Poker, Education, Life--Rebutting Schoonmakers Article...

[rmr1976]

I read Alan N. Schoonmaker's article regarding poker with interest. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, who always performed well in school, scored very high on standardized tests of ability and aptitude, and didn't have much trouble in the competetion called life.

In college, I was asked by my professors to tutor other students in my class having trouble with various science courses (biology, anatomy, physiology, etc.) So I come at this from the point of view as someone who both teached and was taught.

There are deep problems I have with this article. Alan's premise, the world is competetive, is a half-truth at best. Competetion is overrated. Cooperation is essential in convincing people to either hire you or do buisness with you.

The essense of the free market, which the author ostensibly supports, is to more effectively meet the needs of others. This can only be done when producers and consumers cooperate, and meet each others needs. The most competetive businesses are those that are best able to cooperate and meet the needs of their customers.

Cooperation and being honest in your dealings with others are much more important to life success than being good at competing and defeating others.

In some sense, the world is competetive. But there are 2 ways to look at competetion. One way is to compete against yourself. Are you living up to your ability? Are you doing everything you can to better yourself?

The other is to focus on competing against others. When a person risks losing a competetion against others, they will resort to all sorts of defenses, including doing things to tear others down psychologically and socially. Is that really a lesson we want to teach kids today? Don't help people, destroy them by any means necessary. I hope not. This is the mindset of many who have legal careers, and are absolutely miserable with their jobs, and their life.

Schools focus on creating an artifical competetion among students through the use of grades that have little relation to what a person is actually capable of doing.
There are all sorts of complaints about "grade inflation" but really, if schools were doing their job, everyone SHOULD pass, and be able to demonstrate mastery of a particular body of material. Would anyone here object to a class of 100 5th graders getting an A on a math test when every single one of them got all of the questions correct?
To complain about "grade inflation" implies we expect some to fail. I don't want to lable a young child a failure--he or she may believe it.

Here is an interesting experiment by a mathematician, who believes that the vast majority of kids in schools can easily master basic and even much of advanced math, if they are only taught with better methods. He has had much success in teaching so called "slow learners" math, and a surprising number of them have risen to the top of their classes.

http://www.jumptutoring.org/

Grades measure more about how good a student is at following the directions of others, rather than the quality or content of a person's thoughts. This is terribly damaging to very young children, and is, in my view, the reason for such terrible performance and anti-intellectual mindset of U.S. students. They are told ability is innate, and that no hard work is needed to develop. When they experience hardship, which is inevitable when learning something new, children, who were initially curious, become risk averse, and loathe to challenge themselves. By the time they are adults, they are petrified of failure. It isn't so much learning how to compete, as Alan puts it, it is learning how to handle adversity that is sorely lacking in our schools.

Competing against yourself is a more healthy attitude to take toward competition. After all, your performance is really all you can control. Focusing on how you do _in relation_ to someone else distracts you from doing your best, and gives you an excuse not to try anymore.

I once argued, in a research paper (for college) many years ago, that schools should move to a pass/fail system, rather than give out arbitrary grades that mean little. In order to pass, a student would have to 1. master certain material 2. demonstrate that mastery by applying that knowledge to a particular problem. I must have been a visionary, as this method is in the process of being implemented in NJ. I hope it goes farther than that, and spreads to the rest of the nation.

Finally, the idea of competition is too narrow. To compete means you accept as a given, the rules someone tells you to follow. Life is much more exciting than that. The truly successful create their own rules to follow, often against the advice and desires of those deemed authorities.

The truly successful don't compete. They invent something entirely new, and enrich the lives of the rest of us. This is what we all should strive for.

[naphand]

A very well-considered response and very successful in highlighting this as a much more complex problem than may first appear; it really is not a question of "competition" but much more of standards, teaching methods and purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
schools should move to a pass/fail system

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you mean progress/re-visit? If someone has attended a course and reached a certain standard, if that standard is less than required to move to the next level, this cannot be considered a "failure"? At worst it is limited progress. I remember a Math teacher at evening classes I attended after college, saying that she often observed that her pupils who failed tests first time round but, who went on to pass on re-sitting (even several times), typically had a broader and deeper understanding of the subject than those who were capable of simply re-gurgitating what they had been told first time round. Re-visiting the subject with the foundation of what they had already learned meant they ended up learning more. This is not failure, and questions the notion of what "standards" mean. At University I came across students who were, in every sense of the word, practically useless (but possessed of a good memory). They could regurgitate, but not apply. And conversely I have known a lot of people who have no/very limited academic qualifications but who have tremendous practical intelligence and thinking power.

