Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

3 rules to avoid poverty......

Posted: 6/18/2012 12:19 PM

3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Ron Haskins testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, June 5:

I want to emphasize the importance of individual initiative in reducing poverty and promoting economic success. Young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success—complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby. Based on an analysis of Census data, people who followed all three of these rules had only a 2% chance of being in poverty and a 72% chance of joining the middle class (defined as above $55,000 in 2010). These numbers were almost precisely reversed for people who violated all three rules, elevating their chance of being poor to 77% and reducing their chance of making the middle class to 4%.

Individual effort and good decisions about the big events in life are more important than government programs. Call it blaming the victim if you like, but decisions made by individuals are paramount in the fight to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in America. The nation's struggle to expand opportunity will continue to be an uphill battle if young people do not learn to make better decisions about their future.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/18/2012 2:17 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Seems simple enough.

Quote me on that.

"We have the potential to be pretty decent."
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/18/2012 3:16 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Common sense ain't all that common.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/18/2012 3:18 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


So wouldn't it make sense to tie welfare benefits to achieving these goals ??


Is there any way to tie welfare benefits to child's school attendance and performance ??

Eliminating unemployment extensions = increased work participation rates.  Cutting welfare/food stamps = increased work participation rates.

Birth control needs to be tied in to welfare benefits.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/18/2012 8:36 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/18/2012 8:47 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



REMRebound wrote: Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.

The sad thing is that it really shouldn't.  Take the poorest kid in the ghetto, spend 3 years in the army, or take a loan and go to a technical school and voila, no poverty.  No one has to be poor in America.

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/18/2012 9:23 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Those rules are racist.

Let me guess.  You aren't here for the Alcohol or Tobacco...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/18/2012 10:39 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



REMRebound wrote: Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.
But, since we can't control that, why even bother bringing it up.

It still comes down to choices.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 12:21 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



WestCoastLionsFan wrote:
REMRebound wrote: Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.
But, since we can't control that, why even bother bringing it up.

It still comes down to choices.
When the going gets tough, quit and blame the rich... ohlord

Let me guess.  You aren't here for the Alcohol or Tobacco...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 2:06 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



REMRebound wrote: Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.

Stupid grandparents... decided to try and provide a better life for their kids than they had... eek1

Quote me on that.

"We have the potential to be pretty decent."
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 2:48 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



sid11 wrote:
REMRebound wrote: Even better rule: have the good fortune to be born to parents that followed these rules. Your odds of avoiding poverty go up by about a million percent.

The sad thing is that it really shouldn't.  Take the poorest kid in the ghetto, spend 3 years in the army, or take a loan and go to a technical school and voila, no poverty.  No one has to be poor in America.
I get that anyone can be successful, but to make light of the challenges faced by the "poorest kid in the ghetto" at being successful is a bit unrealistic.

I was reading an article not long ago in the Detroit News about the schools in inner city Detroit.  I forget the exact number, but it said a girl walking to that school faced something like a 1 and 10 chance of being raped every day she went to school.  Do you think Bill Gates children face a 1 and 10 chance of being raped every day they go to school?

The obstacles thrown in the way of a child in inner city Detroit are enormous.  I'm not saying they can't do it, but I can certainly understand why many don't.  I don't know that I could of pulled myself out of that mess.  It's easy for me to say I could of, but I can't say that for certain.

Welfare and food stamps are not ever going to be the answer to this problem.  Neither is saying "well make better choices."  Safe communities with safe and proper education would go a long way toward correcting this problem.  The problem is kids in inner cities are treated like third world nations.  No one gives a ****.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 6:40 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


I'm not making light of anything.   But it is 100% true that there are lots of ways to avoid poverty, and in general, your choices drive things.  A kid in detroit can indeen enlist, climb on that bus, and they are no longer poor.  You can spend a couple of years in a technical school with student loans, and have a perfectly desirable career.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 9:22 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


You guys are missing my point. You are throwing out correlations and drawing conclusions from them. I can do that too. Poverty absolutely correlates with the circumstances in which you're born--more closely than nearly any other factor.

Completing school, not getting pregnant until you're 21--these things also correlate with the circumstances in which you're born. Somehow people who are born to parents that completed school and waited until they were older to have children are vastly more likely to complete school themselves and not have children as a teenager themselves. Why is that? Why are they making better choices? Because they are smarter? Genetically superior? More moral? Or are they benefiting from being born into circumstances over which they have no control--in the same way that other children suffer from being born into circumstances over which they have no control?

Choosing to walk left, right, right, left, straight may correlate with not getting blown up by a landmine. Another good way to not get blown up by a landmine is to not be born in the middle of a minefield.

