Posted on 08/19/2008 1:01:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
When amateurs outperform professionals, there is something wrong with that profession.
If ordinary people, with no medical training, could perform surgery in their kitchens with steak knives, and get results that were better than those of surgeons in hospital operating rooms, the whole medical profession would be discredited.
Yet it is common for ordinary parents, with no training in education, to homeschool their children and consistently produce better academic results than those of children educated by teachers with Master's degrees and in schools spending upwards of $10,000 a year per student— which is to say, more than a million dollars to educate ten kids from K through 12.
Nevertheless, we continue to take seriously the pretensions of educators who fail to educate, but who put on airs of having "professional" expertise beyond the understanding of mere parents.
One of the most widespread and dramatic examples of amateurs outperforming professionals has been in economies that have had central planning directed by highly educated people, advised by experts and having at their disposal vast amounts of statistical data, not available and probably not understandable, by ordinary citizens.
Great things were expected from centrally planned economies. Their early failings were brushed aside as "the growing pains" of "a new society."
But, when centrally planned economies lagged behind free market economies for decade after decade, eventually even socialist and communist governments began to free their economies from many, if not most, of the government controls under central planning.
Almost invariably, these economies then took off with much higher economic growth rates— China and India being the most prominent examples.
But look at the implications of the failure of central planning and the success of letting "the market"— that is, millions of people who are nowhere close to being experts— make the decisions as to what is to be produced and by whom.
How can it be that people with postgraduate degrees, people backed by the power of government and drawing on experts of all sorts, failed to do as well as masses of people of the sort routinely disdained by intellectuals?
What could be the reason? And does that reason apply in other contexts besides the economy?
One easy to understand reason is that central planners in the days of the Soviet Union had to set over 24 million prices. Nobody is capable of setting and changing 24 million prices in a way that will direct resources and output in an efficient manner.
For that, each of the 24 million prices would have to be weighed and set against each of the other 24 million prices. in order to provide incentives for resources to go where they were most in demand by producers and output to go where it was most in demand by consumers.
In a market economy, however, nobody has to take on such an impossible task. Each producer and each consumer need only be concerned with the relatively few prices relevant to their own decisions, with coordination of the economy being left to supply and demand.
In short, amateurs were able to outperform professionals in the economy because the amateurs did not take on tasks beyond the capability of any human being or any manageable group of human beings.
Put differently, "expertise" includes only a small band of knowledge out of the vast spectrum of knowledge required for dealing with many real world complications.
Nothing is easier than for experts with that small band of knowledge to imagine that they are so much wiser than others. Central planning is only the most demonstrable failure of such thinking. The disasters from other kinds of social engineering involve much the same problem.
Surgeons succeed because they stick to surgery. But if we were to put surgeons in control of commodity speculation, criminal justice and rocket science, they would probably fail as disastrously as central planners.
Commendable success!
A few years ago here in Wisconsin a home-schooled kid won the national spelling bee. A Wisconsin paper then interviewed a Wisconsin public high school teacher for his reaction. He sneered that someone memorizing a bunch of words didn’t prove anything. You can bet that if it was one of his students, the school would probably have erected a statue of the student. After reading the teacher’s comments, I would have loved to kick him right where the sun doesn’t shine.
Or Cher.
Einstein proves Sowell's observation that geniuses in one area are not too bright in others. Einstein thought socialism was the wave of the future. He was obviously dead wrong.
That’s where he deserves to be kicked. He and those like him are the reason good teachers are slandered.
And those kids spread their malaise and suck up resources better used for more deserving students.
Sowell’s cheeks have 20/20 vision ;)
Another “home run” by Thomas Sowell!
Incidentally, central planners setting 24 million prices is not exactly unique to the Soviet Union. The US tried something similar to this with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s NRA c. 1933, which was so heavily pushed that parades were staged to publicize and promote it. Fortunately, it was struck down by the SCOTUS a few years later and hasn’t been revived in that particular form since, although government price controls have been implemented from time to time since then.
