This was during a time were unpriveleged kids didn't even go to school and child labor was the norm. Gotta love papers like this that attempt to prove something from a 100 years ago when it is really impossible to prove anything with that many variables and limited information, unless you already have a goal in mind and then it is just bias confirmation.
The level of education required to do anything was also much lower. Even 20 years ago you could get a job programming without a degree but now you a PHD just to get past HR. Times have changed.
While it's true that there are differences, I think one lesson we should learn from history is that that virtually every group thinks they're especially unusual and that lessons don't apply to them, and simultaneously that they're usually not so unique as they think, and the lessons usually do apply to them.
School was less common at that time, but plenty of people went to school, and if there was a marked dropoff in employablility even in just that group, it should absolutely be visible.
If you want the actual data sources used by the paper, read the paper. I'm not trying to replicate an academic's source-finding, that would take months. I'm trying to quickly demonstrate that the US was a thoroughly bureaucratic nation by 1920, not some kind of backwater where we have to guess and infer demographics.
Do you have a better model for school closures vs. career outlook?
I'm hugely skeptical of our education system today with all the standardized and focus-busting largely irrelevant curriculums. Also the sleep deprivation can't be any good. Personally kids have thrived away from the classroom but maybe we're unusual.
Yep, kids don't have time to be kids anymore, even compared to generations 20, 30 years ago (back then, when school was over (1pm, maybe 2pm max), you were done with school, and did kid stuff.... now, with parents pushing their kids into extracurricular activities and all that stuff, their lives suck a lot more.
On the other hand, imagine being a first grader, unable to write or read, just coming from kindergarten, where most of the time was play-time, and due to something, you can't comprehend, you're put infront of a laptop with Zoom turned on, and your parents in a huge financial crisis suddently.
It's not even that, it's that education wasn't as important back then. Most people didn't even graduate high school. College definitely wasn't a thing for most. So who cares if you miss half a year, you're going to go work in the shipyards or factory.
>The situation in 1918 was starkly different from today: (1) schools closed in 1918 for many fewer days on average, (2) the 1918 virus was much deadlier to young adults and children, boosting absenteeism even in schools that stayed open, and (3) the lack of effective remote learning platforms in 1918 may have reduced the scope for school closures to increase socioeconomic inequality.
That isn't what teachers I have talked to have said. Though, it depends on the student. Every teacher has told me that there are certain students that were doing terrible in in-person school, but came alive and excelled beyond all expectations during remote learning. One teacher related that she saw one of the students after in-person schooling started again and that student had reverted to failing at everything. In-person is good for some people, remote is good for some people. The problem is we want a solution that fits everyone and don't want to acknowledge that different people have different needs.
All of those (POSSIBLY not the last) require reading. Rules. Numbers. Need to be licensed to be a barber. And in every instance, if you’re operating legally (etc) you need to read contracts, etc, to make sure you’re not getting shafted. Also need to read to collect and file taxes.
Outsourcing reading is sometimes possible, but it will usually cost you a lot more and will make it much easier to be exploited.
It does seem like a confounding factor. Everyone was equally poor compared to everyone else during an unrelated economic depression? i think that would overwhelm any impact of the school closures.
Thanks for the regular reminder that non-programming related threads on Hacker News are filled with completely uninformed comments and are best left unclicked.
Translated: We can't say that "everyone was equally poor" or even that it hit everyone the same. We also can't say that "poor" has 1-1 relationship with educational outcomes (I know it does have an effect). We can also control for things, i.e. my school was closed, yours wasn't 2 blocks way, the Great Depression hit our area the same, I had a worse/better outcome than you did.
Perhaps the most important part of the entire paper is the final sentence:
> While our findings may be more applicable in some modern circumstances than others (e.g., when a virus is particularly deadly for younger adults and children
or when remote learning opportunities are limited), our paper cautions against over-extrapolating from the 1918-19 pandemic when making decisions about optimal policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is unfortunately not going to stop many people or politicians or media outlets from citing this paper as a justification for (or to defend) COVID-19 policies.
It never works that way. This one study is never going to be directly and perfectly applicable to other scenarios. It is a valuable data point. If it had shown the opposite conclusion it would bode very poorly for the current situation.
> It is unfortunately not going to stop many people or politicians or media outlets from citing this paper as a justification for (or to defend) COVID-19 policies.
