Give all ~15-year-olds a day-long standardized test. The test is mostly a bunch of boring "do lots of not-hard math", "read dull stuff & kinda understand it", etc. Kids are encouraged to bring their phones - but can't use them in any way that plausibly amounts to cheating on the test.
Kids with good scores on the test get admitted to high school. Ones with not-so-good scores (whether really dim, horribly prepared, or too addicted to their cell phones to pay attention) go to a menial labor training camp. Where they get to post pictures of the ditches they're learning to dig, potatoes they're learning to harvest, bathroom fixtures they're learning to clean, etc. all over their social media accounts.
It's so strange that every year that online content gets more addicting and exciting, school gets more and more boring and standardized. When I was in high school, the big issue du jour (this was between 2005-2015) was that all of the elective classes at my high school (European Literature, History of the Bible, Advanced Creative Writing, etc.) were going to be paved to make way for English 9-12.
I've talked to some high schoolers that go to the same school recently and it's nothing like when I went. All of the exterior doors are now locked with passcodes, everyone is very closely surveilled, most of the exciting electives have been cut or are on the chopping block, and if you're late to class the teacher is supposed to lock you out and you have to report back to the office.
I can hardly blame kids for taking every spare second to look at their phones. What a nightmare. I'm expecting my first child soon and I'm definitely not sending them to full-time school.
There are other ways to socialize that don't involve being a cog in the machine for half their waking day. Extracurriculars can fill that same need: boy scouts, sports teams, music lessons, whatever the kid's into.
So they can be socialized by their unsocialized peers? That’s a profoundly unnatural and destructive thing to do. Human children are supposed to be raised in mixed-age setting where they can learn from older children and young adults, under the supervision of not only parents and teachers but a spectrum of adults of different ages.
At least in the recent past Americans had large families and civic organizations like churches to expose children to normal social structures. Today we are losing even those, and age-segregated schooling is the dominant mode of socialization for children.
Don't know if you're still following this thread, but I agree with the responder that the civic structures of society are increasingly replaced by schooling and subscription-based hobbies. I think there are many opportunities to socialize kids without school, but they're not quite as ubiquitous--and they won't become common until lots of people are doing them, like I plan to.
Also, speaking delicately, a lot of poorly-socialized homeschooled children have poorly-socialized parents, and were doomed from the start. I am gregarious and involved in many different social circles (athletics, music, engineering, etc.) and should be able to expose my kids pretty thoroughly to them.
Many home school kids are taught in co-ops, so the kids are mixing and socialising with other kids. Not every class is suited to being home schooled (some arts and sports come to mind) so for those classes you employ the services of local schools for those explicit requirements so the kids are socialising in those environments too except you are cherry picking the services/classes you want.
Home schooling isn’t for everyone and not everyone has the means (lots of ferrying around kids between activities as well as the time needed to educate, basically it’s a unpaid full time job and many families require those hours spent generating an income to survive) but the image of home schooled kids being unsocialised is pretty much a myth.
When I was in high school, 1996-1999 (and 1999-2002 I suppose? I'm never sure when "high school" ends in English-speaking places) the only elective class was Latin, exterior doors were closed and guarded and when you were late the teachers often sent you to the office. In some especially boring classes with boring teachers, some kids would read books (not school books). It got progressively more free towards the later years (not because of policy changes, older pupils were just less supervised).
I never really enjoyed school or authority after primary school, but I certainly wouldn't call it a nightmare. It was quite fine and I learnt things that I found interesting then, and others that I find useful now. I'm not sure having the exit doors open during class would have improved anything.
Anyway, I just wanted to give my experience because even though we have probably experienced high school in different countries, in my experience it has not gotten more boring than it used to be. And in the country where I live, it's also very different from how it was in mine when I was a kid.
Counter-anecdote: When I was at school, we had an aging computer lab, an IT teacher who was learning the material about 1 lesson ahead of us from the other IT teacher, an IT course that consisted of MS Access, and (non-actionscript) Flash. The only really creative subjects that could be taken were Design Technology and Art.
These days that same school has a full-on photography studio, modern computers, an actual computing course, multiple extra language courses, bigger and significantly better equipped classrooms all around. Just better in every conceivable way.
And they're no more surveilled than we were.
In almost all cases, home-schooled kids are significantly worse-off. Both in terms of attainment and social development. You are not going to be an exception to that.