It is both natural and right to question what is going on in education, but this questioning needs to be progressive. The world is changing very rapidly, and education methods appear to be out of tune, but in all probability will always be; we are effectively teaching kids what we knew 5 years ago for what they will encounter in 5 years. I agree, however, that psychologists such as Al need to be looking at this, as I think it is methods rather than content that need most development, the subject matter will always be changing. The notion that we should just return to the 3 R's and basic schooling is foolish, society asks much more of people today than 50 years ago and teaching methods must be able to equip kids with the tools they need to learn as much as providing practical knowledge and understanding.

[BarronVangorToth]

This is a situation where I really like a post but disagree with a number of points but I'd like to preface it all with that, and with a hope that I don't offend the author, due to the aforementioned enjoyment of the writing. With that said....

[ QUOTE ]
the world is competetive, is a half-truth at best. Competetion is overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't disagree more. If anything, I think competition is UNDER-rated in our society, and said underrating is growing by the day. Things were more competitive before and they have become less so as the years progress. The reason why games of little chance have continued to grow in popularity is because people want a place to showcase their skills, in a world filled with mediocrity where everyone is seen as equal even if some people are drastically under- or over-skilled versus their competition (whether in the workplace or elsewhere).

[ QUOTE ]
if schools were doing their job, everyone SHOULD pass, and be able to demonstrate mastery of a particular body of material

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. At all. You are assuming that people are equal in intelligence -- some people, even those that aren't clinically mentally handicapped, simply are not capable of learning certain subjects. Yet ... schools pump them out all the time. Sometimes it is the school's fault, sure, but sometimes some people just aren't intelligent and won't get 2+2=4 regardless of how well they are taught.

[ QUOTE ]
are told ability is innate,

[/ QUOTE ]

To an extent, it is. Again, it is a mistake to equalize everyone. I was blessed in life that school and much of the work came more easily than it did for my friends, and many of them had far more dollars to afford tutoring, far more time with their parents to help them with homework, and far more desire to get said good grades. I was blessed that they came easily, it simply WAS innate.

[ QUOTE ]
The truly successful don't compete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you are using this as your closer ... but it is completely nonsensical.

I "get" where you're coming from and, like I said, I really liked your post and agreed with many points throughout it, but some of the basic premises are just ... off.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Ghazban]

While I understand your point, I think you've made a couple gross overstatements such as:

[ QUOTE ]
When a person risks losing a competetion against others, they will resort to all sorts of defenses, including doing things to tear others down psychologically and socially

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Sure, SOME people react to competition in this way; I'd even go so far as to say almost everybody (if not everybody) has had this sort of response at some point in a competitive experience but this is by no means something that should be stated as an absolute. Part of participating in competitive exercises (sports, school, spelling bees, whatever) is learning how to lose without it being the end of the world. Rather than abolish competition, wouldn't it be better to teach kids that your self-esteem doesn't need to be tied into the individual result of one particular game/test/competition? If you don't teach kids how to lose, you are setting them up for greater hardships later in life. I'd rather lose a few soccer games as a 6-year old than have my first experience with negativity come when I'm fresh out of college and don't get the first job I apply for.

[ QUOTE ]
Schools focus on creating an artifical competetion among students through the use of grades that have little relation to what a person is actually capable of doing.
There are all sorts of complaints about "grade inflation" but really, if schools were doing their job, everyone SHOULD pass, and be able to demonstrate mastery of a particular body of material. Would anyone here object to a class of 100 5th graders getting an A on a math test when every single one of them got all of the questions correct?
To complain about "grade inflation" implies we expect some to fail. I don't want to lable a young child a failure--he or she may believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was more true years ago when teachers were forced to grade students on a bell curve where the top x percent would get As, the bottom x percent would fail, etc. etc. The vast majority of schools in the present time do not use such a system (at least in the US; forgive me if this is not the case in other countries). Without the curve, students are (essentially) already only competing against themselves as demonstration of knowledge of the material will result in high marks regardless of the performance of other students.

