“That’s why I’ve written before that if your goal is to get a task done quickly, you should definitely use technology. If your goal is to develop your skills, you shouldn’t. If you want to travel 26 miles as quickly as possible, drive or get a taxi – just don’t pretend that you’ve run a marathon.”
Great piece. I do believe our society has become so smart we truly are stupid. I don’t know of any world leader or society that has made their nation better because of technology. All I have seen is a more fractious society, with everyone screaming that they are right, and nobody knows how to engage in civil discourse, yet none are truly intelligent in any subject matter anymore because they truly do not have a firm foundation in any meaningful subject matter.
There is no golden age to reflect on, however part of being "civilized", is to adapt specific traits in order to progress forward in a meaningful manner. Those mores are now frowned upon as being old fashioned and no longer relevant, but this isn’t true. Young people have not benefited from not learning grace, poise, or the art of conversation and are wracked with anxiety because they don’t know basic maths to count back change when the power goes out. Who knew that basic skills such as baking and changing a tire would become obsolete in our highly structured world, yet these are the very skills we are now paying "experts" to teach our children. We do not have to live in a bygone era, but we shouldn’t forget all the wisdom that came before us.
As for your query about if younger people are still interested in reading and writing, as my youngest is finishing up on her Masters in Comparative Literature, I can assure you it is still very much needed for the younger generation. Interestingly it was technology which allowed her to watch the 1970s movie on "Wuthering Heights", but it was the 200 year old book which she fell in love with. And her friends who study Anthropology and Ancient Classics at university are equally enthralled. Technology is a blessing and a curse. Humans should use it as a tool to aid in our lives, but the encouragement of our leaders to allow Silicon Valley to continue to grow unchecked and allow the populace to become addicted to social media is just plain wrong. I just hope society wakes up and realizes that before it’s too late.
I always find your posts insightful thought provoking. Thank you for writing it.
I agree that schools should not deprioritise teaching cognitive skills as a result of an increasing number of cognitive tasks being outsourced to AI, and that schools should aim to be a gymnasium for the mind. The metaphor is a good one because it raises the question of what students are training for?
How do we motivate students to spend effort on learning core skills, when the high status jobs and positions in society that demand them are obsolete? This I see as the main problem we’re facing.
I'm with you in thinking that "...schools should respond to this change by becoming gymnasia for the mind." This whole debate leaves me feeling more than a little depressed. It feels as if we're drifting into E.M. Forster territory as in ' The Machine Stops'. I'm sure that most of your readers, like me, have a background in teaching of one sort or another. When computers first appeared in primary classrooms in the early 1980s the advice from IT educationalists was to treat them as an additional resource. I still believe that's sound advice. We were advised to be wary of computer assisted learning (CAL) programmes as many companies were eager to sell you stuff that was actually easier to do with pencil and paper especially as it took the BBC Micro forever to warm up. But many schools did spend out on this stuff. And none of this is new. When I was a secondary school in the dark ages on the 20th century the lower sets in maths, me, had extra sessions in the maths lab on maths machines. Not a teacher in sight. These churned out multiple choice questions. We may have struggled with aspects of maths but we weren't stupid. It didn't take long to work out how manipulate the programme so you could get a 100% score.
The current curriculum for both GCSE and A level has been irrelevant for decades. And even more so since Michael Gove over a decade ago made it a requirement that no school leaver could progress to HE without GCSE L4 in English and maths. In fact without these two there are very few openings unless you want to work in hospitality or a packing warehouse. I've written several times to the current Secretary of State for Education and received nothing but flannel in reply. I think though that the growing percentage of school leavers in this position is maybe making the current government rethink.
It's hugely important that everyone continues to learn basic skills whether it's reading, writing or the four rules of number. There was a recent outrage in my town which meant that all the broadband connections stopped. Many shops and cafés were completely thrown as they were living in La La Land where hard cash no longer existed. Ditto many customers who had to forgo their lattes as they had no cash either. I heard later that the local schools were in disarray because the teachers couldn't access their planning. Obviously I'm old school, literally, but as a head I frequently had to cover a class with no notice at all. Every teacher has to be able to improvise. It's part of the job.
