Paying Students to do Well
SnappyCrunch
Join Date: 2004-08-03 Member: 30328Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-08-03 Member: 30328Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Is it useful? Is it right?</div>The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/nyregion/05incentive.html" target="_blank">posted an article</a> today (March 5, 2008) on a program in NY City Public Schools to pay students to do well on standardized tests. As near as I can glean from the article, a bounty of up to $50 has raised the number of students getting passing grade on the standardized math test from about 40% to about 80%. So far, the city has spent nearly $500,000 on this program this year out of a <a href="http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/exp01/y2003_2004/function.asp" target="_blank">$14 billion dollar budget</a>.
Is this a good way to motivate children? What would be better uses of the money that would help children more?
Is this a good way to motivate children? What would be better uses of the money that would help children more?
Comments
The economics of incentives are very strange and many incentives we would like to think as 'ethical' are counter productive. If your goal is to produce results that matter then you need some lateral thinking and a willingness to thoroughly analyse the numbers and accept the solutions that work instead of the solutions you would like to work.
I would highly recommend the book 'Freakonomics' for people interested in this area. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics</a>
If it motivates the kids to learn, shell it out. The kids are getting educated, mirite? Of course, all of this assumes it doesn't result in cheating.
The higher the reward, the greater the incentive to cheat. There's nothing we can do to escape this aspect of human nature.
The difficulty is in designing a system that provides incentives while also making it easy to detect cheaters.
Good grades are their own reward. If you can't be bothered studying and paying attention in class to learn for learning's sake, you shouldn't be at school.
--Scythe--
If it motivates the kids to learn, shell it out. The kids are getting educated, mirite? Of course, all of this assumes it doesn't result in cheating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
Good grades are their own reward. If you can't be bothered studying and paying attention in class to learn for learning's sake, you shouldn't be at school.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, 'Like' has very little to do with it really. You can pay these kids a little money now to help them develop skills so you don't have to support them in social programs, or in adult education programs that are limited in effectiveness. Learning incentives are particularly effective in situations where other strong motivational presences are absent. I think that if you worry too much about how you would 'Like' things to be instead of choosing the solutions that produce the actual results then expect to fail. This is, for example, why abstinence only sexual education is doomed to failure, and why literacy rates tend to plummet with increasing economic difficulties.
Freakonomics is genius. Best book I've read in 10 years, which includes my entire extended college stay (wow I'm getting old).
I have no qualms with this at all, before I had a job, but had started getting letter grades (age rage of probably 10 through 15) my parents paid for A's on report cards. And there was a localish Aracde that gave out tokens for A's and B's. It certainly wasn't my primary motivation for doing well, but I remember liking that it gave me something tangible to shoot for.
I also recall in Junior High (age 12-14) they used to laminate a wall in the Cafeteria with the names of everyone with at least a 3.0 GPA. And for our State-wide Standardized tests if you scored 100% they printed your name in the paper. I remember that both of those were massive motiviators for me
Good grades are their own reward. If you can't be bothered studying and paying attention in class to learn for learning's sake, you shouldn't be at school.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Scythe, since you have the only opinion so far that's against giving the kids money, I'm asking you this question -
How would you design a system where children learn more? What incentives would you give to a child whose parents and peers don't value education?
These are very good points, but why isn't this practiced universally rather than selectively? <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Lolf is spot on. Scythe is entitled to the opinion that learning should be its own reward.
Lolf is spot on. Scythe is entitled to the opinion that learning should be its own reward.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree he is spot on, and to clarify what I said, <u><b>EVERYONE</b></u> should be extended this courtesy, puzl.
I'd say we are unless we don't like a game Tycho likes and then our opinion is wrong.
I should really read Freakanomics. I usually agree with what people quote out of it and I would like to see some of the evidence used to support these positions.
That is certainly true. In fact, it's that very reason why I posted this in Discussions and not Off Topic. I am not trying to change his opinion, I'm trying to see if he can change mine.
I suppose I should state my beliefs before we go any further: I think that giving money to students is the most efficient way to raise test scores. It provides the most knowledge to the most children for the least money. Providing a direct incentive (i.e. immediate rewards) to do well on the tests causes children to do well on the tests. However, as a person who values knowledge for it's own sake, I would like to see more people develop a passion for learning. I would also like to see people develop an ability to put off instant gratification in favor of later gratification. I feel like the ability to delay gratification is an important part of being a productive member of society (if that statement has meaning).
