they're harder to read outside the personal sphere.
You may be right. It may not (yet) be possible to have a sincere public discussion that isn't drowned out by PC ideologues on one side and racists and xenophobes on the other. It's not always easy to tell who's who, either: sometimes uttering "what you can't say" is an act of courage, sometimes it just means you're an asshole. Intentions and emotions are part of this, and they're harder to read outside the personal sphere.
I'm assuming if your comment has negative karma its links are necessarily nofollowed?
edit: Then the strategy aswanson alleges occam is pursuing is totally misguided. Maybe a little note on the bottom of the comment box that all links are nofollowed would prevent any further such attempts.
edit: Then the strategy aswanson alleges occam is pursuing is totally misguided. Maybe a little note on the bottom of the comment box that all links are nofollowed would prevent any further such attempts.
All links in comments are nofollowed.
Nofollowing isn't enough to stop determined SEOs with lots of time on their hands. A nofollow link is still decidedly better than no link at all, because it gets a couple of clicks of traffic and maybe, maybe will be picked up by someone else as a follow link.
...would prevent any further such attempts.
Presuming he is smart enough to understand the implications.
Presuming he is smart enough to understand the implications.
>perhaps relegating the race/gender/IQ trifecta to the same status as religion and political discussion, or to accept the likely degradation in discussion.
I'd prefer to accept the degradation. "X racial subgroup is better/worse in some way than y racial subgroup" is one of the unnamed Things You Can't Say and I see no need to censor it here, even if the discussion makes me uncomfortable.
I'd prefer to accept the degradation. "X racial subgroup is better/worse in some way than y racial subgroup" is one of the unnamed Things You Can't Say and I see no need to censor it here, even if the discussion makes me uncomfortable.
Right, sweeping it under the table is never a good idea, but I don't know what else can be said about it that hasn't been beaten to all hell and back here and everywhere else. It's not like opinions are going to change, and I, for one, get nothing out of it.
It is informative to know how other people think about these things, so you have a point. I do worry, though, about what type of people will be attracted here by this type of meme.
It is informative to know how other people think about these things, so you have a point. I do worry, though, about what type of people will be attracted here by this type of meme.
Surely there is a technological solution to this. Perhaps a thought purifier?
I don't see how this is SEO. Secondly, I disagree that race, gender and IQ should be banned from discussion along with religion and politics. Ban trolls, not subjects.
Canada has extremely rigorous requirements for immigrants.
"Canada" and "extremely" in the same phrase? An oxymoron!
Edit: I almost didn't post this because people are being so sensitive today. But you're a tough guy. :)
Edit: I almost didn't post this because people are being so sensitive today. But you're a tough guy. :)
[deleted]
canada's immigrants tend to be more educated. this isn't much of a stretch, the people crossing the border at arizona in 110 degree heat tend to be some of the most disadvantaged from their own society
[deleted]
And what's your point?
The climate is pretty bad in the US for teachers.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html
...not every school is like that obviously, but particularily chaotic institutions will drag down the average.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html
...not every school is like that obviously, but particularily chaotic institutions will drag down the average.
There's probably a correlation with being a "happy" country: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371878/
Remarkable... I wish the US system were more like that but I can't see it happening. My high school was nothing like that. Montessori schools seem to lean in that direction though. Can anyone with first-hand Montessori experience comment on that?
I went to a Montessori school from pre-k to 5th grade. The school I went to was just completely different from any public elementary school I have visited in this country.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all mentality for education, each teacher developed a work-plan for each student that he/she was to complete at the end of the week. There were no desks, but workmats that we could arrange on the floor or at a table. Everything we did had to be kept on the workmat, but allowed for freedom of working wherever in the classroom. There were 9 week assessments which determined our progress and helped establish the pacing of our work-plans. Almost everything was independent. Teachers only taught in small groups of similarly leveled students, but this was maybe twice a week. They seemed to serve more as facilitators of learning, not leaders.