[rmr1976]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. At all. You are assuming that people are equal in intelligence -- some people, even those that aren't clinically mentally handicapped, simply are not capable of learning certain subjects. Yet ... schools pump them out all the time. Sometimes it is the school's fault, sure, but sometimes some people just aren't intelligent and won't get 2+2=4 regardless of how well they are taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know this? Some psychologist told you?

I actually make no assumptions about intelligence. I do not know what someone is capable of, until they do it. Past failure is no guarantee of future failure. That is what history of successful men and woman teaches me.

Intelligence testing has been perverted from its original purpose, which was to ID kids who needed extra help and attention. Now, it has turned into IDing just those same kids, who are put into BS classes where little is actually taught, nor expected.

I've read much about the so-called "nature/nurture" debate--more than I care to admit. Anyone who reads it without bias will know, for a fact, that the claims for genetic determination (as opposed to variation) of "mental" traits is absurd, for a number of reasons:

1. Being that there is no specific gene for intelligence,
and also because heritability studies as conducted by social scientists are not truly capable of separating "nature" from "nurture." Shocking, but true.

2. Is it even correct to say "intelligence" is a "trait" in the strict biological sense, as height and eye color is? I don't think so. If it isn't a "trait", it can't be inherited.

3. Even if heritability studies were capable of doing what is claimed, they still say nothing of the efficacy of environmental modification. A heritability study of a population at 2 separate points in time can yield wildly varying estimates of H (broad heritability), depending on environmental conditions and the extent to which the trait is prevalent in the population.

If a trait is genetically determined, but has minimal variation through the population, H (the measure for heritability) will be close to zero. All in all, much of the psychological research on "heritability" was a colossal waste of time and money.

Don't take my word for it. If you like philosophy, read Sahotra Sarkar: Genetics and Reductionism. Very technical, and mathematical, but interesting.

There is also the problem of the Flynn effect. Future test takers tend to score higher on intelligence tests than prior takers. Strictly speaking, this would suggest the intelligence of the population increases over time. Statistically, the scores are modified so the results are comparable over time periods.

With all due respect, this idea of innateness is a cop-out and a mentally crippling philosohpy, but it is a good excuse for a poorly run, statist school system. When I worked at a center for the mentally retarted for a short time, I was able, after a bit of practice, as well as much patience, to have a retarded ADULT, learn addition and subtraction of numbers throug 10.

If you are truly open minded about this, and wish to learn a different POV, I'd suggest starting with the link in my prior post. The founder is a mathematician who actually flunked out of math in grade school.

The whole field of educational psychology, with its "disorders" of ADHD, LD, etc. are involved in the manufacture of labels for kids and excuses for bureaucrats.

I don't deny that there are some, who because of brain damage or injury, have such difficulty learning that it may appear impossible. But the vast majority of students in school fail to learn for social and cultural, as opposed to biological reasons, in my opinion.

The problem is a one-size-fits all school bureaucracy that is caught up in some of the problems other posters mentioned. Not all kids can learn in the same way, and some learn certain tasks later than others. It seems foolish to me to predict the future of a kid based on his 5th grade math exam.

Most real learning occurs through personal initiative and research. The current system kills that desire. The school system, since it is funded through tax dollars, is more concerned about producing citizens who conform to authority (both political leaders and future supervisors) rather than teaching independent thinking.

I think kids would be better off if there were multiple types of schools, or even the option of homeschool. Those who didn't fit in at one place, would go to another. They would repeat the process until they found someplace that they, and their parents, were comfortable with.

I don't deny the value of certain competition. I learned a tremendous amount from competitions such as chess, track, martial arts, and especially poker. I do question the value of academic competition based on an arbitrary grading system, and the personal labels derived from them.

[rmr1976]

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand your point, I think you've made a couple gross overstatements such as:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a person risks losing a competetion against others, they will resort to all sorts of defenses, including doing things to tear others down psychologically and socially


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is ridiculous. Sure, SOME people react to competition in this way; I'd even go so far as to say almost everybody (if not everybody) has had this sort of response at some point in a competitive experience but this is by no means something that should be stated as an absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was making an absolute statement. But there is evidence all around if you look:

The rampant cheating that goes on in boardrooms, as well as classrooms. Remember Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, HealthSouth? All examples of lies and deceit, because the leadership was afraid of failure (also greedy).