Inasmuch as standardized testing is the best metric we have for learning, I support giving children money to do well on them. However, I also think it works counter to my personal moral goals of seeing people love learning, and delaying gratification. I am hoping someone can convince me that giving money directly to children works counter to those moral goals enough to make it not worth the money. Or, I'm hoping that someone can show me a better way.
I was enrolled in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundschule#Overview_of_the_German_school_system" target="_blank">Grundschule</a> at age six, and spent four years there. The next two years were called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptschule" target="_blank">Hauptschule</a> and were at the same school, so that didn't matter much. After that it was on to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_%28school%29" target="_blank">Gymnasium</a> from which I graduated at age nineteen after thirteen years of school. This is the standard model for the highest tier of regular school that Germany has.
So once a german youth is done with that lengthy process, they then need to get an education, adding further years to the pile before they can finally find themselves a well-paid position. I have trouble blaming people who have spent two thirds of their young lives in school for losing sight of the ultimate goal. In effect, each completed year is a milestone, but with no tangible reward in itself.
In principle, I agree that it would be great if everyone could just learn for the sake of learning and the ultimate payoff, but maybe that is a bit much to ask. I know that as I came closer to graduation, a certain school weariness set in, which culminated in the grueling 12th grade and only started to wear off in 13th grade. By the time I was out of school and working my ten months at a hospital as a conscientious objector, I was actually happy to do the simple, menial tasks there (transporting patients around, mainly). After thirteen years of classes, homework and tests it was nice to be able to just shut off and do simple, undemanding work while my brain took a breather. I was pretty burned out.
But in order to actually come to a conclusion rather than just ramble about my schooling: It'd be nice if everyone could just study with the promise of eventual reward, but maybe it's naive to expect that of everyone. Maybe it's prudent to give people the occasional nudge to give them a tangible indicator that they are on the right path, and not just wasting their time.
Also I'd think that motivating the student to get good grades should be the parent's/family's job.
It's a cycle of parents that didn't care, raising kids that don't care.
I taught an introductory class on game programming once near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The students were paid a couple hundred bucks to show up to this class, and still didn't give a ###### about it. It was the most appalling thing I had ever seen with regards to education.
I would have jumped all over the chance to even show up to one of these classes for no charge at their age, and here they were getting paid!
Lousy freaking kids.
It's a cycle of parents that didn't care, raising kids that don't care.
I taught an introductory class on game programming once near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The <b>students were paid a couple hundred bucks </b>to show up to this class, and still didn't give a ###### about it. It was the most appalling thing I had ever seen with regards to education.
I would have jumped all over the chance to even show up to one of these classes for no charge at their age, and here they were getting paid!
Lousy freaking kids.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oO
Wow, just wow.
Why do people honestly think that paying students to do well or even show up is a good thing? Maybe the students that get paid write better grades and show up to class more often, but they will certainly not be better human beings.
Let me tell you a little story:
The german word for education is "Bildung". It is Bildung, because it is closely related to "Bild" which means picture and even more closely related to "Menschenbild" which roughly translated into "idea of man" (there is no equivalent english term). So the idea behind education is to teach knowledge, but at the same time shape young minds after a certain idea of what a human should be like. If only highly knowledgeable character swines graduate from university then society will crumble!
I also dont see any real scientists coming from the "pay students to do well" direction. Sure you can pay them money to read a book, but to spend years following a certain idea with doubtful results takes devotion and is still the most common way how todays big inventions are made! (Polyethanol for example, which was discovered by accident during such a devoted search).
And as already mentioned if you reward people for the most insignificant things (showing up to class for a hundred bucks? WTF?) They won't even care! Reward the 3 best students of every semester. Fine to me. Reward every dingus for being able to pull up its zipper -> rewards are going to loose effect soon, cause they are nothing special. Just compare it to corporal punishment. Whipping people when they do extremely bad works. Whipping them every single day for the most insignificant reasons: the punishment will loose its effect pretty fast.
Not everyone can/should be a scientist. It's just a matter of encouraging students to have at least a literacy in a subject even if they don't like it. Would you want to take a class on haircutting or interior design? Some people do, and if this is their primary profession they don't have a need to understand chemistry as thoroughly as a biochemist would. They'll probably forget the heat conversion formulas from their high school chemistry class quicker than I did. Hopefully they'll remember how to do unit conversions for when they need to worry about inches vs. centimeters.