A similarity to this article was that second/third languages started early. I went to Montessori only speaking Persian and a little English, but within 1 year I was also enrolled in Spanish, and 3 years later in French. I have since forgotten the French--there are few to speak it with in Alabama, but I have retained decent fluency in Spanish. We had little in the way of sports aside from PE, but we had art classes twice a week (visual arts once on tuesdays and musical arts on thursdays). We also had computer training from a very early age; I remember being on the early internet waaaaay back in 1995 when I was 7.
Classes were interestingly set up as well. In one classroom there were 3 grades of students with two teachers. I think there were maybe 40 kids spread amongst the years. We stayed with the same teacher for 3 year blocks. My experiences were Pre-K and Kindergarten / First-Third Grades / Fourth-Sixth Grades. Interaction and cooperative learning between both grade-level and skill-level was encouraged, with the idea that one could only master the material if you could teach it to someone else.
Any further questions? I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all mentality for education, each teacher developed a work-plan for each student that he/she was to complete at the end of the week. There were no desks, but workmats that we could arrange on the floor or at a table. Everything we did had to be kept on the workmat, but allowed for freedom of working wherever in the classroom. There were 9 week assessments which determined our progress and helped establish the pacing of our work-plans. Almost everything was independent. Teachers only taught in small groups of similarly leveled students, but this was maybe twice a week. They seemed to serve more as facilitators of learning, not leaders.
A similarity to this article was that second/third languages started early. I went to Montessori only speaking Persian and a little English, but within 1 year I was also enrolled in Spanish, and 3 years later in French. I have since forgotten the French--there are few to speak it with in Alabama, but I have retained decent fluency in Spanish. We had little in the way of sports aside from PE, but we had art classes twice a week (visual arts once on tuesdays and musical arts on thursdays). We also had computer training from a very early age; I remember being on the early internet waaaaay back in 1995 when I was 7.
Classes were interestingly set up as well. In one classroom there were 3 grades of students with two teachers. I think there were maybe 40 kids spread amongst the years. We stayed with the same teacher for 3 year blocks. My experiences were Pre-K and Kindergarten / First-Third Grades / Fourth-Sixth Grades. Interaction and cooperative learning between both grade-level and skill-level was encouraged, with the idea that one could only master the material if you could teach it to someone else.
Any further questions? I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.
That's the problem with Montessori. It's unclear what they actually believe. If you go through the mainstream literature on various educational theories, the proponents of each theory make a clear case about what this method does for children and why it is better than other methods, with some set of empirical results. With Montessori if you want access to their materials then you have to pay.[1] It's like the Scientology of the education world.
[1] With the exception of the original books from 90+ years ago.
[1] With the exception of the original books from 90+ years ago.
I think you may be getting Montessori mixed up with Waldorf. Information on the montessori method is widely available (start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori, google for more). My son goes to a public Montessori school, and if I want access to the materials, I just ask the teacher. Everything is open, and parents (including prospective parents) are very much encouraged to observe the classroom.
Waldorf is kind of weird and secretive and expensive, and based on suspect and outdated science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education
Waldorf is kind of weird and secretive and expensive, and based on suspect and outdated science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education
No I meant Montessori. The Wikipedia article and the information on montessori.org provide a short description and a few example activities, but neither contain anywhere near enough insight/information to make a rational evaluation of the program. So far as I can tell you pretty much have to accept everything on faith.
Seriously, as much info about Montessori as you want is out there, and unless the school you're dealing with is a little shady, you should be able to walk in & request anything without paying tuition. You can also find a lot more than those two sites on the internet.
This PISA test is ridiculous as a standard to measure the general intelligence. 400,000 is not a very big sample size in certain countries. It seems that this method measures more of the homogeneity of the education level of a country rather than the smartness of its students.
I'm curious about the sampling method of this test, it's really hard to select a representative sample among diversity such as U.S.