You seem to be reading that as saying that you should do no extrapolation whatsoever, when really what they are saying is that you should do cautious extrapolation.
All you're proving is that you have an opinion and nothing will change your mind. You didn't even look at what you're commenting on. Your formed opinion was more important.
> We find that the closures had no detectable impact on children's school attendance in 1920, nor on their educational attainment and adult labor market outcomes in 1940.
Really ... they are trying to explain labor market attainments in 1940 - for the generation that lived through World War I, the Great Depression, sampling it in a period right in the middle of World War II.
Yet the authors feel fully qualified to assess the effects of school closings of 1918 after being confounded by all of the above.
School is a pretty fucking awful thing to do to a human being, particularly to a child, worst of all to a bright or curious child. Everything rests on it being “for their own good.” And that seemed plausible. But if we really think we can cut two years of it with no ill effects, then the existence of those years in the “normal” plan is a moral emergency.
The only thing worse than school is not being around kids your age.
Also, as far as I can tell, “school sucks” is very much an Anglo thing. I went to primary school in English, in continental Europe, and in Latin America. The latter two were great, but my school in an English speaking country was awful, basically social Darwinism, and well described by Waters, Orwell and Hollywood.
Spent my whole child life being tormented by school bullies. Did drugs and alcohol in college. Studied history so as to not fail.
Graduated, began programming on my own time, 9 years later I'm making $300,000 a year as a programmer.
Only people I talk to are my wife, my mom, and a few people on Discord about 3d graphics.
I can safely tell you that human interaction in the sense of "make 300 friends at school so that you aren't considered a freak or loner!" was never necessary, and in fact was an active burden.
But I am a productive and responsible member of society and I have a good relationship with those who matter to me. I also volunteer my time online to those less fortunate.
You didn't 'need' to be, you were just unlucky. Some people get the short straw. There is always some number of short straws, and some people have to get them.
It’s a government institution, not a volcano. Everything about how it works is quite deliberate. Specific, identifiable human beings take positive actions to make sure it happens and make sure you personally are there, having it happen to you. This passive framing is bizarre.
I am certainly sorry for your past experiences with bullying, trying to meet expectations, and potentially using drugs and alcohol as a crutch. However, I think it may be worth reconsidering your position that only talking to or having relationships 2 people IRL is satisfactory. Precious negative experiences with people does not mean all people are bad. With effort, you will certainly find people who expand your worldview and enrich your life. Best wishes.
Thanks for writing and I appreciate everything you've said :) I'm certainly not like, inherently distrustful of people or a shut in. Actually I'm quite talkative and find it pretty natural to talk to people.
I just don't think that kids should have to be forced into the same building for so many years of their life. Voluntary school is great, but I don't think the trope is always true that homeschooled kids are "freaks and loners and nerds who will faceplant in the real world", which is my opinion on what the popular sentiment is here.
I don't think the risks of in person school outweigh the benefits.
Gotcha, I apologize if I came off a bit condescendingly, it's just hard to tell how people truly are based on a single internet comment. I just have friends who have really shut themselves in light of COVID, I think almost to their certain detriment. And I have found myself in similar patterns, and have recently begun correcting that and have been on a bit of a personal crusade to combat anti-socialism in the guise of introversion. But I digress.
I was wondering if you elaborate on your position regarding homeschooling and the risks of in person school a bit more? I am curious to hear your perspective. Thanks!
People have varying needs for human interaction. For most, this much interaction will result in some pretty severe serotonin deficiencies and debilitating depression. If you have very low social needs then all power to you, but it shouldn't be a template in any sense for the average person.
Do you think your situation is common or an outlier? If you think you're an outlier, then it's not super relevant.
I was in the total opposite boat. I got bullied here and there (I was the classic gangly tall kid, still am at 35), but school was the sole source of normalcy in my life for most of my adolescence. I'd be willing to bet that the extremes on either end mostly cancel out, and, for the vast majority, school is a net positive because of the socialization and the opportunity to get information that isn't filtered through your parents.
Because socialization is utterly and fundamentally critical to human development.
We may not need to be with each other 8 hours a day, but that bit is a matter of pragmatism.