I agree with Scythe-'s attitude to be honest.
I'm not one to believe that school is the only way in order to be successful in your own personal goals, to enter the world of work and be a better person. I'm also a believer of "Who you know, not what you know" in a lot of circumstances I will apply this, obviously a fair balance needs to be struck. Although paying students to perform academically is wrong particularly if people end up studying just for the sake of it, just because they stay in education and do well does not mean to say 100% they will get a good job, heck even a job out of the end of it. Greater chance of it happening yes, but not a certainty.
Funny you say that, they're doing that in the UK soon. The idea is those that haven't found a job after 2 years of benefits get no money unless they participate in local programmes like cleaning graffiti, looking after the elderly. It's seen as productive-punishment for those that really don't want to work. Those that opt out are to be left to fend for theirselves.
This sort of external motivation just seems like it'll do more harm than good, and not just in academics. There are a lot of beneficial things people can do to further themselves and better themselves that simply do not pay, and it causes me to worry that someone who came out of a program like this might simply shrug off these opportunities for something that does pay, but really isn't beneficial and doesn't really have any opportunities attached.
Example:
Person A and person B just got out of high school and both have their sights set on being an electrician. Trade skills are currently in high demand in their area, so it seems like a good choice
<b>However</b>, they notice all the apprenticeship programs are non-paying and last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
Person A is self-motivated, and goes with the apprenticeship program
Person B is externally motivated. Seeing that the apprenticeship programs offer no money, he decides instead to go work at a gas station.
6 months later
Person A has completed their apprenticeship and has started their career as an electrician. If they keep at it, this career could easily keep them living quite comfortably for their entire life.
Person B has 6 months pay from a gas station.
Admittedly, these are somewhat slanted and a bit exaggerated but they get the point across. Its not just trades either, there are plenty of non-paying activities that are just generally agreed upon as being beneficial. Further education, exercise, reading, basically any hobby or creative outlet. These all -can- lead to money, but they don't often, and they never start with it, but there is rarely any argument on their actual value to an individual or society.
TL;DR version: I agree with scythe.
This sort of external motivation just seems like it'll do more harm than good, and not just in academics. There are a lot of beneficial things people can do to further themselves and better themselves that simply do not pay, and it causes me to worry that someone who came out of a program like this might simply shrug off these opportunities for something that does pay, but really isn't beneficial and doesn't really have any opportunities attached.
Example:
Person A and person B just got out of high school and both have their sights set on being an electrician. Trade skills are currently in high demand in their area, so it seems like a good choice
<b>However</b>, they notice all the apprenticeship programs are non-paying and last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
Person A is self-motivated, and goes with the apprenticeship program
Person B is externally motivated. Seeing that the apprenticeship programs offer no money, he decides instead to go work at a gas station.
6 months later
Person A has completed their apprenticeship and has started their career as an electrician. If they keep at it, this career could easily keep them living quite comfortably for their entire life.
Person B has 6 months pay from a gas station.
Admittedly, these are somewhat slanted and a bit exaggerated but they get the point across. Its not just trades either, there are plenty of non-paying activities that are just generally agreed upon as being beneficial. Further education, exercise, reading, basically any hobby or creative outlet. These all -can- lead to money, but they don't often, and they never start with it, but there is rarely any argument on their actual value to an individual or society.
TL;DR version: I agree with scythe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Person B would be just as likely to shrug off school because it doesn't "pay" to go. The goal is to keep person B in his/her seat long enough with this program to see the value of his/her education.
But this is not a perfect world, and people are not very interested in abstract ideals.
Rewarding children with money is a terrible way to reinforce educational policies and procedures.
We could say "so let them." But that's no good. We have created a complex society with complex rules and complex paths to success, and we can't expect children to instinctively know their way around them all.
A child is born with simple reflexes and learning mechanisms. A newborn baby will instinctively close its mouth and stop breathing if submerged, for instance. They may have no knowledge of fire, but the first time they burn their fingers they understand that it is painful and must be handled carefully or avoided altogether. These are simple tools for a simple world, and they don't help the child understand how a spreadsheet works or what a petri dish is for.
So some sort of education is important, and as the earlier mentioned "Freakonomics" asserts, positive incentives are a strong motivator. "You'll get a reward some day years from now" is not a strong incentive for many people. "You'll get a reward next month" is.