Last edited 6/19/2012 10:02 AM by REMRebound

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 10:05 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Choosing to walk left, right, right, left, straight may correlate with not getting blown up by a landmine. Another good way to not get blown up by a landmine is to not be born in the middle of a minefield.

So, you think we should just give up on those born in the middle of minefields ??  I doubt you feel that way.


But even if we only study those born in the middle of minefields, I'm sure that if they graduate high school, work full-time and wait until 21 to get married and have children, their chances of getting out of the minefield are MUCH higher. 

So the goal is to identify which things (that we can actually change) influence the ability to escape the minefield.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 10:13 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



REMRebound wrote: You guys are missing my point. You are throwing out correlations and drawing conclusions from them. I can do that too. Poverty absolutely correlates with the circumstances in which you're born--more closely than nearly any other factor.

Completing school, not getting pregnant until you're 21--these things also correlate with the circumstances in which you're born. Somehow people who are born to parents that completed school and waited until they were older to have children are vastly more likely to complete school themselves and not have children as a teenager themselves. Why is that? Why are they making better choices? Because they are smarter? Genetically superior? More moral? Or are they benefiting from being born into circumstances over which they have no control--in the same way that other children suffer from being born into circumstances over which they have no control?

Choosing to walk left, right, right, left, straight may correlate with not getting blown up by a landmine. Another good way to not get blown up by a landmine is to not be born in the middle of a minefield.

Its an intersting point, but I see it as a mixed metaphor.  Sure, you have no choice where you are born.  But you do have control over your choices, and that's where I see the problem. It's readily apparent to everyone where bad choices take you, and what you can do to succeed.   The real question is why so few make those choices and why so many make the bad choices when it is so readily apparent what the outcome will be.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 10:58 AM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



sid11 wrote:
REMRebound wrote: You guys are missing my point. You are throwing out correlations and drawing conclusions from them. I can do that too. Poverty absolutely correlates with the circumstances in which you're born--more closely than nearly any other factor.

Completing school, not getting pregnant until you're 21--these things also correlate with the circumstances in which you're born. Somehow people who are born to parents that completed school and waited until they were older to have children are vastly more likely to complete school themselves and not have children as a teenager themselves. Why is that? Why are they making better choices? Because they are smarter? Genetically superior? More moral? Or are they benefiting from being born into circumstances over which they have no control--in the same way that other children suffer from being born into circumstances over which they have no control?

Choosing to walk left, right, right, left, straight may correlate with not getting blown up by a landmine. Another good way to not get blown up by a landmine is to not be born in the middle of a minefield.

Its an intersting point, but I see it as a mixed metaphor.  Sure, you have no choice where you are born.  But you do have control over your choices, and that's where I see the problem. It's readily apparent to everyone where bad choices take you, and what you can do to succeed.   The real question is why so few make those choices and why so many make the bad choices when it is so readily apparent what the outcome will be.
It might have something to do with that being all they know. If there is no one there to show them the difference, how will they know? If their parents and the parents of their friends have continued the cycle of living in poverty, how are they to learn how to get out? From their schools? Not likely. Other adults? Again, not likely.

aka TheRealWags
Aristotle wrote: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Socrates wrote: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 11:13 AM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



WestCoastLionsFan wrote:

So wouldn't it make sense to tie welfare benefits to achieving these goals ??


Is there any way to tie welfare benefits to child's school attendance and performance ??

Eliminating unemployment extensions = increased work participation rates.  Cutting welfare/food stamps = increased work participation rates.

Birth control needs to be tied in to welfare benefits.

Yeah, we should let young women and their baby's starve.
I have no idea why the left thinks the right has a war on women. You hurt your cause more everytime you open your mouth lately.

In the last century, governments killed 260 million of their own citizens. Logical conclusion: Ban governments.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 12:15 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


I'm in favor of any policy prescriptions that can help alleviate poverty. But this construction of the problem is not a policy prescription, it's a cop-out.

First, it's a moral and ethical cop-out. Everyone who is impoverished is impoverished because they chose to be. Therefore, if millions of people live in poverty in my society, it's not my problem. You're impoverished because you deserve to be.

Second, it's a cop-out in that it's a tautology--a simple restatement of the problem posing as a diagnosis of the problem. Dropping out of school, having children at an early age, not having a full-time job do indeed correlate with poverty. This is not shocking news. The question is WHY impoverished people perpetually drop out of school, have children at an early age, fail to keep full-time jobs. If you can answer that question, perhaps you can begin to break those patterns.