That being said, I do agree with the way a lot of classes are taught in American public schools. Especially the projects where students "glue things on a poster for an hour", mindless things like that really waste time and energy better used in something else.
And I cant help but think that Finnish kids really dont have much to do compared to people at other countries? They might as well do really well in their studies!
I'm curious about the sampling method of this test, it's really hard to select a representative sample among diversity such as U.S.
That being said, I do agree with the way a lot of classes are taught in American public schools. Especially the projects where students "glue things on a poster for an hour", mindless things like that really waste time and energy better used in something else.
And I cant help but think that Finnish kids really dont have much to do compared to people at other countries? They might as well do really well in their studies!
Then why is the US the most innovative country in the world? I am not saying the others aren’t, but overall the US is the most innovative regardless of the poor schools. Maybe it doesn’t really matter who earns the top scores, it is what you accomplish with it.
The USA rewards innovation and has the least friction applied to people trying to innovate.
This doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether the average student in the US is learning anything.
I can walk into any building in Silicon Valley and the Indians will come close to outnumbering the natives (and if the battle were held on a syllable-by-syllable basis, a clear loss for the home team.) It seems to me sometimes that Silicon Valley built something great based on widely available, merit-based, quality public education. Then around the 1970s they stopped funding that and started to rely only on prodigies from wealthy families, or outlier freaks from America, and the educational product of all the other countries.
This doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether the average student in the US is learning anything.
I can walk into any building in Silicon Valley and the Indians will come close to outnumbering the natives (and if the battle were held on a syllable-by-syllable basis, a clear loss for the home team.) It seems to me sometimes that Silicon Valley built something great based on widely available, merit-based, quality public education. Then around the 1970s they stopped funding that and started to rely only on prodigies from wealthy families, or outlier freaks from America, and the educational product of all the other countries.
The thing about the U.S. is that it encourages competition particularly in lower levels - not within the school system entirely, but also partially despite it.
The way public school systems are set up, you get multiple social spheres that are forced to interact. You've got the sports group - the people who push away their boredom for school with a fascination for physical activity. There're the honor students, or whatever you want to call them - the people who study for hours a day, who partake in activities with Machiavellian efficiency. The ones who will do anything as long as it means a shot at the Ivies.
Those are the two ones people know and talk about. The one that ISN'T mentioned, the one that absolutely exists, is the smaller sphere of people who know what they want to do with their life. It's always a set of bright students, but students that have no seeming motivation toward school. They're just as real a group as the other two, but they have no need to announce their presence, so they're really often missed when people talk about them. They're the people, I think, that really propel innovation.
The interesting thing is that beyond a sort of personal drive, those people tend to have nothing outwardly in common. There're very nerdy people in that group and there are people as far from nerds as they come. Quiet people, loud people. They blend between the other spheres - despite a focus on things not school-related, a ton of them go to really top-notch schools. I'd put myself in this category. I very rarely put an effort into any part of school, did no work, and I'm still going to a really top-notch public school. It's not an Ivy, it's not what I've been told for a long time I ought to be striving for, but I've known for a long time what I want to do with life and I don't think that an Ivy League school can help me any more than a really good school can. Me and people like me become part of the statistic that drag schools down a lot. The sports sphere helps a lot, because the sports sphere is the sort that really shouldn't be kept in schools, because the sports sphere just doesn't care. But among the top-tiered students, it's the ones that don't care about standardized testing or academics at all that keep American schools so low.
That's also a huge boon for America, though. I can't talk about other generations, but in this generation it's entirely likely that by the time we're all going to college a lot of us have tried our hands at several things and dabbled in them. A lot of us have some semblance of "real world" experience, in other words. I tried my hand at a web start-up in my sophomore year. In my senior year I published a book. Neither thing is world-changing, but it means that as I work on web development today, when I try writing again, I've got a lot of experience as to what learns and what doesn't. A friend of mine has been learning how to code and create models for game design since something like eighth grade. A bunch of my friends have launched sites and blogs of their own; one friend was mentioned on G4 for a tutorial he wrote. This isn't a particularly exceptional school I'm at, either; nearly every school I know the name of has its share of breakthrough kids.