The late Jean Muir, a famous British fashion designer often bemoaned the fact the too many designers had too little skill and training in sewing and pattern cutting. Her gripe was that unless you understood fabric, sewing and patterns you couldn't design garments that would work.
Totally agree. For years this has been my pitch to kids choosing subjects - rather than think about where the subject will get you, think about what the study of it will do to you. I even have a picture of a gym I show them - and make the point that you don’t go to the gym and go on a rowing machine because you need to row fast - you go to develop specific muscles.
I read an article which I found intriguing about IQ tests and creativity suggesting that standard IQ tests can’t measure creativity. Rather that what is needed is ‘cognitive flexibility’ which is the key to learning and creativity | Cambridge Language Sciences https://share.google/MBj0QrqIXvCMIJo0b
There's no doubt for me that if you want anyone to learn anything you have to engage their interest first. When I was studying for O level English language clause analysis was included. Our teacher used jokes to make this more interesting. It worked for me so just give me a joke and I can analysis the clause content! The opposite would be true of most of the maths teaching I endured as a pupil. And any subjects that linked. In geography we had to create contour graphs using ordnance survey maps. Aged 13 I'd never used such a map and had no idea that the lines indicated increasing or decreasing height. Why would I? I'd grown up in south London where there weren't too many hills or mountains. I remember really struggled to get my contour graph looking like everyone else's. Whether everyone else understood the concept I've no idea. The aim was to get it right not understand it. When I started teaching I wondered why on earth the teacher hadn't just taken us outside with a map of the area and explained how the symbols related to where we were. My own education certainly provided plenty of examples of how not to help someone learn something. I'm still wary of IQ tests. I have tried a few online versions and after ten minutes of ' and what shape comes next in this sequence ' I've really lost the will to live. Quite probably the reason why I did so badly in maths tests. They were so boring. I was recently asked to read through a GCSE maths paper for a family member. It was being submitted for remarking and they wanted to check nothing had been missed. It was like going back in time. The same dull questions I'd ploughed my way through as a 16 year old all those years ago and about as irrelevant now as it was then. I should add that now I love maths. I grew to love it through teaching it to primary children and through reading books by Marcus du Sautoy and Hannah Fry.
Or do we think these skills are still important when they're really not? Not too long ago, people still thought handwriting was important. Are we just better tool users?
I probably tend to agree that they _are_ important, and if we lose the ability to do arithmetic or understand probability, it makes us all worse for it -- it makes our judgment worse.
I, for one, have a terrible memory, so I absolutely rely on Google (and LLMs become very convenient to tell me some commands to configure my wifi card ... or fix my git repository). If you put me in front of a blackboard, my mathematics is poor. I can usually follow along, but if you ask me to prove something simple or integrate a simple equation, it will take me forever. However, give me SymPy in Python, and I'll manage and give the impression to others that I'm competent in this area. Maybe more recently, I'd ask an LLM - they're quite good at deriving equations even if they somehow can't figure out if 5.9 > 5.11?!
I don't think these two things are positive. Now, I'm stuck relying on technology to do many things - but it's hard to know if the technology wasn't there, would I be any better?
Very interesting points! Do we just become zombies unable to do anything ourselves and believing everything we read on the screen...?!
"Not too long ago, people still thought handwriting was important." Would it surprise you to know that handwriting is alive and thriving? Not too long ago the media was full of predictions that published texts were finished. We'd all be reading on screen. That prediction proved false as publishing has never been stronger and independent book shops are bucking the retail trend by thriving.
And yet job surveys everywhere show that employers highly value math and language skills.
What incentives are there for young adults to become especially fluent in math and reading? £20,000-35,000 annually in cash-equivalent benefits for the unemployed, depending on household size, tax free, at the cost of zero hours per week at the office.
Versus: £30-35k annual gross income before age 30 with ~25-40% tax rates all-inclusive, at the cost of 35+ hours per week at the office.
Absolute certainty: X% of the population will choose the no-work route for as long as possible, thereby reducing the incentives to work hard to further develop market-valued skills.
When poverty isn't a real risk, you do the mental math differently, even if it's not exactly math.
I love this:
“That’s why I’ve written before that if your goal is to get a task done quickly, you should definitely use technology. If your goal is to develop your skills, you shouldn’t. If you want to travel 26 miles as quickly as possible, drive or get a taxi – just don’t pretend that you’ve run a marathon.”