In some (vague, old) theories, students in a traditional school are learning F2F social skills, developing friendships & relationships with a large-ish group of their ~peers, and other soft stuff.
imo this limited definition of peer groups is in fact one of the biggest issues with our education model. short of being drafted there is virtually no other social or work setting where your entire social stratum will be comprised solely of people born within the same 12 months and the same zipcode. if anything this gives a highly distorted view of society and encourages a whole range of maladaptive behaviors & thinking patterns. it should be unsurprising that the most intense forms of bullying occur in these settings.
I always thought that Scouts was the one bright spot in youth upbringing, where kids from 10-18 had to socialize, listen to one another and plan mutual outings.
The "born within the same 12 months" part was, historically, far less a part of America's school system. My grandmother taught grades 1-8 in a one-room small-town schoolhouse. My mother taught both in that little town schoolhouse...and also in a large, modern high school in an industrialized city. There was one h*ll of a difference between the two.
Mom did not mince words about which one she thought was far better for the students - in spite of having a vastly lower per-student budget.
There'sa difference in the socialization part: the 'sitting in class bored to tears by a long slow lecture that everybody has to watch in silence' removed. And the actual interaction increased.
Flipped learning models suck unless they're done perfectly. And 90% of the time they won't be done perfectly.
In my experience (as a student), what actually ends up happening is that students don't do the lectures, which leads to low engagement with the classwork. This also tends to punish people who fall behind, since class time is useless without doing the prerequisite material.
On the flip side, your ability to do homework with the teacher is limited by class size, which have to be large unless you can find a large supply of teachers and buildings to put them in. So what ends up happening is that you teach yourself, which is great if you're smart or talented enough to do that. But if you're not, it's very easy to fall behind and stay behind with this model.
This is the problem. I was a secondary maths/science teacher. 9 tried to implement a flipped classroom before the pandemic and, well, the kids did absolutely nothing. Most would come to school the next day having never read/watched (I linked videos and actual reading, trying to cover all varieties of ways kids prefer to learn) and be openly proud they didn't. It listed about two weeks before I just said screw it and went back to the normal model because I had to.
Lots of students simply aren't mature enough or lack the disciple/interest to do a flipped classroom - and this will apply to any online education as well. Tech isn't going to magically change education, sadly, at least not the way we conceive of it now.
Recruit parents? Use a tool that track viewership by student, send reports to parents, grade them on it? Block students from classroom if they haven't seen the lecture, and let parent's know?
There are traditional ways of motivating student, a combination of carrot and stick.
How do we know if this is really and issue or just another case of adults think the children are ruined. I feel like I heard stuff like this growing up too, maybe I am actually ruined?
My feeling is that all these cultural problems people complain about so often didn't really start with us. They started with our parents, or more likely with our grandparents. That's why they're so hard to fix, and so often the people calling out a problem are somewhat guilty of the problem themselves.
It's like a bunch of alcoholics admonishing the next one for drinking slightly more irresponsibly. When did people even start this? I don't think anyone can remember. We all know what needs to be done, but the vast majority of us can't do it ourselves.
Ok, one small problem I have with this entire argument. This guy goes on TV and makes a bunch of (atleast) sensationalist opinionated claims, with apparently no evidence. And what does he cite as a clear indication that Tiktok is ruining our society and that we're doomed? Young people want to be social media influencers.
Let's leave aside his absurd assertion that this single fact is meaningful (it's probably not true, and it's probably not important either).
So what does this guy do, what does he aspire to? He's basically a thought leader. The middle aged equivalent of a teenage girl dancing on tiktok.
When people my age were kids, many of them wanted to be movie stars. I'd agree that this doesn't necessarily indicate a problem.
I was going to make a joke about how I wanted to be a ninja when I was a kid, and how clearly unlikely that is, but as an adult I do actually commonly see job openings for ninjas. (Okay, I guess it's actually a joke anyway, just not the one I thought of initially.)
Some kids wanted to be stars. And they had creative outlets that honed their physical, social and cognitive skills.
The content being promoted, and the social "skills" and interactions originating from social media, are more prevalent and much, much less useful than someone wanting to play sax or act.
FWIW, the only argument I was making (not speaking for OP) is that this specific observation of "80% of my students want to be social media influencers" is a weak indicator that TikTok (really, every social media platform) is creating difficulties for today's teenagers. There are other strong indicators that this is the case.
> 80% of my students want to be social media influencers when they grow up (despite having very poor social skills), and the other 20% have never given it any thought.