But this construction doesn't bother to address that question, it just pretends to while restating the problem. Why do impoverished people do the things that lead to poverty? Because they choose to do the things that lead to poverty! Voila, problem solved!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 12:31 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



sid11 wrote: I'm not making light of anything.   But it is 100% true that there are lots of ways to avoid poverty, and in general, your choices drive things.  A kid in detroit can indeen enlist, climb on that bus, and they are no longer poor.  You can spend a couple of years in a technical school with student loans, and have a perfectly desirable career.
Make that a kid who graduated from high school or get a GED.  Getting in the military these days is not nearly as easy as it was 20 years ago.  Not to mention that problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...m_n_799767.html

Last edited 6/19/2012 12:32 PM by LionsfaninBearcountry

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 1:18 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Yeah, we should let young women and their baby's starve.

I think you have some issues with reading comprehension since I said nothing about letting young women and their babies starve.

I have no idea why the left thinks the right has a war on women.

It could be because many on the left are ignorant and will believe whatever the liberal media tells them to believe.

You hurt your cause more everytime you open your mouth lately.

My "cause" is to help educate those on the left.  I see I am failing in your case.



But back to your assertion that I am advocating letting young women and their babies starve.

The things I'm advocating would...

Increase high school graduation.  Increase work participation.  Decrease pregnancy rates amongst mothers already in poverty.

Shouldn't that be what everyone wants ??  Working high school graduates that don't get pregnant until they are better able to care for their children sounds like a good idea to me.

I realize this is what people on the right want but not those of the political elite on the left.  The political elite class on the left stays in power BECAUSE of poverty.  Their policies promote poverty (while claiming to do just the opposite).
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 1:42 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



WestCoastLionsFan wrote: Yeah, we should let young women and their baby's starve.

I think you have some issues with reading comprehension since I said nothing about letting young women and their babies starve.

I have no idea why the left thinks the right has a war on women.

It could be because many on the left are ignorant and will believe whatever the liberal media tells them to believe.

You hurt your cause more everytime you open your mouth lately.

My "cause" is to help educate those on the left.  I see I am failing in your case.



But back to your assertion that I am advocating letting young women and their babies starve.

The things I'm advocating would...

Increase high school graduation.  Increase work participation.  Decrease pregnancy rates amongst mothers already in poverty.

Shouldn't that be what everyone wants ??  Working high school graduates that don't get pregnant until they are better able to care for their children sounds like a good idea to me.

I realize this is what people on the right want but not those of the political elite on the left.  The political elite class on the left stays in power BECAUSE of poverty.  Their policies promote poverty (while claiming to do just the opposite).
Oh.

In the last century, governments killed 260 million of their own citizens. Logical conclusion: Ban governments.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 5:28 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


WOW, what a study. Money well spent to tell us working full time makes it less likely you are poor. STOP THE PRESSES!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 5:56 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



Albert Wesker2 wrote: WOW, what a study. Money well spent to tell us working full time makes it less likely you are poor. STOP THE PRESSES!
Yes Albert, we know there was nothing for you to take from something so simple to comprehend.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 6:23 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



Albert Wesker2 wrote: WOW, what a study. Money well spent to tell us working full time makes it less likely you are poor. STOP THE PRESSES!
I'm inclined to agree. Get an education, get a job, wait until you are mature enough to have kids. Seems like common sense, huh?
Hopefully the study included how to reach teenagers and young adults with the message, because they aren't getting it in time.

In the last century, governments killed 260 million of their own citizens. Logical conclusion: Ban governments.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 6:31 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


WOW, what a study. Money well spent to tell us working full time makes it less likely you are poor. STOP THE PRESSES!

So, even Albert knows how to get rid of poverty, yet he still advocates programs that work to promote poverty.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/19/2012 10:07 PM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


WestCoastLionsFan wrote: WOW, what a study. Money well spent to tell us working full time makes it less likely you are poor. STOP THE PRESSES!

So, even Albert knows how to get rid of poverty, yet he still advocates programs that work to promote poverty.
I also know a cure for sickle cell anemia; dont get sickle cell anemia. Thats the logic here, and no I dont advocate anything that promotes poverty, thats simply your right wing extremist interpretation.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/19/2012 11:35 PM

RE: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



AzLionsFan wrote:
sid11 wrote:
REMRebound wrote: You guys are missing my point. You are throwing out correlations and drawing conclusions from them. I can do that too. Poverty absolutely correlates with the circumstances in which you're born--more closely than nearly any other factor.