I can only speak for my culture, not for others. But it seems to me that paradoxically, it's America's inability to handle kids like that that makes its school system so effective in delivering innovation. When you have a culture of youth that's already experienced and capable of learning from its mistakes, you have a core generation that has an edge over even the best-taught students from the rest of the world. You get a sort of encouragement of big ideas and of youth. You grow up hearing stories about Bill Gates at 19 and Steve Jobs at 21; about the Beatles and the Beach Boys and about all the musicians who started in grade school. (Incidentally, I think that the fact that there are no real writers who made it that young corresponds to the fact that so few young people want to be writers.) We get stories about Welles making Citizen Kane at an age when most graduates are just looking for jobs. It teaches this idea that it doesn't matter what your grades are, because you could be getting things done rather than studying, and that introduces a whole new aspect on to your world.
The way public school systems are set up, you get multiple social spheres that are forced to interact. You've got the sports group - the people who push away their boredom for school with a fascination for physical activity. There're the honor students, or whatever you want to call them - the people who study for hours a day, who partake in activities with Machiavellian efficiency. The ones who will do anything as long as it means a shot at the Ivies.
Those are the two ones people know and talk about. The one that ISN'T mentioned, the one that absolutely exists, is the smaller sphere of people who know what they want to do with their life. It's always a set of bright students, but students that have no seeming motivation toward school. They're just as real a group as the other two, but they have no need to announce their presence, so they're really often missed when people talk about them. They're the people, I think, that really propel innovation.
The interesting thing is that beyond a sort of personal drive, those people tend to have nothing outwardly in common. There're very nerdy people in that group and there are people as far from nerds as they come. Quiet people, loud people. They blend between the other spheres - despite a focus on things not school-related, a ton of them go to really top-notch schools. I'd put myself in this category. I very rarely put an effort into any part of school, did no work, and I'm still going to a really top-notch public school. It's not an Ivy, it's not what I've been told for a long time I ought to be striving for, but I've known for a long time what I want to do with life and I don't think that an Ivy League school can help me any more than a really good school can. Me and people like me become part of the statistic that drag schools down a lot. The sports sphere helps a lot, because the sports sphere is the sort that really shouldn't be kept in schools, because the sports sphere just doesn't care. But among the top-tiered students, it's the ones that don't care about standardized testing or academics at all that keep American schools so low.
That's also a huge boon for America, though. I can't talk about other generations, but in this generation it's entirely likely that by the time we're all going to college a lot of us have tried our hands at several things and dabbled in them. A lot of us have some semblance of "real world" experience, in other words. I tried my hand at a web start-up in my sophomore year. In my senior year I published a book. Neither thing is world-changing, but it means that as I work on web development today, when I try writing again, I've got a lot of experience as to what learns and what doesn't. A friend of mine has been learning how to code and create models for game design since something like eighth grade. A bunch of my friends have launched sites and blogs of their own; one friend was mentioned on G4 for a tutorial he wrote. This isn't a particularly exceptional school I'm at, either; nearly every school I know the name of has its share of breakthrough kids.
I can only speak for my culture, not for others. But it seems to me that paradoxically, it's America's inability to handle kids like that that makes its school system so effective in delivering innovation. When you have a culture of youth that's already experienced and capable of learning from its mistakes, you have a core generation that has an edge over even the best-taught students from the rest of the world. You get a sort of encouragement of big ideas and of youth. You grow up hearing stories about Bill Gates at 19 and Steve Jobs at 21; about the Beatles and the Beach Boys and about all the musicians who started in grade school. (Incidentally, I think that the fact that there are no real writers who made it that young corresponds to the fact that so few young people want to be writers.) We get stories about Welles making Citizen Kane at an age when most graduates are just looking for jobs. It teaches this idea that it doesn't matter what your grades are, because you could be getting things done rather than studying, and that introduces a whole new aspect on to your world.