The numbers are made up, so I wouldn't expect that there's significance in the spread. My point is that the the teacher almost exclusively sees two groups: one who takes the option in vogue, and one who hasn't thought about it. To me, this suggests that something approaching 100% of their students have given this little to no thought, which jives with my experience at that age.
I think we'd agree that this is a minor point and doesn't really take away from the conclusion drawn in the tweet.
> much less useful than someone wanting to play sax or act.
Sadly, the pay equivalence of all those actions (on median: minimal with the occasionally lottery ticket winner to keep the pipeline primed) suggests that society views them as equally non-useful.
> These narratives are connected via a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so entertaining that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
The problem with this line of thinking is it's true and it's not. People said TV would make our brains rot. It didn't. But some people certainly are addicted. They said social media would make us lemmings. It didn't. But some people certainly do questionable things due to social influence. When you have countless disruptive technologies like tv and social media, they add up.
Social media is dramatically different in that most kids[0] now have a social media machine in their pocket and at their beck and call all-day-every-day. In years passed during school hours kids had much less dragging their attention away from school work.
[0] The internet tells me that most American kids have mobile phones by age 7.
Your statement is structurally equivalent to saying "People have always said that new media formats are ruining the youth, and they haven't [ed. note: debatable], therefore it's impossible for a new media format to ruin the youth."
I think it's worth thinking about ways in which new media formats are or are not different from old ones, and how that might offer new ways to ruin the youth. For example, comic books cost money, so you're naturally limited in how many you can buy. 1940s through 2000s - era TV/video games require you to be in front of a TV, vs having a handheld device which is accessible 24/7 regardless of where you are.
I would argue that AM Talk Radio and Fox News DID eat people's brains.
The thing preventing brain rot was the uncoordinated, decentralized nature of radio and TV stations. Once TV and radio became monopolies that could provide a unified message, the brain rot set in.
Why do you believe that the social media companies who are monopolies won't wind up the same?
The video in this tweet makes an analogy with opium, which of course is charged historical territory between China and the west. In fairness, the US and most other countries haven't made a serious attempt to stop or ban 'addictive' interactive apps and content. There has at points been pressure, e.g. on YouTube, but my understanding is no laws have been passed, etc. If we disapprove so strongly of kids being exposed to this stuff, let's get some legislation on the books, rather than just one-off shaming companies for not meeting our unwritten norms.
When I was a kid, kids fought over "beef" from the playground. TikTok has its problems, but being yet another place that kids who don't like each other can insult each other, isn't one of them.
68 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadGive all ~15-year-olds a day-long standardized test. The test is mostly a bunch of boring "do lots of not-hard math", "read dull stuff & kinda understand it", etc. Kids are encouraged to bring their phones - but can't use them in any way that plausibly amounts to cheating on the test.
Kids with good scores on the test get admitted to high school. Ones with not-so-good scores (whether really dim, horribly prepared, or too addicted to their cell phones to pay attention) go to a menial labor training camp. Where they get to post pictures of the ditches they're learning to dig, potatoes they're learning to harvest, bathroom fixtures they're learning to clean, etc. all over their social media accounts.
I've talked to some high schoolers that go to the same school recently and it's nothing like when I went. All of the exterior doors are now locked with passcodes, everyone is very closely surveilled, most of the exciting electives have been cut or are on the chopping block, and if you're late to class the teacher is supposed to lock you out and you have to report back to the office.
I can hardly blame kids for taking every spare second to look at their phones. What a nightmare. I'm expecting my first child soon and I'm definitely not sending them to full-time school.
At least in the recent past Americans had large families and civic organizations like churches to expose children to normal social structures. Today we are losing even those, and age-segregated schooling is the dominant mode of socialization for children.
Ah, right. The way they are designed.
Like you say though, there's no real alternative. I wish there was something else with widespread adoption.
Lots to think about here.
Also, speaking delicately, a lot of poorly-socialized homeschooled children have poorly-socialized parents, and were doomed from the start. I am gregarious and involved in many different social circles (athletics, music, engineering, etc.) and should be able to expose my kids pretty thoroughly to them.
Home schooling isn’t for everyone and not everyone has the means (lots of ferrying around kids between activities as well as the time needed to educate, basically it’s a unpaid full time job and many families require those hours spent generating an income to survive) but the image of home schooled kids being unsocialised is pretty much a myth.
