It seems to me that many smart people could ignore the existing literature on pedagogy entirely and outperform most people who have obtained a formal degree in the area (like highschool teachers), just by relying on their personal models. Conversely, I’d wager that no-one could do the same in physics, and (depending on how ‘outperforming’ is measured) no-one or almost no-one could do it in math.
I would assume most people on this site have thought about this kind of stuff, but I don’t recall seeing many posts about it, and I don’t anyone sharing their estimates for where different fields place on this spectrum.
There is some discussion for specific cases like prediction markets, covid models, and economics. And now that I’m writing this, I guess Inadequate Equilibria is a lot about answering this question, but it’s only about the abstract level, i.e., how do you judge the competence of a field, not about concrete results. Which I’ll totally grant is the more important part, but I still feel like comparing rankings of fields on this spectrum could be valuable (and certainly interesting).
By outperforming you mean teaching in the actual classroom, or individual tutoring? Because the literature already says that individual tutoring is way more effective than classroom.
Ah, okay. I am not really disagreeing with you here, just thinking about how specifically the comparison might be unfair. For example, if you tutored someone but never taught at classroom, you might overestimate how much your tutoring skills would translate to the classroom environment. From my short experience, teaching in classroom if often less about transmitting information and more about maintaining order (but without maintaining order, transmission of information becomes impossible). So even test-teaching in a classroom where the regular teacher is present, is not a realistic experience.
Another objection: You compare “smart people” with “most people… like highschool teachers”, so like IQ 150 vs IQ 110. In physics or math, the average physicist or mathematician is probably also IQ 150. Numbers made up of course, but the idea is that the average high-school teacher is a dramatically different level of intelligence than the average physicist. So is this about pedagogy vs physics, or about smart people being able to outperform the mostly average ones despite lack of education?
If instead you compared “smart people” against “smart people who also happen to be teachers”, then of course the former outperforming the latter is unlikely. Though I believe the former would not stay too far behind. And the important knowledge the latter have could probably be transferred to the former in a few weeks (as opposed to the years at university). You couldn’t compress physics or math that much.
The IQ objection is a really good one that hasn’t occurred to me at all. Although I’d have estimated less than half as large of a difference.
On maintaining order, it’s worth pointing out that insofar as this is the relative strength of the highschool teacher, it probably doesn’t have much to do with what the teacher learned from the literature.
From my short experience, teaching in classroom if often less about transmitting information and more about maintaining order (but without maintaining order, transmission of information becomes impossible).
While this is true, reading the existing literature on pedagogy might be as helpful for maintaining order as reading the computer science literature for typing fast.
many smart people could ignore the existing literature on pedagogy entirely and outperform most people who have obtained a formal degree in the area
Do you mean that smart untrained people would teach an average high school class better than a trained teacher? Or something else? and “the same” in math or physics is about learning the topic, or learning to teach the topic. One of the things that smart people do is to study the literature and incorporate it into their models.
A lot about what being a good teacher is about isn’t about being smart but emotional management. That means things like being consistent with students and not acting from a place of being emotionally triggered by students.
Ok, I see where I disagree, then. I don’t think a smart person who’s avoided training and research about teaching can teach an average class better than a somewhat less smart person who’s trained and studied how to teach. Probably better than a dumb person, and where the point of indifference is I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s feasible to know physics or math very well without research and study of prior art, so I don’t think that’s an evaluatable claim. There are probably some math problems where raw IQ can get someone through, but never as well as somewhat less smart and actual study.
I remember reading studies that came to the conclusion that a degree in education doesn’t have any effect on the standardized scores of students of the teacher.
It doesn’t seem to be like an equilibria to me. On the one hand you have teachers unions who want teachers with degrees to be payed more and on the other hand you have people like the Gates Foundation who want pay-for-performance where teachers who help their students achieve higher scores get higher pay.
It seems to me that many smart people could ignore the existing literature on pedagogy entirely and outperform most people who have obtained a formal degree in the area (like highschool teachers), just by relying on their personal models. Conversely, I’d wager that no-one could do the same in physics, and (depending on how ‘outperforming’ is measured) no-one or almost no-one could do it in math.
I would assume most people on this site have thought about this kind of stuff, but I don’t recall seeing many posts about it, and I don’t anyone sharing their estimates for where different fields place on this spectrum.
There is some discussion for specific cases like prediction markets, covid models, and economics. And now that I’m writing this, I guess Inadequate Equilibria is a lot about answering this question, but it’s only about the abstract level, i.e., how do you judge the competence of a field, not about concrete results. Which I’ll totally grant is the more important part, but I still feel like comparing rankings of fields on this spectrum could be valuable (and certainly interesting).
By outperforming you mean teaching in the actual classroom, or individual tutoring? Because the literature already says that individual tutoring is way more effective than classroom.
I did mean both. Comparing just tutoring to just regular school would be pretty unfair.
Ah, okay. I am not really disagreeing with you here, just thinking about how specifically the comparison might be unfair. For example, if you tutored someone but never taught at classroom, you might overestimate how much your tutoring skills would translate to the classroom environment. From my short experience, teaching in classroom if often less about transmitting information and more about maintaining order (but without maintaining order, transmission of information becomes impossible). So even test-teaching in a classroom where the regular teacher is present, is not a realistic experience.
Another objection: You compare “smart people” with “most people… like highschool teachers”, so like IQ 150 vs IQ 110. In physics or math, the average physicist or mathematician is probably also IQ 150. Numbers made up of course, but the idea is that the average high-school teacher is a dramatically different level of intelligence than the average physicist. So is this about pedagogy vs physics, or about smart people being able to outperform the mostly average ones despite lack of education?
If instead you compared “smart people” against “smart people who also happen to be teachers”, then of course the former outperforming the latter is unlikely. Though I believe the former would not stay too far behind. And the important knowledge the latter have could probably be transferred to the former in a few weeks (as opposed to the years at university). You couldn’t compress physics or math that much.
The IQ objection is a really good one that hasn’t occurred to me at all. Although I’d have estimated less than half as large of a difference.
On maintaining order, it’s worth pointing out that insofar as this is the relative strength of the highschool teacher, it probably doesn’t have much to do with what the teacher learned from the literature.
While this is true, reading the existing literature on pedagogy might be as helpful for maintaining order as reading the computer science literature for typing fast.
I’m not sure I understand your claim.
Do you mean that smart untrained people would teach an average high school class better than a trained teacher? Or something else? and “the same” in math or physics is about learning the topic, or learning to teach the topic. One of the things that smart people do is to study the literature and incorporate it into their models.
Yeah.
It’s mostly like applying the knowledge somewhere. Suppose you have to solve a real problem that requires knowing physics.
Of course you can also read the literature, but my post was about when it’s possible to do better without having done so.
A lot about what being a good teacher is about isn’t about being smart but emotional management. That means things like being consistent with students and not acting from a place of being emotionally triggered by students.
Ok, I see where I disagree, then. I don’t think a smart person who’s avoided training and research about teaching can teach an average class better than a somewhat less smart person who’s trained and studied how to teach. Probably better than a dumb person, and where the point of indifference is I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s feasible to know physics or math very well without research and study of prior art, so I don’t think that’s an evaluatable claim. There are probably some math problems where raw IQ can get someone through, but never as well as somewhat less smart and actual study.
I remember reading studies that came to the conclusion that a degree in education doesn’t have any effect on the standardized scores of students of the teacher.
It doesn’t seem to be like an equilibria to me. On the one hand you have teachers unions who want teachers with degrees to be payed more and on the other hand you have people like the Gates Foundation who want pay-for-performance where teachers who help their students achieve higher scores get higher pay.