I agree. I had brain surgery recently (small tumor), and all I could do for the week after is pretty much stare into space and think. I came upon a series of epiphanies/hasty generalizations along those lines that seem pretty correct to me now:
1. Most people don't like what they do enough to do it when nobody's asking them to do it.
2. Most people can't singlehandedly start projects that require a lot of work and have uncertain reward.
3. Among those who enthusiastically do, very few can complete those projects.
4. Institutions like schools and corporations are quite reasonably based around this assumption, and work very well for most people. They set up worthwhile hoops for people to jump through.
5. In most institutions, the way to judge someone's worth is "What nifty, pre-existing hoops that I know about did you opt to jump through?" If it's something weird like getting a book published or starting a software business, it doesn't count. The judge can't use this sort of thing in comparing one candidate to another because there are few other candidates who have done the same OR because the judge is possibly someone for whom the generalization in 1-2 applies and just doesn't get it.
I don't know a lot of other people my age who have real passion about what they do and can pull through on significant projects that they start themselves.
Thinking I was going to die for a few days before I learned of my prognosis made me realize that rather than feeling weird and timid about this distinction, I should see it as kind of a superpower and go more gung-ho on some of my more successful endeavors.
What's also cool is that there are companies and individuals that can't afford to judge people according to the criteria in #5. And that isn't to say that it's not occasionally worth jumping through other people's hoops when it's not hurting anything :)
1. Most people don't like what they do enough to do it when nobody's asking them to do it.
2. Most people can't singlehandedly start projects that require a lot of work and have uncertain reward.
3. Among those who enthusiastically do, very few can complete those projects.
4. Institutions like schools and corporations are quite reasonably based around this assumption, and work very well for most people. They set up worthwhile hoops for people to jump through.
5. In most institutions, the way to judge someone's worth is "What nifty, pre-existing hoops that I know about did you opt to jump through?" If it's something weird like getting a book published or starting a software business, it doesn't count. The judge can't use this sort of thing in comparing one candidate to another because there are few other candidates who have done the same OR because the judge is possibly someone for whom the generalization in 1-2 applies and just doesn't get it.
I don't know a lot of other people my age who have real passion about what they do and can pull through on significant projects that they start themselves.
Thinking I was going to die for a few days before I learned of my prognosis made me realize that rather than feeling weird and timid about this distinction, I should see it as kind of a superpower and go more gung-ho on some of my more successful endeavors.
What's also cool is that there are companies and individuals that can't afford to judge people according to the criteria in #5. And that isn't to say that it's not occasionally worth jumping through other people's hoops when it's not hurting anything :)
That last thing you stated is what I consider to be the ultimate check in capitalism, the thing that makes the system work. You can't set up a corrupt entity that lasts beyond a point, because things evolve too quickly.
Also, along the lines of 2 and 3, I think that's what explains why young people tend to have such uncommon successes of such magnitude. It's not because of drive per se: people of all ages have drive. But it's because the fact that there's such an imbalance in the system that makes people move forward.
I had an epiphany recently that, next to yours, seems pretty stupid and shallow, but it's an epiphany that moved me nonetheless. It was the realization that, despite all the stuff that I'd tried to do, all the stuff I thought I could do, there were still some pretty basic social things I would be incapable of, if I kept along the route I was going. And I didn't like that. So I've started working out, eating more healthily, trying to normalize a bit in preparation for college. And what I've found is that while I'm doing that stuff, I find getting work done to be far easier, too. The two go hand-in-hand. And it's at young ages that trying to show off in shallow ways really stays a priority.
