10K - A different kind of race
Dec. 9th, 2009 01:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threadwalkerThe drama at work never went nuclear. Apparently my strategy of sticking to the facts and not responding to the obnoxious behaviour has prevailed. Yay.
In far (far!) more interesting thoughtful percolations, I'm enjoying a book that is sparking personal introspection, analysis and planning.
I am reading Outliers The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell. My director gave it to me because of the chapter that digs into Korea’s airlines troubles (lots of crashing) and how they turned it around and are an industry leader. That really was a great chapter, but now I’m reading the whole book which is full of interesting information.
To summarize:
1. In systems where there is early age-based deadlines (age cut-offs), your success is tied into your birthdate.
2. In general, there are no real “naturals” in life. The people who are at the top of music, sports, science, etc, have innate ability, but they also put in 10,000 hours of work before they are that good.
Ability Grouping Kids
The author’s conclusions are based on looking at statistics. I understand statistics can be skewed, but he has some compelling information. He makes his most dramatic cases with hockey and soccer leagues in countries where they live and breathe their sports programs and where the kids are training as soon as they are old enough to toddle. He shows that in Canada, where the cut off for kid hockey leagues is January 1, most elite athletes are born in January and February while there is very little representation from people born in Oct-Nov-Dec. Several champion team rosters are used to highlight this. The author then digs into the system of selection for kid-aged traveling hockey teams and highlights the difference in capability between 2 eight year old kids, one born in January and one born in December. The difference in these 2 players has less to do with natural gifts and more to do with the difference due to 11 months of physical development. That difference gets the January kid onto the travel team where he will play 3x as many games and practice 3x as much as the kid who stays home. The difference in ability from that point on is going to be a result of training, which will propel the January-kid into the A-Leagues, etc. I concluded if you live in Canada and you want to raise a hockey star, get pregnant in April/May.
In schools the ability grouping in early childhood is enacted through sorting young kids into various tracks for reading and math. In my school district the cut off for kindergarten is December 2. Based on the statistics and trends, the oldest kids in a class (those born in late December) scored noticeably higher than the younger kids in the class (born in November). They showed how this difference could get the older kid into gifted classes where they get additional nurturing, opportunities to learn and “training time” while the younger child does not receive that same training or chance. The author concludes that in the school system maturity is mistaken for ability at the early age and as a result older kids get into advanced reading groups in kindergarten and first grade. Once sorted most kids stay sorted that way throughout their elementary programs. While the "top" group kids are given successively harder and more challenging material that sparks intellectual growth, the other kids continue to perform in their middle and lower achievement groups where they meet the expectations that are set for them. Surveys of 4 year colleges show that the students who belong to the younger groups are under-represented by more than 10%. The author concludes that the risk of ability grouping at a young age can make a real difference for going to college.
From my personal experience, I distinctly recall being sorted into a reading group. In addition to that, my mom taught grade school for 40 years and I grew up listening to her talk about kids in terms of “top readers” and “bottom readers”, which was common terminology among her colleagues. So the observations about ability grouping by age strike me as a real issue.
I want to add to my personal thoughts: due to economy, the state and UC colleges are cutting enrollment. That means the bar for getting into college based on intellectual merit will be even stricter. It was also reported this week in the news that unemployment among 22-24 year olds is almost 15%.
10,000 Hours
According to the author, success is talent plus preparation. There needs to be some innate talent to start with, but that, alone, does not make someone a success. Various studies show that it takes an average of 10,000 hours to be at the top of your game.
One interesting example: violinists at Berlin’s elite Academy of Music were divided into 3 groups and answered questions about how much playing they’d done in their life. Additionally, it was determined they all started playing at roughly the same age, 5 years old:
1. “stars”:
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week
By Age 9: 6 hours a week.
By Age 12: 8 hours a week
By age 14: 16 hours a week
and so forth until they were practicing over 30 hours a week, totaling approximately 10,000 hours by the time they entered the Academy.
2. “good”:
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week
Increasing, but not at the rate as the stars. Totaling approximately 8,000 hours
3. “mediocre” (actually, the author describes the bottom group as people who will never be professional and will only be suited to teach music in public school).
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week,
never increasing and totaling approximately 2000 hours.
Game Plans
I’m not trying to raise elite athletes so I am not going to reorganize my life around a sports schedule. However, I do want to prepare my kids for the big world. The information I'm reading forces me to recommit myself to keeping the TV off at night and focusing on reading, math, artistic expression, and family togetherness. I figure a strong self-esteem built on the confidence that your family loves you paired with strong math, reading and creative thought will help my kids be successful wherever their dreams take them.
Which means I'll have to record "NCIS" and view it later.
