huntermaats

Not really, but if I did here's what I'd say.

We have come to confuse culture and race. They are two entirely different things. For example, although most Asian-American groups do well in school, not all of them do. Notably, the Hmong people don't. That's because their culture is different. The whole idea of race is in general pretty ridiculous from a biological standpoint. The genetic differences between human beings are so vanishingly small, that if we want to understand the differences between groups we have to look somewhere else.

There's now a very solid body of research on the difference that culture makes in educational outcomes. There was a great review recently of some of this research on NPR entitled "Struggle For Smarts? How Eastern And Western Cultures Tackle Learning."

So, that culture makes a difference is really not debatable anymore. The important thing to realize is that we should break cultures down into their component parts and steal for ourselves the parts that are good. It is unquestionable that individuals who are willing to analyze their mistakes to improve their process will do better. Is that approach entirely present or entirely absent in any culture? No. But it does predominate in certain cultures. The more any culture can internalize that attitude the better they will do.

The whole issue is that confusing of "race" and culture. You don't choose your skin color. You do choose what you believe about intelligence. And, as an individual, you shouldn't buy wholesale into what any group believes about anything. You should make your own determinations about what your values are. In the process, you will help shape the values of those around you and we can ultimately--by individuals improving themselves--begin to shape a human culture that values certain core principles:

1) The willingness to examine your mistakes. 2) Deep-seated confidence in the power of practice. 3) A voracious desire to learn as much as possible about everything and anything.

This culture is empirically and objectively better for mental health, educational and economic outcomes. The language(s) you choose to speak, your preferred forms of art and to a certain extent your cuisine...that's your choice and the appropriate place for cultural relativism. Assuming that your brain is flexible enough to learn anything, that's not relative. It describes reality.

The key is reiterating that culture is not race and to be clear about which aspects of culture are objectively better and which aspects of culture are subjective preferences.

Fortunately, you've correctly identified half the problem: you "hate" math. I'm sure you do hate math, but the issue there is emotional. That's half of how you can make your experience a) less painful and b) more successful. You don't have to love math, but if you can at least move from really, really, truly, fucking hating Algebra to being neutral on math that'll free up your attention to engage with the math. That's the key. Your emotions drive your attention. When you love something, that emotion drives your attention towards the subject. When you hate it, you avoid it by the plague. That's not news to you. The point is that the problem is not math. The problem is your emotional response to math. Anything you can do to move that--will allow you to beat this class. Even saying, "I hate you math and that's why I'm going to beat you into the ground." That'll get you engaged. The second part is understanding the issue with algebra. Algebra is only rules. Rules can be clear enough to act on and they can be fuzzy. You look at a parking sign and for the first few seconds you don't know what to do. Can I park here or not? You then sit there until you have a "recipe for action." At this time on a Tuesday, I can park here. That's all algebra is: a bunch of parking signs. For every piece of algebra, you need to clarify each rule until you've answered two things: 1) what do I do? 2) when do I do it? In the book, we use the analogy of Betty Crocker. She takes a recipe and distills it down into three easy steps. That's possible for anything in algebra. You can feel however you want about parking and baking a Betty Crocker cake, but there's no doubt that they're doable. You can do this. Beat algebra into the ground one rule at a time.

I think, ultimately, we're seeing the breakdown of the Industrial-Age model of education. The problem is that one-size fits all doesn't really work in education. It's an inherently individualized process. That's why personal tutoring improves student performance by two standard deviations or, in stats terminology, two sigmas.

The reason why Benjamin Bloom--who discovered this effect--called it the two sigma problem. You can't pay for every kid to have their own personal tutor. The solution is to empower the kid to be their own tutor. The National Academy of Sciences published How People Learn, which--unsurprisingly--summarizes everything we know about how people learn. It all comes down to one word: metacognition. Metacognition means thinking about thinking. Effective learners think about their own thinking. In other words, they tutor themselves. We can give that experience to every kid, but it means a total shift in mindset.

We have to be focused not on force-feeding a narrow curriculum down students throats, but to providing them with the tools and resources to take charge of their own educations. So, here's my plan:

1) Throw out grades and move towards measuring skills. An "A" is totally meaningless. It says you're better than your classmates, but, in an era of grade inflation, it doesn't say you've actually mastered the skill. In a general, grades and degrees mark out people as being special and say nothing about what you can do. That's what actually matters. In an environment that's focused on skills, suddenly competency is no longer scarce. In a grade-based environment, I want you to fail. In a skill-based environment, I may actually want to teach my fellow students because I know that teaching is the best way to learn. I help you and I do better. Some people will feel that way. Some people won't. Either way, it's an improvement.

2) I'd flip the classroom. We're not using the intelligence of our teachers or of our students well. Teachers are delivering the same lectures year in and year out and, frankly, most of this information is in the textbooks or online. The kids can teach the bulk of it to themselves. That frees up the teacher to come in and give individualized feedback where the kid really needs it. Classroom time can be used for customized help and enrichment. Above all, this puts the student at the center of the educational process and gives them a far greater sense of control over what happens to them. That is essential.

Is that culture the product of wealth? Or is the wealth the product of that culture? After all, Abraham Lincoln was anything but wealthy? Rockerfeller, Ben Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington...this country's history is filled with people who gave themselves world-class educations without coming from or having access to wealth.

I 100% agree that that population--like today's population--was filtered. It was generally made up of people who had enough faith in themselves that if they came half-way around the world, they could build for themselves a better life. (Of course, not all of those people got to make that choice and there are differences in outcome between African-Americans who are the descendants of voluntary immigrants and involuntary immigrants.) Still, the point remains that the culture of empowerment and faith in your own potential does not require money. Why do you need money to look at your mistakes? Why do you need money to go to the library and check out a book? You don't. You need faith in your potential. Faith that regardless of how terrible your circumstances ultimately a human being has the potential to shape their own destiny.

I agree with you. Your success does not come from your Indian culture. It comes from the subculture of educated Indians. Of course, that culture can be gained and it can be lost. Rich parents fail to pass on the values necessary to succeed to their children all the time. Poor parents are able to instill in their children the value and the confidence to thrive.

Why can't make a human culture that internalizes certain universal principles? A faith in the power of practice, the willingness to examine mistakes etc.

The real issue is that we've compartmentalized intelligence. We think that there are "math people" and "English people" and "arts people" and that if you are good in one area, then you must be bad at another. The artists of the Renaissance were also inventors. We should be encouraging our kids to become good at as many things as possible, because you'll need it all.

Personally, when I was in high school, I thought of myself as a science person. As buppers says, "I thought I was "bad" at writing and art and in reaction to that I belittled them." Well, that was a really self-defeating move on my part. Because, it turns out that what I wanted to do was get the latest science into the hands of people everywhere. That meant I need to know how to write and I needed to know how to do graphic design. So many things today require it all: science, language and arts. So, if you gut arts and music, you'll end up with more of what we already have scientists who are terrible at communicating their ideas and communicators who are intimidated by science. We should be aiming to create Renaissance men and women. Apple is as successful as it is as much for its design as its technology.