It's like the article about Zuckerberg that was on here a week ago. When he was in high school, he wasn't a typical coder: he was an active fencer in the top levels of the USFA, and he was in quite a few social clubs, too. This isn't a case of somebody who's a brilliant coder going off and writing code. That doesn't happen often at all, not even when you look at success stories in Silicon Valley. Rather, he was a very bright person who dabbled in a lot of things, who had an idea and who did whatever he could to bring that idea to fruition. I think the part of that story that fascinated me the most was the part describing how he began Facebook because his girlfriend snubbed him. What an absolutely honest start to a site: something about that story felt absolutely real to me.
Also, along the lines of 2 and 3, I think that's what explains why young people tend to have such uncommon successes of such magnitude. It's not because of drive per se: people of all ages have drive. But it's because the fact that there's such an imbalance in the system that makes people move forward.
I had an epiphany recently that, next to yours, seems pretty stupid and shallow, but it's an epiphany that moved me nonetheless. It was the realization that, despite all the stuff that I'd tried to do, all the stuff I thought I could do, there were still some pretty basic social things I would be incapable of, if I kept along the route I was going. And I didn't like that. So I've started working out, eating more healthily, trying to normalize a bit in preparation for college. And what I've found is that while I'm doing that stuff, I find getting work done to be far easier, too. The two go hand-in-hand. And it's at young ages that trying to show off in shallow ways really stays a priority.
It's like the article about Zuckerberg that was on here a week ago. When he was in high school, he wasn't a typical coder: he was an active fencer in the top levels of the USFA, and he was in quite a few social clubs, too. This isn't a case of somebody who's a brilliant coder going off and writing code. That doesn't happen often at all, not even when you look at success stories in Silicon Valley. Rather, he was a very bright person who dabbled in a lot of things, who had an idea and who did whatever he could to bring that idea to fruition. I think the part of that story that fascinated me the most was the part describing how he began Facebook because his girlfriend snubbed him. What an absolutely honest start to a site: something about that story felt absolutely real to me.
Man, does this hit the proverbial nail on the head. I am a big proponent of education, however, in my experience, a formal education is not a perfect fit for all. I wish there would have been more emphasis on how to make a living doing something one enjoys and not just academic legerdemain in the form of "get a degree and you'll get plenty o' dough and be happy" when pursuing a trade would net potential millions with no crushing student loan debt. Thanks for some excellent thoughts on our school system.
This kind of talk reminds me of "The Disadvantages of
an Elite Education": http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.htm...
Wow. Excellent article. Absolutely dead-on. Thanks for the link.
Also, to the parent, what book did you publish? I can't tell from your profile.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3319195/gstepl
It's also on Amazon; I tried publishing with Lulu and CreateSpace and CreateSpace produced a much higher-quality product by far. I think it's very good - you might like it - but my goal was to actually finish a product of great magnitude, not to worry about production or sales. So I wrote the thing, designed the pages and the cover, and after that I mentioned that I did it, I bring it up, but now I'm focused on other things.
It's also on Amazon; I tried publishing with Lulu and CreateSpace and CreateSpace produced a much higher-quality product by far. I think it's very good - you might like it - but my goal was to actually finish a product of great magnitude, not to worry about production or sales. So I wrote the thing, designed the pages and the cover, and after that I mentioned that I did it, I bring it up, but now I'm focused on other things.
You're style is surprisingly fresh. I'm liking it.
Awesome. I added it to my wishlist for when I get done reading the current stack of books :-D.
Thanks a ton. That's what I was going for: I wasn't certain about being able to write with experience about things, so I wanted to at least do something in a book that I hadn't seen done before.
You'll murder me when you get to Pong, though.
You'll murder me when you get to Pong, though.
[deleted]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably has something to do with culture. a culture that promotes a education is going to churn out more curious, creative people. And i don't mean "stay in school kids" commercials, I mean in all the unspoken assumptions about the world that are communicated from parents and other authority figures from a young age. You can't fake enthusiasm about education. The U.S. currently does not have it, so of course kids are smart enough to pick up on this and place education further down their priority list.
