Why paying kids to get good grades is a bad idea, Part II

Nice.

Always fun to hear what Cialdini is up to...and Mary Luce was the editor (Luce is a big name in decision-making research and really helpful to grad students she doesn't even know...).

Undoubtedly, the mission of National Math and Science Initiative is respectable and commendable. Yet some of the means to achieve the ultimate goal leave much to be desired.

Indeed, average high school students in the US are not performing well in science and math compared to their counterparts in the OECD nations. The rankings drop further when other Asian nations are taken into account.

To spend millions of dollars to entice students (and to some extent teachers) may not be the best or wisest move for NMSI. While it could work for some students with strained financial resources, by and large, the effect would likely be insignificant. Perhaps money in the form of lucrative, competitive tertiary scholarships would provide greater as well as more functional incentives.

Most Americans are quite well to do and have relatively easy lives; the youngsters are prone to having fun and outdoor activities. There is no urgency for them to study hard to gain a degree for higher salary or better social mobility. The motivation to learn science and math has often been weak if not minimal.

Surely there are more tangible ways to promote science and math learning. (Tan Boon Tee)

While tagging assignments may help students re-frame how they approach homework, it would be drop in the bucket of our otherwise media-saturated world. When video games celebrate violence, cable programs glorify scantily -clad females and kids are directly marketed to, its no wonder why they value what they do; which is not hard work and education. The government is also failing, as many school districts are grossly under financed and metal detectors replace music and art programs, so what message does that send to kids?

Wow. I agree, the key is to create more viable social norms and find better ways of reinforcing them....Question is, in a capitolist society, is there a difference between social and market norms? Great work.

When I talk to high schoolers, one of the most consistent comments I hear is, "Why should we work hard in our classes if nothing we learn actually matters?" And what troubles me is that they are right!

I think there are two main problems with the idea of paying students for good grades:
1) The assumption that a high test score signifies a mastery of the material. Acquiring the skill of taking a standardized test does not equal a comprehensive understanding of a subject.
2) The creating of a highly competitive, individualistic learning environment. If students are intimidated by competition, they may self-handicap (by not studying) in order to avoid failure. In reality, most scientists work collaboratively in an interdependent community. It makes much more sense to create a learning environment in which students learn from each other and share the same successes!

The difficulty with social norm and a market norms study is that it have be done across all backgrounds and levels of socioeconomic groups.

My mother is a school teacher, and it is well understood that there is an extremely high correlation between parents who have high levels of performance and their children.

Just as the children of Michael Phelps and (for example) Dana Torres would probably make some amazing swimmers. It does not mean it will happen but I would bet on the product of that union over say, Rush Limbaugh and his wife.

The reality is that there are an unbelievable number of factors which are in degrees determinative of a kid's success or failure. For kids on the lower end of the scale, money could very well be a huge factor in getting them to study very hard. If the difference between you being able to buy the latest IPOD or game system and not having anything at all is some Bs and B+s, the incentive is huge. At the same time, the headwinds can be tremendous as well. I have seen kids whose mom is a streetwalker and strung out on crack. So downtrodden that it is essentially the kids taking care of the parents and the younger children. In yet other situations, parents are so busy that they fail to raise their children and teach them the value of hardwork.

While it is nice to pontificate on the effectiveness, it is only likely to really help those who are already predisposed to doing well or who have the marginal capabilities with some level of unrealized potential. The difficulty is that there is no way of categorizing in the educational process. Past behavior is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

Bryan? (since Barbara has already taken the !)

Bryan,

You're presupposed that what's referred to an entiative theory of intelligent (i.e., intelligence is a fixed constant). In fact, children with such an internal theory tend to give up on difficult problems sooner than those who have a theory of intelligence based upon effort (i.e., intelligence is not fixed).

If others are interested, I'll go dig up the relevant citations for reading.

Wow. I agree, the key is to create more viable social norms and find better ways of reinforcing them....Question is, in a capitolist society, is there a difference between social and market norms? Great work.

Tough question. My inclination is the answer is (and must be) yes: there is a difference between social and market norms. I know some have re-imagined the bonds of family and friends in terms of transactions, costs / benefits and long-term pursuit of individual gain (i.e. market norms)... but damn if that work doesn't feel as if its missing the essential soul of what's happening. That's the most basic source of my conviction that social norms are not necessarily encapsulated within market behavior.

However, the concern, voiced throughout these posts, is that the social and market motives are incompatible - i.e. not mutually reinforcing but rather self-reinforcing. Market behavior breeds market behavior; to the detriment of socially motivated behavior (to simplify). And likewise, the social motive doesn't encourage the market motive. So at some point, social norms may be subsumed and encapsulated by market norms ... not sure that's a situation we want.