The best investment is parents having a primary or part time business in which children can gainfully participate, the earlier the better. As simple as this.
Why parents need to have business? Because idiotic US laws prohibit children under 12 to work for hire in other than family businesses and severely limit 12-18 employment, unless in family business.
What business? Somewhat depends on what skills you want to teach, but any business is better than none. Margaret Thatcher worked in her parents store. I helped my father to publish math books and textbooks for middle and high schoolers. My kids worked in my IT consulting side gig. My friend’s kids worked in family online shop business.
> "Children behind bank counters, in city councils, as mayors, as newspaper and television editors, as employees in registration offices, as workers in a furniture workshop, in a stonemason’s workshop – naturally, none of that is possible. They lack all the prerequisites, we think. Not just in ability, but also in seriousness, in accountability, in responsibility. And besides, child labor is forbidden, in their own interest, as we like to say. And so we let them grow up in the children’s ghetto, let them dream of what will happen “when I grow up someday.” They remain, as if it were only natural, locked out of the serious realities of life – immature, in need of supervision, not to be taken seriously."
My parents did this it me in the early 00s - offering a quarter for every book report during the summer. 30-50 hours of work for ~5$ to buy a new beanie baby was a really good deal for 10 year old me. My reading and writing level ended up being much higher than my peers.
For me as a child, the demand side was greatly increased by the emotional motivation of being the son of immigrants. School wasn't just school, it was the way up and out, the reason they came to this country, my duty, etc. The daily learning was easier because I had the bigger goals in mind.
Granted, this put more pressure on me and it didn't work out equally as well with all my siblings, but I think some of this higher-goal pressure is ok.
I think the fundamental mistake most people make is to "overrate" their influence on their kids. Parents, even if they are tightly in alignment, are only one influence. And on top of that, each kid is unique, genetically, personality, mental capability.
One of the reasons to expose them to experiences like music, etc is that you don't know what the kid will enjoy. It's great the author can bring along his kid with advanced math. What is the point? To create an engineer or research assistant for running Caplan's statistical analysis. Don't be disappointed if she gets into high school and prefers something completely different.
The compounding gains made by doing something as simple as teaching your kid to read by kindergarten, instead of waiting for the school to eventually do it, are substantial.
If you look closely at what that S curve is implying - that caplan spends ~33% more effort on parenting than a helicopter parent, and the difference in outcome between his children and theirs is comparable in magnitude to the difference between what you expect from normal childhood and one fully of serious abuse/malnourishment - it seems extremely ridiculous.
There's still an issue of like... Even if it's impressive - will doing more advanced Khan academy courses as a child really make a person more effective as an adult?
Could it be that identical twins where one does lots of Khan academy and one doesn't still end up with similar outcomes?
Here is an oversimplified summary: paying someone to do something sometimes makes them less interested in it. The Sudbury schools take the reverse approach, trying to create an environment where the students can pursue what they are most interested in, and study math (if they do) because people who do the interesting thing need to know some math, etc.
The best investment is parents having a primary or part time business in which children can gainfully participate, the earlier the better. As simple as this.
Why parents need to have business? Because idiotic US laws prohibit children under 12 to work for hire in other than family businesses and severely limit 12-18 employment, unless in family business.
What business? Somewhat depends on what skills you want to teach, but any business is better than none. Margaret Thatcher worked in her parents store. I helped my father to publish math books and textbooks for middle and high schoolers. My kids worked in my IT consulting side gig. My friend’s kids worked in family online shop business.
Ideally you would replace schools with miniature cities, see here an essay about Mini-Munich that I translated: https://minicities.substack.com/p/serious-play-mini-munich-something
> "Children behind bank counters, in city councils, as mayors, as newspaper and television editors, as employees in registration offices, as workers in a furniture workshop, in a stonemason’s workshop – naturally, none of that is possible. They lack all the prerequisites, we think. Not just in ability, but also in seriousness, in accountability, in responsibility. And besides, child labor is forbidden, in their own interest, as we like to say. And so we let them grow up in the children’s ghetto, let them dream of what will happen “when I grow up someday.” They remain, as if it were only natural, locked out of the serious realities of life – immature, in need of supervision, not to be taken seriously."
My parents did this it me in the early 00s - offering a quarter for every book report during the summer. 30-50 hours of work for ~5$ to buy a new beanie baby was a really good deal for 10 year old me. My reading and writing level ended up being much higher than my peers.
Does this risk ruining motivation pathways? Or how do you think about developing intrinsic vs extrensic motivation?
Intrinsic motivation is something an adult should discern, isn't it? Of course you're not going to forbid them from having their hobbies.
But if your he/she hates math as an adult, that will be okay; though if they ever need it, they'll know how to use it. You didn't fail as a parent.
Sounds like an argument against making your passion your work, as a salary would kill your motivation for it
For me as a child, the demand side was greatly increased by the emotional motivation of being the son of immigrants. School wasn't just school, it was the way up and out, the reason they came to this country, my duty, etc. The daily learning was easier because I had the bigger goals in mind.
Granted, this put more pressure on me and it didn't work out equally as well with all my siblings, but I think some of this higher-goal pressure is ok.
I suspect lots of those 'investments' in the child like piano lessons are often about what raises the social status of the parents.
Love this - very interesting. Any experience with math apps or systems apart from Khan?
khan is king frankly for math, no reason to stray from it. make sure you're preparing for relevant tests - SAT/ACT or AP pre-calc
I think the fundamental mistake most people make is to "overrate" their influence on their kids. Parents, even if they are tightly in alignment, are only one influence. And on top of that, each kid is unique, genetically, personality, mental capability.
One of the reasons to expose them to experiences like music, etc is that you don't know what the kid will enjoy. It's great the author can bring along his kid with advanced math. What is the point? To create an engineer or research assistant for running Caplan's statistical analysis. Don't be disappointed if she gets into high school and prefers something completely different.
The compounding gains made by doing something as simple as teaching your kid to read by kindergarten, instead of waiting for the school to eventually do it, are substantial.
Nothing says building intrinsic motivation to achieve like bribing your children at their most malleable ages
If you look closely at what that S curve is implying - that caplan spends ~33% more effort on parenting than a helicopter parent, and the difference in outcome between his children and theirs is comparable in magnitude to the difference between what you expect from normal childhood and one fully of serious abuse/malnourishment - it seems extremely ridiculous.
There's still an issue of like... Even if it's impressive - will doing more advanced Khan academy courses as a child really make a person more effective as an adult?
Could it be that identical twins where one does lots of Khan academy and one doesn't still end up with similar outcomes?
The author is not the first to think of incentives. Here is a link to a book by a critic of that approach.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=punished+by+rewards+alfie+kohn&crid=1Q6YSBDELCD8D&sprefix=Punished+by+rewards%2Caps%2C220&ref=nb_sb_ss_p13n-expert-pd-ops-ranker_1_19
Here is an oversimplified summary: paying someone to do something sometimes makes them less interested in it. The Sudbury schools take the reverse approach, trying to create an environment where the students can pursue what they are most interested in, and study math (if they do) because people who do the interesting thing need to know some math, etc.
See Judith Rich Harris's "The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less than you Think and Peers Matter More": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
https://petergray.substack.com/p/differences-between-self-directed?r=1nuarp&utm_medium=ios