FYI you are not 'forced'. If your parents want you to stay at home, they can do that. If they want the state to provide your education, it's 30 to a room. And of course, you can pay $50K/year to have 5 per class private school.
They should have included the impact on parents in the study - although as someone pointed out, in 1918 there was a good chance of one parent being home full time, unlike today.
I am confident we could devise a system to keep children safe and nurtured during the workday which does not also strip them of dignity and brutalize them with busywork.
School is a game. If you master some winning strategies (whether they be getting good grades, being socially popular, being good at sports, etc), then you get through the game, and you're better prepared for the rest of the game of life.
A perfectly fine argument about the utility of schooling, but one which would also imply lockdown-related schooling losses are detrimental. Pandemic kids should be two years less able to play the game of life. That sounds bad!
School is like an interface that tries to work with a million different implementations (the students), but it only achieves to make them all average.
It's a creativity killer and that's why creative people rarely are a good fit, most times their creativity is not encouraged, but it's being dismissed as "rebellious". How is this healthy for the kids? And how uniforming them is good for society?
Sometimes I feel like school is more about power and control rather than really helping the students.
School is probably the best thing possible for a 'bright' child who would likely wallow aimlessly without having developed their talents, social skills, broad knowledge and especially ability to focus consistently on things which may not pique their specific curiosity.
I'm sure 'feral children' would engender the rare Mozart but at the imminent cost of massive loss in civility across all fields.
With respect to the study, in 1918 literacy rates were low, Highschool graduation was probably not even 60%, and less than 5% went to College.
Kids ability to work in factories or the family farm may not have been hampered.
Kids not in school during that time, may have been very likely working in the family business or farm, learning relevant skills.
So pandemic kids will be two years more feral and two years less able to focus on what doesn’t interest them. All fields will experience two school-years loss of civility. That sounds bad!
It doesn’t seem like you buy the premise in my statement (if indeed we can cut two years of school with no ill effects) so we don’t need to argue about the conclusion.
If this paper is applicable today, perhaps we should reconsider whether mandatory schooling should be eliminated or reduced. After all, if it has no impact on educational or career attainment, what is its purpose except an overpriced babysitting program? If that's all it is, we can at least be honest about that and save some money.
Modern schooling and corporate structure are largely influenced by industrial era england and to an extent germany. We do a lot of needless things just because there is a recurring expectation of results in exchange for effort. Actual value has nothing to do with it.
The careers, values and goals of society as a whole have changed but we still have elementary and high schools and the college. Different classes of careers for different classes of education. Similar career growth structure and managerial structure and so on.
I am not saying most education is useless. Just that it might be ill-optimized. Early education should focus on basic reasoning and developing skills that allow the student to research, absorb and implement information. Middle education should focus on exposure to various fields and aspects of contemporary adult life. Late and undrergrad education should focus on a specific career trajectory.
I don't see why a Bachelors degree in an optimized education path cannot be obtained before the age of 18 for most people.
It shouldn't matter whether or not a 5th grader is good at algebra or chemistry but that they have had enough exposure to make an informed decision about it later on. But they should also be exposed to farming, military life, software development, etc...
How is 1918 education and career attainment even remotely comparable to 2020?
Show me the relationship between knowledge/information and career in 1918 vs today. I can’t think of a bigger difference between that time period and now.
Exactly! There are numerous studies stating to limit screen time for kids because it’s not good for them, but now it’s okay for the same kids to be on zoom calls 8 hours a day!
Zoom school is one of the worst things to happen to kids since the beginning of computers.
I have two kids who take classes from an online school. All the classes are taught in a virtual classroom and have been for years. It is an incredibly rich academic experience. Most teachers have their PhD in their fields and there is pretty much zero class behavior issues.
I've of course heard horror stories of schools that have no idea what they are doing trying to use zoom, but there are places that are really good at it and give the kids an incredible academic experience.
Not to discount your experience, it is a useful data point showing it can work, but almost any learning scheme that begins with willing PhDs teaching a group of well-behaved children (with parents that care enough to put them in a special school) is incredibly more likely to succeed. These are the sorts of people who could be left in a cave with some rocks and would likely come out more informed. You can't extrapolate from that to the general public.
Maybe that's obvious to you, but it's a factor that seems to be routinely ignored when discussing educational outcomes.
