Comment by rigid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rigid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not sure. In Germany there's an ongoing debate for extending conprehensive schools [1] across all ages. It's a complex topic but the general gist of supporters is, that pupils profit from each other. (e.g. Bad ones get help from the good while those practice how to cooperate and explain etc.).

I don't think it's that complex. My personal premises are

* if the kid doesn't like to get up and go to school or is too tired over longer periods, the school is doing something wrong, not the kid. * if there are A LOT of kids like this, the school authority is doing something wrong (and so on, up to government) * an older kid needs support on every topic at any time when interest arises. It's the kids' choice not the schools'. * learning at school must be fun, at least 90% of the time.

That way whizzkids are easily detected, will be less frustrated and thus perform better.

I got some good example anecdotes but better won't "textwall" here :-)

Just imagine a world, where Einstein would get optimum support from young age so he would start professional physics years earlier.

Or one where he didn't go to the patent office but one where he worked in some factory or other place, not finding the spare time he needed to do physics.

Way too much luck involved if you ask me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_school

If you're an Einstein-class talent, luck doesn't have much to do with it. You'll find a way to do your thing.

One example: someone elsewhere in the thread mentioned John Carmack. Carmack's not a thief, or at least it would be a grotesque oversimplification to label him as one. But he stole an Apple II when his parents wouldn't buy him one.

What's critical is that once talent is identified, it's nurtured to the greatest extent possible.

This a classic "post hoc ergo procter hoc" fallacy.

You just can't know, how much more Einsteins there would be. People that would never steal an Apple II or would never even get that opportunity.

Heck, if Einstein became a younger father, there's a good chance he never looked deeper into physics despite talent and interest without someone (like a teacher) pushing him.

I claim that it's pure coincidence. Carmack didn't make it because of public education but despite of it. We can't afford this anymore.

IMO the risk is not that Einsteins (and Carmacks) won't have the educational opportunities they need. That may have been a showstopper in the past but it certainly isn't today, not with the resources we have now from YouTube to ChatGPT.

And the world is full of parents who are neglectful with no excuse at all. I don't think early fatherhood would stop an Einstein.

Instead, the risk is that talented people will die of starvation, disease, or warfare before they have the chance to become who they are. Or that their career will be cut short by similar circumstances. See Ramanujan, or the even more-tragic but lesser-known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev .

That's where the luck factor really comes into play... the luck to be born someplace peaceful. The luck to be born male, if you have to be born into a culture driven by social or religious biases. The luck to receive the nutrition (never mind the Apples) you need as a growing child. The luck that just plain keeps other people the fuck out of your way.

And that's what we have to work on as a civilization. It's a bigger problem than simply arguing over how public education should work, or whether scientist X or inventor Y would have benefited from policy Z.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com