MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W302125167

Primer on Success: Character and Knowledge Make the Difference

2013· article· en· W302125167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation next · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)DisadvantagedPsychologyPovertySociologySocial psychologyLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and Hidden Power of By Paul Tough Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012, $27; 256 pages. As reviewed by E. D. Hirsch Jr. Paul Tough follows his excellent book about Geoffrey Canada and Harlem Children's Zone with one on improving school achievement and life chances of disadvantaged children. The title is Children Succeed, and chapter heads continue how-to motif of title: 1. to Fail (and Not To). 2. to Build Character. 3. to Think. 4. to Succeed. 5. A Better Path. If book really delivered on these headings, Tough would deserve immense success. I hope book does sell well, though perhaps not too well. Its ultimate message is that non-cognitive abilities and traits are more important to success than mere academic achievement, and that message, while containing important truths, is overstated. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Tough gathers scientific results and personal observations from a number of estimable sources among researchers and practitioners, all supporting idea that what really determines success is character and perseverance rather than raw intelligence and book learning. At same time, he shows that what truly handicaps a child is horrible early upbringing and neglect. The term of art for permanent psychic damage done is ACE: Adverse Childhood Experiences. This, by now well-attested finding is best argument for intrusion of outsiders into homes of neglectful or cruel caregivers, and it is best explanation for observation that poverty accompanies lower achievement all over world. This poverty argument (it's not Tough's) is also oversimplified, since, as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) reports show, some parts of world diminish poverty-achievement correlation far more than U.S., through better schooling. What connects ACE segment of book (How to Fail) with more positive themes is common non-cognitive feature. How to Build Character takes off from successful KIPP schools and their emphasis on good manners and perseverance. The chapter goes on to show that a certain kind of test requiring no academic knowledge, only a willingness to persist in a boring task, is, other things equal, highly predictive of later success. How to Think focuses on middle-school chess players from a low-income school manage consistently to beat advantaged students and even highschool chess teams. Focus and practice are keys. In other words, perseverance and hard work are how to think. And How to Succeed? Also perseverance and hard work. No one would or should dispute importance of diligence and perseverance. Classic texts on education such as Plato's Republic and Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education emphasize that character development and virtue are far more important educational goals than mere acquisition of knowledge. At same time, those writers are quite explicit in setting forth breadth of knowledge children need to acquire. If Tough had updated that both/and tradition with latest reports from field, he would have no argument from me. But he takes view that an emphasis on knowledge acquisition, which he calls the cognitive hypothesis, has been tried and it has failed. Here is what he has to say in his introduction: In past decade, and especially in past few years, a disparate congregation of economists, educators, psychologists and neuroscientists have begun to produce evidence that call into question many of assumptions behind cognitive hypothesis. What matters most in a child's development, they say, is not much information we can stuff into her brain in first few years. What matters instead is whether we are able to help her develop a very different set of qualities, a list that includes persistence, self-control, curiosity, conscientiousness, grit, and self-confidence. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.022

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation nextSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207