My point is that it is very possible to create a good academic environment online. It is also possible to create a horrible academic environment online and most of what I've seen people complaining about "zoom classes" are classes where no one really cared enough to even try. And in those cases it isn't that the classes aren't working for the poor students...it is that they aren't working for anyone. It isn't the technology that is the problem. It isn't the fact that the classes are taught online that is the problem. The problem is that you have to actually try to make an online class work well.
Yeah, in 1918 the sort of car centric sprawl that is ubiquitous now would be unheard of. It's doubtful that removing school would have removed social interaction the same way it does now.
In addition, you most likely had at least one female adult continuously present at home. This has changed dramatically.
People forget that part of what is driving many of the problems is that a single worker with only a high school education isn't enough to stay above the poverty level.
Must've been quite the statistical masterpiece to disentangle it from the World Wars and the Great Depression. Off course extrapolating conclusions from early 20th century education and career progression to the 21st will be an even greater achievement.
In addition, I think it would be very hard to separate the effect of school closures from the effect of kids losing their parents to the flu. Those things might have traded against one another: More school closures, fewer parents catching the flu from their kids and dying or being incapacitated for a long time.
Read "The Case Against Education." It uses lots of data to show that education is largely useless after primary education is complete (arithmetic, reading, writing, etc.).
I enjoyed school quite a lot, though admittedly the environments of my high school and college were quite special.
It was basically an undergraduate experience in terms of intellectual rigor, and the group of classmates I had around me genuinely cared for and looked after each other. A majority of our teachers were wonderful mentors who treated us with high expectations but respect and support.
Then college (at a tech school) was basically grad school level in terms of expecting students to participate in research and make original intellectual contributions.
I think my experience shouldn’t be so rare and special as many young people would enjoy and benefit from it as well. Undoubtedly there are other awesome options that don’t involve as much formal schooling. There should be options available as one size doesn’t fit all.
93 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadSchool was less common at that time, but plenty of people went to school, and if there was a marked dropoff in employablility even in just that group, it should absolutely be visible.
Based on statistics and records from over a 100 years ago in an industrial economy ?
https://raogk.org/census-record/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2...
Here's a tax return form from the same year:
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/1040forms.nsf/WebByYear/1920/$...
I'm hugely skeptical of our education system today with all the standardized and focus-busting largely irrelevant curriculums. Also the sleep deprivation can't be any good. Personally kids have thrived away from the classroom but maybe we're unusual.
On the other hand, imagine being a first grader, unable to write or read, just coming from kindergarten, where most of the time was play-time, and due to something, you can't comprehend, you're put infront of a laptop with Zoom turned on, and your parents in a huge financial crisis suddently.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28246/w282...
It's not a short list.
Outsourcing reading is sometimes possible, but it will usually cost you a lot more and will make it much easier to be exploited.
> While our findings may be more applicable in some modern circumstances than others (e.g., when a virus is particularly deadly for younger adults and children or when remote learning opportunities are limited), our paper cautions against over-extrapolating from the 1918-19 pandemic when making decisions about optimal policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is unfortunately not going to stop many people or politicians or media outlets from citing this paper as a justification for (or to defend) COVID-19 policies.
You seem to be reading that as saying that you should do no extrapolation whatsoever, when really what they are saying is that you should do cautious extrapolation.
Because of WWI, the student body was a heavily militarized ROTC detachment.
They basically ordered the cadets to their barracks and sheltered it out.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/how-harvard-handled-...
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/12/06/l...
> We find that the closures had no detectable impact on children's school attendance in 1920, nor on their educational attainment and adult labor market outcomes in 1940.
Really ... they are trying to explain labor market attainments in 1940 - for the generation that lived through World War I, the Great Depression, sampling it in a period right in the middle of World War II.
Yet the authors feel fully qualified to assess the effects of school closings of 1918 after being confounded by all of the above.
Also, as far as I can tell, “school sucks” is very much an Anglo thing. I went to primary school in English, in continental Europe, and in Latin America. The latter two were great, but my school in an English speaking country was awful, basically social Darwinism, and well described by Waters, Orwell and Hollywood.
Graduated, began programming on my own time, 9 years later I'm making $300,000 a year as a programmer.
Only people I talk to are my wife, my mom, and a few people on Discord about 3d graphics.