Great piece. I do believe our society has become so smart we truly are stupid. I don’t know of any world leader or society that has made their nation better because of technology. All I have seen is a more fractious society, with everyone screaming that they are right, and nobody knows how to engage in civil discourse, yet none are truly intelligent in any subject matter anymore because they truly do not have a firm foundation in any meaningful subject matter.
There is no golden age to reflect on, however part of being "civilized", is to adapt specific traits in order to progress forward in a meaningful manner. Those mores are now frowned upon as being old fashioned and no longer relevant, but this isn’t true. Young people have not benefited from not learning grace, poise, or the art of conversation and are wracked with anxiety because they don’t know basic maths to count back change when the power goes out. Who knew that basic skills such as baking and changing a tire would become obsolete in our highly structured world, yet these are the very skills we are now paying "experts" to teach our children. We do not have to live in a bygone era, but we shouldn’t forget all the wisdom that came before us.
As for your query about if younger people are still interested in reading and writing, as my youngest is finishing up on her Masters in Comparative Literature, I can assure you it is still very much needed for the younger generation. Interestingly it was technology which allowed her to watch the 1970s movie on "Wuthering Heights", but it was the 200 year old book which she fell in love with. And her friends who study Anthropology and Ancient Classics at university are equally enthralled. Technology is a blessing and a curse. Humans should use it as a tool to aid in our lives, but the encouragement of our leaders to allow Silicon Valley to continue to grow unchecked and allow the populace to become addicted to social media is just plain wrong. I just hope society wakes up and realizes that before it’s too late.
I always find your posts insightful thought provoking. Thank you for writing it.
I agree that schools should not deprioritise teaching cognitive skills as a result of an increasing number of cognitive tasks being outsourced to AI, and that schools should aim to be a gymnasium for the mind. The metaphor is a good one because it raises the question of what students are training for?
How do we motivate students to spend effort on learning core skills, when the high status jobs and positions in society that demand them are obsolete? This I see as the main problem we’re facing.
As a teacher, I absolutely see this. Almost on the daily. It really frightens me.
I'm with you in thinking that "...schools should respond to this change by becoming gymnasia for the mind." This whole debate leaves me feeling more than a little depressed. It feels as if we're drifting into E.M. Forster territory as in ' The Machine Stops'. I'm sure that most of your readers, like me, have a background in teaching of one sort or another. When computers first appeared in primary classrooms in the early 1980s the advice from IT educationalists was to treat them as an additional resource. I still believe that's sound advice. We were advised to be wary of computer assisted learning (CAL) programmes as many companies were eager to sell you stuff that was actually easier to do with pencil and paper especially as it took the BBC Micro forever to warm up. But many schools did spend out on this stuff. And none of this is new. When I was a secondary school in the dark ages on the 20th century the lower sets in maths, me, had extra sessions in the maths lab on maths machines. Not a teacher in sight. These churned out multiple choice questions. We may have struggled with aspects of maths but we weren't stupid. It didn't take long to work out how manipulate the programme so you could get a 100% score.
The current curriculum for both GCSE and A level has been irrelevant for decades. And even more so since Michael Gove over a decade ago made it a requirement that no school leaver could progress to HE without GCSE L4 in English and maths. In fact without these two there are very few openings unless you want to work in hospitality or a packing warehouse. I've written several times to the current Secretary of State for Education and received nothing but flannel in reply. I think though that the growing percentage of school leavers in this position is maybe making the current government rethink.
It's hugely important that everyone continues to learn basic skills whether it's reading, writing or the four rules of number. There was a recent outrage in my town which meant that all the broadband connections stopped. Many shops and cafés were completely thrown as they were living in La La Land where hard cash no longer existed. Ditto many customers who had to forgo their lattes as they had no cash either. I heard later that the local schools were in disarray because the teachers couldn't access their planning. Obviously I'm old school, literally, but as a head I frequently had to cover a class with no notice at all. Every teacher has to be able to improvise. It's part of the job.
The late Jean Muir, a famous British fashion designer often bemoaned the fact the too many designers had too little skill and training in sewing and pattern cutting. Her gripe was that unless you understood fabric, sewing and patterns you couldn't design garments that would work.
