Lani Guinier throws down the gauntlet for education with her scathing indictment of the SAT and by extension, the educational establishment's culturing and assessing of 'talent.' The problem, in essence, is the fact that education exists within a complex system and the SAT (here used as a signifier for all educational assessment) is not equal to the challenge of identifying talent as it is very clearly a measurement of one set of desired skill sets.
Guinier made the statement at the end of her speech that if anyone has seen the show "The Wire" they know that there are brilliant people that are lost to the world because despite their talents, they have an unconventional education, lifestyle, class, etc. Education in this view, it seems, is a shorthand that tries to equate grades and degrees to intelligence. The problem is that, as she points out, straight As at Harvard does not make you a good lawyer. But can you blame someone who makes the assumption that straight As at Harvard mean more than Straight Bs at a state school? Or that someone with a BA will be more successful, or is more intelligent, than someone with only a high school education.
The real tragedy is that education has tried to become all things to all people. Private industry has placed a value on an education to such an extent that jobs that 20 years ago did not require formal education, now do. Companies that had their own internal training programs, that could find the raw talent in a broad range of people across all industries, now outsourced their training to schools by requiring college degrees. And because the original mission and design of education was for academic education, it is not as efficient at identifying non-academic students who would otherwise demonstrate unconventional intelligence.
Open source projects and endeavors are one way that unconventional intelligence can be discovered and utilized by society. Guinier also talks about Scott Page's book The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
and his argument that talent is equally distributed in a population and it is that diversity of talent that creates strength in society—this is the hallmark of the open source movement. Open source makes use of a flattened hierarchy of interested individuals in a project, utilizing varying degrees of ability within the project guidelines. In such projects, members are noted for their contributions and reputations. Linux and Wikipedia are both examples of open source projects. While they have many experts working on those projects, there are millions of people without special qualifications also working on the projects—and their efforts rival professional work in their respective fields. Even though this is a phenomena that has started on the internet, it is spreading to other real-world venues such as education, robotics, science, and even space exploration.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
scanner
Cleo C
the stand-in
Natalie Not Pedantic
Leigh Bailey
David Sirota
Salon.com
Comments
In contrast to Loni's argument, I'd say that values determine qualities which in turn determine "talent," and that values are unique to culture. Loni says: "....In each race and ethnic group, talent is equally distributed among all people."
I agree totally that peoples, on average, are equally apt. But not that people are equally talented. I see talent as a cultivation of aptitude, practice, and raw will power that occurs in the context of familial, cultural, and societal values. To accept Loni's argument at face value, we must be willing to accept the alternative argument that non-Black athletes, preachers, and entertainers (yes, that means Asians as well) are equally talented at such endeavors, but are being overlooked due to systemic factors. Is there a picture of Spud Web and Yao Ming standing next to each other?
As a recent professional instructor of drums and percussion, I would agree that aptitudes in the case of rhythm sophistication are not particular to any particular racial/ethnic group. I also wish that polyrythms were part of the SATs so that I could have kicked ass (which I didn't).
There is unquestionably a serious disconnect between what is suggested by the test results and what is inferred by test result users. An interesting stress-point is the intersection of sold goods (ACT sells test scores which indicate XY&Z...) and the interest of the buyer. As an avid fan of The Wire, I can only say....follow the money.
Of course, the design of the test takes into account that there is a correlation between multiple skill-sets and and measures so that if there is a strong correlation between two skill-sets in a large population, you can be reasonably assured that a score in one area will result in similar scores in another, therefore, after validation, you most likely only need to test the one area.
I guess this is a round about way of adding to your "follow the money" comment. A lot of parents (and schools, for that matter) have been sold on the idea of using test prep in helping students get into better schools. The problem lies in the fact that ACT and ETS create tests that only correlate with skills that actually make a student successful. If all of the effort is put into teaching students how to take the test, they are not being trained on what skills and knowledge really make them successful.
1. On the issue of whether SAT scores or grades or any kind of educational assessments measure talent: I've thought about this more than you know. First, there really is a difference between SATs and grades, for example. Secondly, what kind of talent? It has occurred to me/my family that "the business world" (another reduction) and college admissions departments, too, have decided that grades matter more than the so-called ability that's measured by standardized tests. And even those standardized tests differ in the degree to which they are skewed toward ability versus achievement. But I think grades/achievement weighs more, generally speaking, because they represent a candidate who clearly plays the game. I say that with a hint of contempt, being the mother of three brilliant boys who play that game to varying degrees but who tend to score in the highest percentiles on ability testing. But, honestly, I have begun to see through the lens of those in hiring or admissions positions; it's true that sometimes we are given a set of rules--whether at a job or in life, where those rules are really just a given set of circumstances--and we have to make do with them. So I have come to grudgingly understand, if not outright admire, the notion of recognizing the kind of achievement that follows students who assess their teachers/classrooms and figure out what it takes to get an A. That's some kind of intelligence, anyway.
But then I remind myself that if we look deeper, those unconventional thinkers may indeed be the key to discovering that cure for cancer or that way out of a monstrously failing economy, and I'm back to square one: both businesses and colleges need to make room for those who are talented but haven't played the traditional game.
2. I too have noticed that education seems to be required more often for jobs that seem to have been accomplished just fine without it. I'm talking about things like young law students feeling the need to get an MBA simultaneously and physical therapy majors now needed PhDs where a masters seemed adequate before. I keep wondering: What was it, precisely, that wasn't getting done before, or that was getting done so poorly before, that these extra classes are needed? I love higher education and have pursued a masters in interdisciplinary studies for the love of learning, but I don't see how upping the requirements for all fields is necessary or efficient for fully employing the population.
3. Page's book sounds interesting and reminds me of something an Oberlin admissions counselor told us parents of high school juniors and seniors: It's a myth that they want a "well rounded student," which has translated over the years into these seemingly Renaissance kids who do everything from music to sports to saving the world but whose resumes, when looked at closely, are actually just lists of superficial associations. She said that instead Oberlin is looking for a "well rounded student body," which means something different entirely. She said they want that car geek and the obsessed flutist and the guy who does nothing but play football. They want the combination of students in any given class to amount to a well-rounded group. I thought that was really cool, and something that allows each kid to be who he is.