"Einstein didn't do well in school". I'll hear an occasional student tell me this old and somewhat exaggerated tale. Each seems to hope that I'll agree that not doing well is a fine thing. That's not what I am thinking.
Usually, "you are no Einstein", is the thought that flashes in my mind. He did well in his career in spite of not excelling in school. He did not succeed because he did not excel.
Students are fooling themselves by reasoning with induction incorrectly.
Inductive reasoning involves moving specific facts into a pattern that forms a general conclusion.
But, correct inductive reasoning involves considering numerous examples and considering counter-examples in order to form a general conclusion.
For example, if you were a college lacrosse coach who ran summer camps and noticed numerous outstanding lacrosse players from Daniel Hand High School in Madison, Connecticut and you had few or no counter-examples of poor lacrosse players from the same place, then concluding that Madison, CT produces good lacrosse players would a reasonable conclusion.
Or, if you were an admissions officer at a liberal arts college with the capacity to examine individual high schools and you noticed repeatedly that East Lyme High in East Lyme, Connecticut produced students with excellent SAT II math scores and you had few or no counter-examples, then you could conclude through inductive reasoning that East Lyme High must have a strong math department.
As another example of flawed inductive reasoning, we'll hear:
"Bill Gates dropped out of college."
The student making the point is usually justifying their reason for leaving college by trying to link Gates' early departure as evidence that dropping out of college leads to wealth.
As a parent, your response should be that you can drop out of college provided you have the same brilliance and diligence that got Gates into Harvard in the first place and that you, like Gates, will dig in around the clock for years to develop a revolutionary technological innovation.
Where it is the case that the counter-examples are prevalent - lots of people who succeeded in their educational days do well in their career - and/or dominant - people who graduate college are more likely to earn more than those who do not graduate college - then inductive reasoning cannot lead correctly to general conclusions.
At best, such reasoning can be the start of a conversation about what else is needed in order to succeed if one of the main reasons for practical success - education - has been undermined.
For example, there have been NBA basketball players who have succeeded despite being less than 6 feet tall. In each case, however, the player had other attributes: extraordinary quickness, agility, coordination, sense of the game and so forth.
In the Einstein example, the conversation should be that he didn't do well in a traditional educational setting. So, if you want to be like him, you better start teaching yourself advanced physics!
When students send the message that it is OK to underperform because of a flawed metaphor, then lifetime bad habits will be cultivated. If your student-child is not performing the work to get good grades in a Connecticut high school, then he's creating habits that will hurt him in all future endeavors.
Parents who let their kids engage in flawed reasoning are doing a disservice that will come back to haunt their children at some later point.
Usually, "you are no Einstein", is the thought that flashes in my mind. He did well in his career in spite of not excelling in school. He did not succeed because he did not excel.
Students are fooling themselves by reasoning with induction incorrectly.
Inductive reasoning involves moving specific facts into a pattern that forms a general conclusion.
But, correct inductive reasoning involves considering numerous examples and considering counter-examples in order to form a general conclusion.
For example, if you were a college lacrosse coach who ran summer camps and noticed numerous outstanding lacrosse players from Daniel Hand High School in Madison, Connecticut and you had few or no counter-examples of poor lacrosse players from the same place, then concluding that Madison, CT produces good lacrosse players would a reasonable conclusion.
Or, if you were an admissions officer at a liberal arts college with the capacity to examine individual high schools and you noticed repeatedly that East Lyme High in East Lyme, Connecticut produced students with excellent SAT II math scores and you had few or no counter-examples, then you could conclude through inductive reasoning that East Lyme High must have a strong math department.
As another example of flawed inductive reasoning, we'll hear:
"Bill Gates dropped out of college."
The student making the point is usually justifying their reason for leaving college by trying to link Gates' early departure as evidence that dropping out of college leads to wealth.
As a parent, your response should be that you can drop out of college provided you have the same brilliance and diligence that got Gates into Harvard in the first place and that you, like Gates, will dig in around the clock for years to develop a revolutionary technological innovation.
Where it is the case that the counter-examples are prevalent - lots of people who succeeded in their educational days do well in their career - and/or dominant - people who graduate college are more likely to earn more than those who do not graduate college - then inductive reasoning cannot lead correctly to general conclusions.
At best, such reasoning can be the start of a conversation about what else is needed in order to succeed if one of the main reasons for practical success - education - has been undermined.
For example, there have been NBA basketball players who have succeeded despite being less than 6 feet tall. In each case, however, the player had other attributes: extraordinary quickness, agility, coordination, sense of the game and so forth.
In the Einstein example, the conversation should be that he didn't do well in a traditional educational setting. So, if you want to be like him, you better start teaching yourself advanced physics!
When students send the message that it is OK to underperform because of a flawed metaphor, then lifetime bad habits will be cultivated. If your student-child is not performing the work to get good grades in a Connecticut high school, then he's creating habits that will hurt him in all future endeavors.
Parents who let their kids engage in flawed reasoning are doing a disservice that will come back to haunt their children at some later point.