I actually DON'T advocate abolising competition. I do hope to have people question the value of competition (which is taken for granted), and in what contexts.

Failure at competition should not lead a child to label himself, or have others label him, as less able than others. That is all I'm saying. Focus on ability not disability.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, this idea of innateness is a cop-out and a mentally crippling philosohpy, but it is a good excuse for a poorly run, statist school system. When I worked at a center for the mentally retarted for a short time, I was able, after a bit of practice, as well as much patience, to have a retarded ADULT, learn addition and subtraction of numbers throug 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

My son is 5. He can do this right now. It didn't take much work for him or for us.

But it's not innate, right? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[rmr1976]

[ QUOTE ]
My son is 5. He can do this right now. It didn't take much work for him or for us.

But it's not innate, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, what does that prove?

I already stated up front that the guy was mentally retarded. A large percentage of the mentally retarded have genetic diseases that result in mental redardation. None of that is in dispute.

But even he learned how to do some basic math with a month of practice (1-2 x per week). Who knows what could have been if he had been taught more effectively at an earlier age, rather than being given up because he was "retarded." The guy was quite pleasant, and functioned well in other areas. I won't say he was the sharpest tool in the shed, but there was much more potential in him than met the eye.

The big mistake in this truly stupid nature/nurture debate is confusing mean values with variation. At best, behavioral genetics suggests variation in performance might be related to genetic factors. I wouldn't dispute that possibility, but I don't think that is really the important question.

Differences in performance don't concern me. Actual results do. I think we could agree that the differences in athletic performance at the top levels of sports have very little to do with genetics. They have more to do with training, coaching, and of course, that 4 letter word--luck.

Actual average values of different populations could be
increased with appropriate environmental inputs, if we knew what they were. This is how agricultural scientists (who perform actual experiments, unlike behavioral geneticists) use heritability.

Really, if you think mathmatic ability is genetically determined, you might want to rethink that. Like I said, check out the group started by a mathematician, who has had dramatic results with "slow learners" who were otherwise normal.

http://www.jumptutoring.org.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see that you and others are seriously discussing these issues.

I'll have more to say on competition in future issues of our magazine.

Respectfully,

Al

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
There are deep problems I have with this article. Alan's premise, the world is competetive, is a half-truth at best. Competetion is overrated. Cooperation is essential in convincing people to either hire you or do buisness with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cooperation is competition. It's finding the best way to get the best result, that is competition. In a poker example, think of the best poker players in the world. Many of them are very friendly, gregarious, good natured people who you want to sit at a table with. Why? Because that is how they will make the most money. If noone wants to play with them they are losing money. And they are not losers.


[ QUOTE ]
Schools focus on creating an artifical competetion among students through the use of grades that have little relation to what a person is actually capable of doing.
There are all sorts of complaints about "grade inflation" but really, if schools were doing their job, everyone SHOULD pass, and be able to demonstrate mastery of a particular body of material. Would anyone here object to a class of 100 5th graders getting an A on a math test when every single one of them got all of the questions correct?
To complain about "grade inflation" implies we expect some to fail. I don't want to lable a young child a failure--he or she may believe it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I love this quote because it is true, but not based in reality. Kind of like the original article. Making true statements, but not able to be practically applied. Yes it is true that all students could get a perfect grade on a math test if everyone was taught at the proper pace.

As a student I hated school. My grades where good, not great and I refused to put any time into it. I can remember almost anything that has ever been said or shown to me. Ask me to read a book and remember it in one sitting, I'm screwed. So I did very well in classes where the tests were all on lectures and medicore when half was on the book. Of course, I didn't figure this out until my senior year of college (okay maybe I'm not that bright). While my sister is the opposite. Give her a book and she will fire it back at you. Kind of destroys the genetics argument.

The point is, when teaching everyone learns at a different pace and a different way. So what you really need is several different classrooms and several different teachers teaching the same subjects at different paces and in different ways AND you would have to make sure you had the students placed into the proper situation that allowed them to learn.

While this is a great theory and sounds great it is not really econmoically feasible. Grades should be used to grasp the students understanding of the material. Very good, good, average, poor, very poor. While it is true that every student could come to the level of very good understanding it would take a different time frame and teaching style for each to reach this level.