I never really enjoyed school or authority after primary school, but I certainly wouldn't call it a nightmare. It was quite fine and I learnt things that I found interesting then, and others that I find useful now. I'm not sure having the exit doors open during class would have improved anything.
Anyway, I just wanted to give my experience because even though we have probably experienced high school in different countries, in my experience it has not gotten more boring than it used to be. And in the country where I live, it's also very different from how it was in mine when I was a kid.
These days that same school has a full-on photography studio, modern computers, an actual computing course, multiple extra language courses, bigger and significantly better equipped classrooms all around. Just better in every conceivable way.
And they're no more surveilled than we were.
In almost all cases, home-schooled kids are significantly worse-off. Both in terms of attainment and social development. You are not going to be an exception to that.
Mom did not mince words about which one she thought was far better for the students - in spite of having a vastly lower per-student budget.
In my experience (as a student), what actually ends up happening is that students don't do the lectures, which leads to low engagement with the classwork. This also tends to punish people who fall behind, since class time is useless without doing the prerequisite material.
On the flip side, your ability to do homework with the teacher is limited by class size, which have to be large unless you can find a large supply of teachers and buildings to put them in. So what ends up happening is that you teach yourself, which is great if you're smart or talented enough to do that. But if you're not, it's very easy to fall behind and stay behind with this model.
Lots of students simply aren't mature enough or lack the disciple/interest to do a flipped classroom - and this will apply to any online education as well. Tech isn't going to magically change education, sadly, at least not the way we conceive of it now.
There are traditional ways of motivating student, a combination of carrot and stick.
But yeah its not been solved yet.
we can make a licensing regime and regulate content selection algorithms
Edit: 30k tweets since joining in 2020 hmm...
My feeling is that all these cultural problems people complain about so often didn't really start with us. They started with our parents, or more likely with our grandparents. That's why they're so hard to fix, and so often the people calling out a problem are somewhat guilty of the problem themselves.
It's like a bunch of alcoholics admonishing the next one for drinking slightly more irresponsibly. When did people even start this? I don't think anyone can remember. We all know what needs to be done, but the vast majority of us can't do it ourselves.
Yeah this is some sort of subconscious cry for help, I'm pretty sure.
In August. Assuming it was August 1st that's 830 days or ~36 tweets a day (Using 29.6K tweet total). That's insane.
Impolite rhetoric detected: sarcasm
Let's leave aside his absurd assertion that this single fact is meaningful (it's probably not true, and it's probably not important either).
So what does this guy do, what does he aspire to? He's basically a thought leader. The middle aged equivalent of a teenage girl dancing on tiktok.
I was going to make a joke about how I wanted to be a ninja when I was a kid, and how clearly unlikely that is, but as an adult I do actually commonly see job openings for ninjas. (Okay, I guess it's actually a joke anyway, just not the one I thought of initially.)
The content being promoted, and the social "skills" and interactions originating from social media, are more prevalent and much, much less useful than someone wanting to play sax or act.
> 80% of my students want to be social media influencers when they grow up (despite having very poor social skills), and the other 20% have never given it any thought.
The numbers are made up, so I wouldn't expect that there's significance in the spread. My point is that the the teacher almost exclusively sees two groups: one who takes the option in vogue, and one who hasn't thought about it. To me, this suggests that something approaching 100% of their students have given this little to no thought, which jives with my experience at that age.
I think we'd agree that this is a minor point and doesn't really take away from the conclusion drawn in the tweet.
Sadly, the pay equivalence of all those actions (on median: minimal with the occasionally lottery ticket winner to keep the pipeline primed) suggests that society views them as equally non-useful.
Every new media in history has had harms and benefits. Saying things are harmless is just as dangerous as yelling it's the end of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest
[0] The internet tells me that most American kids have mobile phones by age 7.
I think it's worth thinking about ways in which new media formats are or are not different from old ones, and how that might offer new ways to ruin the youth. For example, comic books cost money, so you're naturally limited in how many you can buy. 1940s through 2000s - era TV/video games require you to be in front of a TV, vs having a handheld device which is accessible 24/7 regardless of where you are.
The thing preventing brain rot was the uncoordinated, decentralized nature of radio and TV stations. Once TV and radio became monopolies that could provide a unified message, the brain rot set in.
Why do you believe that the social media companies who are monopolies won't wind up the same?
Acronyms are kinda steamy nowadays too and kept in piles :p
<insert jeopardy theme here>
We have the data now. It’s better to structure entertainment in a socialized way. Too many people share stories tinged with survivorship bias.