Totally agree. For years this has been my pitch to kids choosing subjects - rather than think about where the subject will get you, think about what the study of it will do to you. I even have a picture of a gym I show them - and make the point that you don’t go to the gym and go on a rowing machine because you need to row fast - you go to develop specific muscles.
I read an article which I found intriguing about IQ tests and creativity suggesting that standard IQ tests can’t measure creativity. Rather that what is needed is ‘cognitive flexibility’ which is the key to learning and creativity | Cambridge Language Sciences https://share.google/MBj0QrqIXvCMIJo0b
There's no doubt for me that if you want anyone to learn anything you have to engage their interest first. When I was studying for O level English language clause analysis was included. Our teacher used jokes to make this more interesting. It worked for me so just give me a joke and I can analysis the clause content! The opposite would be true of most of the maths teaching I endured as a pupil. And any subjects that linked. In geography we had to create contour graphs using ordnance survey maps. Aged 13 I'd never used such a map and had no idea that the lines indicated increasing or decreasing height. Why would I? I'd grown up in south London where there weren't too many hills or mountains. I remember really struggled to get my contour graph looking like everyone else's. Whether everyone else understood the concept I've no idea. The aim was to get it right not understand it. When I started teaching I wondered why on earth the teacher hadn't just taken us outside with a map of the area and explained how the symbols related to where we were. My own education certainly provided plenty of examples of how not to help someone learn something. I'm still wary of IQ tests. I have tried a few online versions and after ten minutes of ' and what shape comes next in this sequence ' I've really lost the will to live. Quite probably the reason why I did so badly in maths tests. They were so boring. I was recently asked to read through a GCSE maths paper for a family member. It was being submitted for remarking and they wanted to check nothing had been missed. It was like going back in time. The same dull questions I'd ploughed my way through as a 16 year old all those years ago and about as irrelevant now as it was then. I should add that now I love maths. I grew to love it through teaching it to primary children and through reading books by Marcus du Sautoy and Hannah Fry.
And, we can do both things. Teach numeracy, literacy skills etc etc AND judiciously use calculators, computers, the internet and AI.
Both are possible.
Or do we think these skills are still important when they're really not? Not too long ago, people still thought handwriting was important. Are we just better tool users?
I probably tend to agree that they _are_ important, and if we lose the ability to do arithmetic or understand probability, it makes us all worse for it -- it makes our judgment worse.
I, for one, have a terrible memory, so I absolutely rely on Google (and LLMs become very convenient to tell me some commands to configure my wifi card ... or fix my git repository). If you put me in front of a blackboard, my mathematics is poor. I can usually follow along, but if you ask me to prove something simple or integrate a simple equation, it will take me forever. However, give me SymPy in Python, and I'll manage and give the impression to others that I'm competent in this area. Maybe more recently, I'd ask an LLM - they're quite good at deriving equations even if they somehow can't figure out if 5.9 > 5.11?!
I don't think these two things are positive. Now, I'm stuck relying on technology to do many things - but it's hard to know if the technology wasn't there, would I be any better?
Very interesting points! Do we just become zombies unable to do anything ourselves and believing everything we read on the screen...?!
"Not too long ago, people still thought handwriting was important." Would it surprise you to know that handwriting is alive and thriving? Not too long ago the media was full of predictions that published texts were finished. We'd all be reading on screen. That prediction proved false as publishing has never been stronger and independent book shops are bucking the retail trend by thriving.
Dan Ashcroft wrote about something similar in his Rise Of The Idiots polemic.
And yet job surveys everywhere show that employers highly value math and language skills.
What incentives are there for young adults to become especially fluent in math and reading? £20,000-35,000 annually in cash-equivalent benefits for the unemployed, depending on household size, tax free, at the cost of zero hours per week at the office.
Versus: £30-35k annual gross income before age 30 with ~25-40% tax rates all-inclusive, at the cost of 35+ hours per week at the office.
Absolute certainty: X% of the population will choose the no-work route for as long as possible, thereby reducing the incentives to work hard to further develop market-valued skills.
When poverty isn't a real risk, you do the mental math differently, even if it's not exactly math.