This might do it:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126617
Television educates you even when you watch Beverly Hills 90210.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126617
Television educates you even when you watch Beverly Hills 90210.
Hackers, please. Let's get real here. Why are Finns so smart? It probably has very little to do with culture, teaching methods, or economics. These can all be limitations (I suspect oppressive teaching hinders Japanese kids), but Finland's secret is not related to any of these. It's related to biology. Finland's secret is brain size.
Mother nature doesn't fuck around. If your brain and its activity costs you anywhere from a fifth to a third of your metabolic energy, it's for a reason. This essentially amounts to all the discretionary spending your body has. That brain had better pull its weight, and it does. Skull size correlates with brain weight; brain weight determines surface area; surface area determines processor power.
Again, if your brain could be a smaller part of your metabolism, it would be. Mother nature squeezes every calorie for all it's worth. So there is an advantage in having a larger brain. And that advantage translates to being smarter. "Smarter" isn't a particularly mysterious quality either; in biology, it's basically how good you are at deciding what to do with your muscles. In the scheme of things, balance doesn't require much processing power; neither does homeostasis. What is really resource intensive is good old thinking. Writing requires forming markov chains. Memorizing is hard too. Understanding physics is also hard. Thinking--just plain old thinking--is very resource intensive.
So, why are Finnish kids so smart? Well, the PISA test doesn't convince me they're that smart. They strike me as being about as smart as white American kids. Thing is, the intelligence of Finns is not averaged out with the intelligence of people of other ethnic groups, who, regrettably, have smaller brains.
And before you call me racist, keep this in mind that the argument for different intelligence levels across races is borne out by a data set comprising millions of standardized test-score results, tens of thousands of autopsies, across many different countries, spanning centuries. The correlations have R-values in the .8 and above range. Don't call me racist; call Reality racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain#Brain_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Statement_claim... http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/africanfailure.html
Mother nature doesn't fuck around. If your brain and its activity costs you anywhere from a fifth to a third of your metabolic energy, it's for a reason. This essentially amounts to all the discretionary spending your body has. That brain had better pull its weight, and it does. Skull size correlates with brain weight; brain weight determines surface area; surface area determines processor power.
Again, if your brain could be a smaller part of your metabolism, it would be. Mother nature squeezes every calorie for all it's worth. So there is an advantage in having a larger brain. And that advantage translates to being smarter. "Smarter" isn't a particularly mysterious quality either; in biology, it's basically how good you are at deciding what to do with your muscles. In the scheme of things, balance doesn't require much processing power; neither does homeostasis. What is really resource intensive is good old thinking. Writing requires forming markov chains. Memorizing is hard too. Understanding physics is also hard. Thinking--just plain old thinking--is very resource intensive.
So, why are Finnish kids so smart? Well, the PISA test doesn't convince me they're that smart. They strike me as being about as smart as white American kids. Thing is, the intelligence of Finns is not averaged out with the intelligence of people of other ethnic groups, who, regrettably, have smaller brains.
And before you call me racist, keep this in mind that the argument for different intelligence levels across races is borne out by a data set comprising millions of standardized test-score results, tens of thousands of autopsies, across many different countries, spanning centuries. The correlations have R-values in the .8 and above range. Don't call me racist; call Reality racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain#Brain_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Statement_claim... http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/africanfailure.html
[deleted]
This was posted earlier on Hacker News:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126608
Unfortunately the URL I submitted is different, so the duplication wasn't caught.
Teachers maybe still care little bit about there students and think the main difference is that we are expected to learn and know more from the start. I started learning a second language when I was on first grade and third language on fifth grade. The bar is set high for everyone.
Getting to a college through admission test is quite a pain in the ass if you want to study medicine, law, economics or engineering in a decent city(and there is like three). You need about 6months of study and probably a training course for the test.
Edit: And I would say that low immigration helps. Over 12years of schooling, I didn't have a single classmate that didn't speak Finnish as native language.