Completing school, not getting pregnant until you're 21--these things also correlate with the circumstances in which you're born. Somehow people who are born to parents that completed school and waited until they were older to have children are vastly more likely to complete school themselves and not have children as a teenager themselves. Why is that? Why are they making better choices? Because they are smarter? Genetically superior? More moral? Or are they benefiting from being born into circumstances over which they have no control--in the same way that other children suffer from being born into circumstances over which they have no control?

Choosing to walk left, right, right, left, straight may correlate with not getting blown up by a landmine. Another good way to not get blown up by a landmine is to not be born in the middle of a minefield.

Its an intersting point, but I see it as a mixed metaphor.  Sure, you have no choice where you are born.  But you do have control over your choices, and that's where I see the problem. It's readily apparent to everyone where bad choices take you, and what you can do to succeed.   The real question is why so few make those choices and why so many make the bad choices when it is so readily apparent what the outcome will be.
It might have something to do with that being all they know. If there is no one there to show them the difference, how will they know? If their parents and the parents of their friends have continued the cycle of living in poverty, how are they to learn how to get out? From their schools? Not likely. Other adults? Again, not likely.
Are you expecting me to believe that a young man cuts school and doesn't know it's wrong?  Smokes weed and doesn't know it's wrong?  Buys a gun illegally at 13 and doesn't know it's wrong?  Sticks up someone for their wallet and doesn't know it's wrong?  Then joins 5 others and beats the crap out of one person and doesn't know it's wrong?  Oh he KNOWS it's wrong.  It's that he doesn't CARE.  There is a culture of if you DON'T do the above, you are a punk beotch among your peers.  You KNOW it's wrong, that isn't the problem, it's that you don't want to be known as a punk beotch and you aren't strong enough mentally to deal with peer pressure.  It's about thinking the world owes you something and if the world doesn't hand it to you, it's your right to victimize others to get it.  It's not about education.  We can educate till we are blue in the face.  It's about a culture of taking the easy wrong over the hard right dispite knowing what is right and what is wrong.  If you know to run when the police come, then you know it's illegal and thus WRONG.  It's simply that you don't care and it's too hard to do it the right, legal way.

Let me guess.  You aren't here for the Alcohol or Tobacco...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/20/2012 9:35 AM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


Thats the logic here, and no I dont advocate anything that promotes poverty

And how would you decrease poverty ??

What we are currently doing ISN'T working.  It's not just that it isn't working, it's getting worse.


I propose we focus our attention on prevention instead of trying to cure those already in poverty. 

As REM puts it, the best way to avoid poverty is to not be born into poverty.   Therefore, the logical thing to do is to help cut down the amount of pregnancies by women/girls already in poverty.

1) We need to tie welfare payments to birth control.  IF you want welfare, THEN you get a birth control shot (both men and women).  IF you want to have children, get off of welfare first.

2) You can get a "bonus" to your welfare payment if your children stay in school and students meet minimum standards.  Give parents a financial incentive to "break the cycle".

3) If children don't meet minimum guidelines (eating healthy, exercising, going to school, passing in school, speaking english), remove children. 


I realize these aren't "touchy feely" nice solutions.  But we have a terrible problem and it is going to take tough solutions.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2012 10:10 AM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 



WestCoastLionsFan wrote: Thats the logic here, and no I dont advocate anything that promotes poverty

And how would you decrease poverty ??

What we are currently doing ISN'T working.  It's not just that it isn't working, it's getting worse.


I propose we focus our attention on prevention instead of trying to cure those already in poverty. 

As REM puts it, the best way to avoid poverty is to not be born into poverty.   Therefore, the logical thing to do is to help cut down the amount of pregnancies by women/girls already in poverty.

1) We need to tie welfare payments to birth control.  IF you want welfare, THEN you get a birth control shot (both men and women).  IF you want to have children, get off of welfare first.

2) You can get a "bonus" to your welfare payment if your children stay in school and students meet minimum standards.  Give parents a financial incentive to "break the cycle".

3) If children don't meet minimum guidelines (eating healthy, exercising, going to school, passing in school, speaking english), remove children. 


I realize these aren't "touchy feely" nice solutions.  But we have a terrible problem and it is going to take tough solutions.

So, you know that the government is intentionally impoverishing people for the sake of their Global Climate Change agenda, and keeping them impoverished, and your solution is to chemically sterilize those people until the government decides to allow the economy to grow enough to allow them to work? And you aren't a Progressive?
Oh!

In the last century, governments killed 260 million of their own citizens. Logical conclusion: Ban governments.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/20/2012 10:19 AM

Re: 3 rules to avoid poverty...... 


I propose we think more deeply about this problem and not make policy based on unsupported assumptions.