Homeschooling ping!!!
: )
Thanks J, that’s interesting. I wasn’t aware of that but then there’s much I’m not aware of. :)
I remember reading an article about a small school in Illinois that had the best test scores in the state. The principle was asked how they did it. He answered something to the effect that their budget would only pay for teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic..
Ditto!
Because we've been public-schooled, and can't seem to imagine anything different. Plus there's the free baby-sitting angle. Other than that, I'm at a loss.
Fred is just brutal. And he has seen it up close and personal. He used to do the DC beat as a reporter, did a lot of cop ride-alongs, that sort of thing.
Then there's Thomas Sowell, who actually does display brilliant logic and understanding of a wide variety of things in life, but would be the first person to admit he doesn't know everything. I'd be tempted to disagree with him, though, because I sometimes wonder if there's anything the man doesn't know or isn't right about.Surgeons succeed because they stick to surgery. But if we were to put surgeons in control of commodity speculation, criminal justice and rocket science, they would probably fail as disastrously as central planners.
There is an ironic comment to the effect that "if a man talks about his honor and a woman talks about her virtue, shun the former and cultivate the latter." I can't seem to google it up, but . . .We consider Sowell to be sagacious. The irony is that we would not have the same attitude if in fact he went around claiming to be wise:
sophist1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.philosopherIn fact I would almost go so far as to say that Americans who call themselves "conservative" are actually "philosophers" in the etymological sense given above - and that journalists and those whom journalists call "liberal" are sophists. Certainly, "liberals" are recognizable as Theodore Roosevelt's "critics":O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage.""Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.Theodore Roosevelt's 1911 speech at the SorbonneIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Theodore Roosevelt's 1911 speech at the Sorbonne
And also thanks to you, I have a much better understanding of the differences between sophistry and philosophy.
Sophists: Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
Philosophers: "lover of wisdom,"
Homeschooling kids are in the most natural, organic, wonderful state, as kids should be. Kids who homeschool are like generations of pub educated students of yore; before socialism and the cult of "celebrity" became the models of instruction.
And that's why, amid the millions indoctrinated by the State, homeschooled kids seem "different".
My home felt like Noah's Ark, back in the 90s. Children of all ages were asking to be a part of my homeschool. Asking their parents to talk to me. We helped where we could. College students were asking if they could do their studies at my home. And be tutored. And additionally instructed in matters and topics they'd never heard before.
In homeschooling children, you are seeing students in their natural state. Despair, envy, wanting to fit "in" is what is happening to kids in pub ed. Many don't wish to be there.
Most homeschooling kids want to be exactly where they are. And yes, this makes them stand out as "different" amid the madding crowd.
It does sort out. Although my family is heavily social, always has been - my kids and I talked about this "difference" in the mid90s. I'll tell you what I told them, asked them to decide about:
You can always learn advanced social skills -- the right clothing, the "hep" verbiage, the hand languages, the "right" cliques -- but you cannot get back those years where your brain is tracking, or not. You cannot suddenly grow "new synaptic pathways" just by associating with the larger culture of work and society.
Or conversely, explaining this to Ken Hamblin, years ago: Yes, there's partial birth abortion. And then there's the metaphysical lobotomy taking place in pub ed during a child's most formative years.
Yes, SBprone - as far as the "coolness" factor in re homeschooling kids: it's a snap for them to "catch up" and play the "social game" and WIN it. But, what they can't do is go back and retrain their minds anywhere as readily or easily when they are grown.
Kids in pub ed get grooved into the coolness factor and suddenly arrive at adulthood with no idea of what they want to do. Homeschooled kids generally arrive at adulthood with a passion for what they wish to do. And in this regard, it usually makes them very popular, especially around those lacking a fulfilling passion in their lives.
My point in that paraphrase of Hayek was to impugn the motives and rationale of the planners.
They really aren’t in it for the good of the individual,
they’re in it for the CONTROL of the individual; to force others to conform to their will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.