I can safely tell you that human interaction in the sense of "make 300 friends at school so that you aren't considered a freak or loner!" was never necessary, and in fact was an active burden.
Why did I need to be hazed for 18 years?
I just don't think that kids should have to be forced into the same building for so many years of their life. Voluntary school is great, but I don't think the trope is always true that homeschooled kids are "freaks and loners and nerds who will faceplant in the real world", which is my opinion on what the popular sentiment is here.
I don't think the risks of in person school outweigh the benefits.
I was wondering if you elaborate on your position regarding homeschooling and the risks of in person school a bit more? I am curious to hear your perspective. Thanks!
I was in the total opposite boat. I got bullied here and there (I was the classic gangly tall kid, still am at 35), but school was the sole source of normalcy in my life for most of my adolescence. I'd be willing to bet that the extremes on either end mostly cancel out, and, for the vast majority, school is a net positive because of the socialization and the opportunity to get information that isn't filtered through your parents.
As we mature we want other things, more time alone, and with abusive schools we might recoil at being forced to periodically be with our tormentors.
Forcing 16 year olds to socialize is stupid though.
We may not need to be with each other 8 hours a day, but that bit is a matter of pragmatism.
FYI you are not 'forced'. If your parents want you to stay at home, they can do that. If they want the state to provide your education, it's 30 to a room. And of course, you can pay $50K/year to have 5 per class private school.
But I wouldn't say Im normal. Far from it
It's a creativity killer and that's why creative people rarely are a good fit, most times their creativity is not encouraged, but it's being dismissed as "rebellious". How is this healthy for the kids? And how uniforming them is good for society?
Sometimes I feel like school is more about power and control rather than really helping the students.
School is probably the best thing possible for a 'bright' child who would likely wallow aimlessly without having developed their talents, social skills, broad knowledge and especially ability to focus consistently on things which may not pique their specific curiosity.
I'm sure 'feral children' would engender the rare Mozart but at the imminent cost of massive loss in civility across all fields.
With respect to the study, in 1918 literacy rates were low, Highschool graduation was probably not even 60%, and less than 5% went to College.
Kids ability to work in factories or the family farm may not have been hampered.
Kids not in school during that time, may have been very likely working in the family business or farm, learning relevant skills.
It doesn’t seem like you buy the premise in my statement (if indeed we can cut two years of school with no ill effects) so we don’t need to argue about the conclusion.
The careers, values and goals of society as a whole have changed but we still have elementary and high schools and the college. Different classes of careers for different classes of education. Similar career growth structure and managerial structure and so on.
I am not saying most education is useless. Just that it might be ill-optimized. Early education should focus on basic reasoning and developing skills that allow the student to research, absorb and implement information. Middle education should focus on exposure to various fields and aspects of contemporary adult life. Late and undrergrad education should focus on a specific career trajectory.
I don't see why a Bachelors degree in an optimized education path cannot be obtained before the age of 18 for most people.
It shouldn't matter whether or not a 5th grader is good at algebra or chemistry but that they have had enough exposure to make an informed decision about it later on. But they should also be exposed to farming, military life, software development, etc...
Show me the relationship between knowledge/information and career in 1918 vs today. I can’t think of a bigger difference between that time period and now.
There might have been no school, but I doubt the kids didn’t go out and play with their little gangs.
Zoom school is one of the worst things to happen to kids since the beginning of computers.
I've of course heard horror stories of schools that have no idea what they are doing trying to use zoom, but there are places that are really good at it and give the kids an incredible academic experience.
Maybe that's obvious to you, but it's a factor that seems to be routinely ignored when discussing educational outcomes.
Especially when the alternative is social media.
People forget that part of what is driving many of the problems is that a single worker with only a high school education isn't enough to stay above the poverty level.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174655/th...
It was basically an undergraduate experience in terms of intellectual rigor, and the group of classmates I had around me genuinely cared for and looked after each other. A majority of our teachers were wonderful mentors who treated us with high expectations but respect and support.
Then college (at a tech school) was basically grad school level in terms of expecting students to participate in research and make original intellectual contributions.
I think my experience shouldn’t be so rare and special as many young people would enjoy and benefit from it as well. Undoubtedly there are other awesome options that don’t involve as much formal schooling. There should be options available as one size doesn’t fit all.