You assume that human beings making choices that lead them to poverty are rational creatures. (If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't advocate making welfare changes to shift the incentives for people in danger of ending up in poverty.) Yet you (not just you) also avoid the question of why people make the choices they do today.

If you accept that people are rational creatures, you have to accept that there must be some incentive for making the choices they make now. There must be some reason people choose to drop out of school, choose to get pregnant as a teenager. Might it be worth while to understand those incentives if we're seeking to realign them with different choices?

You make a lot of assumptions about what those incentives are and how we can realign them; I don't think your assumptions are especially well supported. I think they are your gut feelings based on your political and philosophical worldview. As public policy investments, what makes you believe these programs (rather than others) will yield the most bang for our buck? What is the basis for that opinion?

I would point to people doing real and valuable work on this question like Steven Levitt:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/0 6/freakonomics-goes-to-school-and-teaches-us-the-r ight-way-to-bribe-kids/258672/

Freakonomics Goes to School and Teaches Us the Right Way to Bribe Kids


The case for putting $20 bills on the desk of every standardized test taker


A brand new study by Steven D. Levitt (of Freakonomics fame), John A. List, Susanne Neckermann, and Sally Sadoff finds that Chicago students in low-performing schools did better on tests when they were promised money or trophies for their good grades. But it wasn't as simple as writing a bunch of checks and and waiting for the A's to pour in. How much money and how you present the rewards makes all the differences.

Without instant money and rewards, many students in these Chicago schools had put forth "low effort on the standardized tests that we study," the authors write. Why didn't the students care about good grades? It's all about the timing of our rewards.

Let's imagine a man bursts through your nearest door in five seconds and says: "Quick, do 20 push-ups and I'll send you a check for $20." Will you ask how long it will take for the money to arrive?

Classical economics would suggest you shouldn't. All things equal, $20 today is worth $20 in a week or so. But in fact, we're much more likely to do things -- large and small, easy and difficult -- when we can see the immediate benefits. If I hold a $20 bill in front your face, you're more likely to finish a push-up set than if I promise you'll get the money wired to you in a month.

Behavioral economists call this sort of thing "hyperbolic discounting," an ungainly phrase that's more commonly known as the problem of delayed gratification, or procrastination, or inattention. The theory says that we don't value rewards properly. We excessively (or hyperbolically) low-ball (or discount) the value of rewards in the distant future, which means we put too much weight on short-term satisfaction.

Now back to the tests. When an adult tells a child "stay in school," he can point to his big salary and home as evidence that education pays off. But education doesn't literally pay off for a very long time. Its rewards are delayed; therefore, from the perspective of a student, they are easily ignored. The economic rationale for paying students for good grades isn't (just) bribery. It's also about bringing the reward of good grades closer to the event of the test, when the student is more likely to act on it -- and less likely to "discount" it.

In this study, economists offered students of different ages money or trophies just before they took a test. Sometimes, the students got the reward first with the possibility that it could be revoked for bad performance. Sometimes, the students were only shown the reward after. So what did the economists find? Four really cool things.

First, they found that money works, and the amount of money really matters. Students were reportedly willing to exert significantly more energy at $80-an-hour, but not at $40-an-hour. (Authors: "As far as we know, ours is the first study to demonstrate that student responsiveness to incentives is sensitive to the size of the reward.").

Second, they learned that the rewards were most powerful when they were framed as losses rather than gains  (i.e.: "Here is $20. If you fail, I'm taking it away.") The technical term for this is loss aversion and it's endemic. We're more protective of money we have -- or think we have -- than we are aggressive about seeking money we don't have. Third, they learned that "non-financial incentives," like trophies, worked best with young people. Fourth, they learned that rewards provided with a delay -- "we'll get you that check in a month!" -- did very little to improve performance. The power of hyperbolic discounting is strong with these ones.

***

We don't always think of our attention as part of a budget, but it is. When we pay attention, we pay, literally. We allocate time out of a relatively finite portfolio of focus to concentrate on something we think is important or alluring.

The trouble for many schools is that the incentive structure is set up so that teachers focus more than their students on standardized tests. These tests are super-high-stakes for instructors and principals, where they can determine who keeps a job and where state resources are spent. But they are relatively low-stakes for individual students in the short-term, especially if those students aren't looking to go to college and don't care very much about a weak grade. This paper's clever conclusion is that we can manipulate lessons from economics and psychology to trick/bribe/nudge students toward spending more from their attention budget on these tests.

We talk about the "attention economy" as if it's confined to the word of social media and advertising. But in fact, it's here, in under-served school districts, where the lessons of attention might be the most lucrative for the country. If we can buy their attention today, we'll all be richer for it.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >