Rational Philosophy

Education Issues: On the dangers of paying for improved test performance. The psychology of value.

“An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all”
– Socrates

Researchers at Duke have determined that a high-price tag placebo works better than a low-price tag placebo, even though the two pills have the same active ingredient (i.e., no active ingredient). The perceived price of the pill increases the psychological expectation of positive results. “If it costs more, it must be better,” our brain tells us.

Schools across the country have begun to experiment with programs that reward schools, teachers and children for good test scores. The Times paints a somewhat anecdotal picture of the enthusiasm children have for this approach, but it is not hard to imagine that the picture is largely accurate.

When first read this story, I had a strong and immediate negative reaction to the idea of paying children to do well on tests. As I read about the apparent promise of the programs, I tried to put my negative reaction to one side. But it lingered.

Psychologically, I think, I am reacting to the idea that children are being paid to learn. There is, it seems, a placebo effect at work. With good intentions the program architects and educators want to achieve better scores by paying more for them. But do better test scores reflect a perceived improvement or an actual improvement? Test scores, after all, measure the ability to score well on tests. Scoring well on tests is symptomatic of a good education, but not the same as a good education.

Just as a placebo makes the perception of pain go away. So, too, improved test scores make the perception of subpar education go away.

I don’t want to overstretch the analogy. The other profound misgiving I have also relates to the psychology of value.

Once you pay a child to study, in the child’s mind studying and learning become fused with reward or compensation. (And the research on the perceived value of placebos demonstrates just how powerfully our minds connect value and reward.) What happens when that child finds himself in a situation in which he won’t receive any immediate reward for studying or learning or growing? Will he be in a worse position than a child who hasn’t been paid to do well? Quite likely.

And, as adults, while what we do to improve our understanding comes with reward in the workplace, that’s not true in life generally. Will these children grow up to be less likely to apply themselves when there’s nothing to be gained from it?

Education is a long term investment. It’s very easy for legislators, professors, administrators and educators to get caught up in the need to improve school performance, to get children’s test grades up. But ultimately this is not the goal of education. Education aims to foster the acquisition of knowledge. If we turn our schools into factories that churn out paid learners, we are creating a generation of adults who will be confused about the real value of knowledge and learning. And that is a worrying thought.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

Kosovo’s independence, Serbia’s reaction.

Do the roots of ethnic and national identification run particularly deep in the Balkans? Reading the latest news from Kosovo and Serbia, it seems so, but I guess not. No more deeply than in Chechnya, for instance, or Northern Ireland, or Darfur, or any of the many other flash-points around the world. But why do people feel so strongly about their ethnic and national identification that they’re willing to hate so deeply, fight so forcefully, and suffer so greatly to protect the concept of ethnic and political autonomy?

I’m not saying that people should not feel so strongly. They do, so there must be reasons. But what are those reasons and could we learn anything useful from understanding them?

Evolution rewards species and groups that survive. Social animals enhance their chances of survival by living together, protecting one another, and competing against other groups for the necessities of survival such as food and shelter. The stronger the group identification, the stronger the cooperation, and the greater the chances of group survival.

But, in people, the process of forming and belonging to groups has evolved into a highly complex and, from a biological and micro-social perspective, largely artificial (because it is a mental rather than tangible) trait. An Albanian living in the north of Kosovo consciously connects his or her allegiance to Albanians in the south of Kosovo, but while this conceptual grouping feels intensely related to his or her survival, it in fact bears no resemblance to the cooperation of a tight-knit group living in close proximity with its members contributing materially to one another’s well-being… Or, to be more exact, it resembles that tight-knit group only in as much as the Albanian in the north invests his allegiance with the Albanian in the south with the same kind of significance.

Our identification along lines of ethnicity and demography can’t be defended as an evolutionary survival mechanism. Ethnic conflicts deplete the world’s resources by commiting them to weaponry and defense forces and result in the deaths of millions.

A Serb in Mitrovica wishes to remain Serbian because he identifies with the concept of being a Serb; Kosovo independence does not necessarily reflect a change in his or her chances of living a healthy, happy and prosperous life. Likewise, the lot of an Albanian living in Mitrovica doesn’t necessarily improve because he is no longer part of Serbia. I’m stressing the word necessarily because obviously when people define themselves along ethnic lines there are indeed practical implications of a change in the majority ethnicity of the ruling body.

By reflecting upon the processes of evolution and its translation into concepts and feelings we immediately see that our minds fool us into drawing unnecessary divisions between ourselves and others, divisions that ultimately hurt us all.

From a practical perspective, what can be done?

We need to teach practical philosophy in school. By drawing up curricula that examine these kinds of connections between the nature of existence and its impact on our world of concepts we can begin to teach children how to see the world for what it is rather than for what it seems to be. This suggestion is no more radical than saying that children should be taught that the earth revolves around the sun even though it seems that the sun revolves around the earth.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

 

ÂÂ

For some reason that I couldn’t quite put my finger on right away, I found Cafferty’s comment today (Judge makes a disgraceful decision) on a judge’s efforts to slow or halt a program that would require employers to fire workers with faulty social security status (illegal immigrants) distasteful. I think it was his sentiment rather than his logic that offended me, his presumption that enforcement of national law supercedes human decency and compassion, whatever the circumstance.

In another story — “Bush vetoes expansion of kids’ health insurance program” — Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, supporting Bush’s veto, complains: “we’re going to provide health care to the children of illegal immigrants.”

In one section of LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do to Survive I examine the origin of the impulses that lead us toward a conservative or liberal way of thinking. It’s a spectrum of course, but the impulse toward conservative thinking seems to derive from a focus on the importance of the self (one’s right to govern one’s self, the live and let live mentality) versus the liberal impulse to value people generally and to not consider one’s own needs over and above the needs of others. I’m dramatically over-simplifying, but I hope you’ll see the point.

If we feel that national law should be put ahead of human decency, our perspective will tend toward a hard line on immigration. If we feel that the rights of human beings are more important than national concerns, then we’ll be concerned about the effects of a hard line approach on illegal immigrants. A conservative will tend to feel that we shouldn’t make exceptions when deportation of just some members of a family will break up that family. A liberal will wonder why the law must be so unfeeling.

Again, as I discuss in the book, once we have sought out the origin for these perspectives, we can consider whether either perspective is more right or better than the other. To cut to the chase, I conclude and show logically that the more liberal perspective is more enlightened and bodes better for the survival of the human species. I’m sure that a conservative would disagree, but I am also sure that he or she would be hard-pressed to defend such a position rationally and logically. Are we not all part of the human race, wherever we happen to be born?

 

ÂÂ