I’m also looking at how I use my time and where I’m growing my skills because even though I'm technically an "old dog", there's no reason I can't learn new tricks. Fitness is an ever-present activity in my life and I’ll never have the free time to train for elite racing. That’s okay because that’s the kind of dream that keeps me striving while I maintain resonable expectations. The other ever-present hobby is my fiber arts and I spend 5-20 hours a week on them. I’ve put in about 80 hours since mid-September on my current project, which got me thinking. If I average 10 hours a week, which is about 500 hours a year, it would take me 5 years to accumulate 10,000 hours. I wonder how close I am to 10,000 hours of embroidery. How about costuming? Hmm… I’d have to go through old projects and do a rough estimate but I may do that out of curiosity. I do know that I kept pretty rigid sewing schedules before I had kids and I'd sew for a few hours every night and skimp on sleep. And weekends were often a sewing-fest.
But it's interesting to my pattern-seeking brain. Had I recorded my weekly hours of sewing starting from my first serious endeavor, I wonder how many hours I'd spent sewing before I felt confident in my work. And what period of time was that across? 5 years? 10 years? I could probably pick out the projects that book mark the period.
I was pondering, if the total time in the activity d'jour is spread out over a longer period, eg, let's say I put in 10,000 hours between 1994 and 1999 and reached a certain level of ability, would I have to accumulate 12,000 hours if I did it over a 10 year period instead of a 5 year? The true question being that if I slacked off, do I lose ground on my skill level? Personally, I think so, but there's no real way for me to tell at this point. But my gut feeling is that if you set aside the skills, they will go fallow and you have to relearn some of them.
I'm intrigued on what others my have observed about themselves. Anyone else have some idea of how much time they feel it took them to achieve a level of competence? how about a level of excellence?
In far (far!) more interesting thoughtful percolations, I'm enjoying a book that is sparking personal introspection, analysis and planning.
I am reading Outliers The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell. My director gave it to me because of the chapter that digs into Korea’s airlines troubles (lots of crashing) and how they turned it around and are an industry leader. That really was a great chapter, but now I’m reading the whole book which is full of interesting information.
To summarize:
1. In systems where there is early age-based deadlines (age cut-offs), your success is tied into your birthdate.
2. In general, there are no real “naturals” in life. The people who are at the top of music, sports, science, etc, have innate ability, but they also put in 10,000 hours of work before they are that good.
Ability Grouping Kids
The author’s conclusions are based on looking at statistics. I understand statistics can be skewed, but he has some compelling information. He makes his most dramatic cases with hockey and soccer leagues in countries where they live and breathe their sports programs and where the kids are training as soon as they are old enough to toddle. He shows that in Canada, where the cut off for kid hockey leagues is January 1, most elite athletes are born in January and February while there is very little representation from people born in Oct-Nov-Dec. Several champion team rosters are used to highlight this. The author then digs into the system of selection for kid-aged traveling hockey teams and highlights the difference in capability between 2 eight year old kids, one born in January and one born in December. The difference in these 2 players has less to do with natural gifts and more to do with the difference due to 11 months of physical development. That difference gets the January kid onto the travel team where he will play 3x as many games and practice 3x as much as the kid who stays home. The difference in ability from that point on is going to be a result of training, which will propel the January-kid into the A-Leagues, etc. I concluded if you live in Canada and you want to raise a hockey star, get pregnant in April/May.
In schools the ability grouping in early childhood is enacted through sorting young kids into various tracks for reading and math. In my school district the cut off for kindergarten is December 2. Based on the statistics and trends, the oldest kids in a class (those born in late December) scored noticeably higher than the younger kids in the class (born in November). They showed how this difference could get the older kid into gifted classes where they get additional nurturing, opportunities to learn and “training time” while the younger child does not receive that same training or chance. The author concludes that in the school system maturity is mistaken for ability at the early age and as a result older kids get into advanced reading groups in kindergarten and first grade. Once sorted most kids stay sorted that way throughout their elementary programs. While the "top" group kids are given successively harder and more challenging material that sparks intellectual growth, the other kids continue to perform in their middle and lower achievement groups where they meet the expectations that are set for them. Surveys of 4 year colleges show that the students who belong to the younger groups are under-represented by more than 10%. The author concludes that the risk of ability grouping at a young age can make a real difference for going to college.
From my personal experience, I distinctly recall being sorted into a reading group. In addition to that, my mom taught grade school for 40 years and I grew up listening to her talk about kids in terms of “top readers” and “bottom readers”, which was common terminology among her colleagues. So the observations about ability grouping by age strike me as a real issue.
I want to add to my personal thoughts: due to economy, the state and UC colleges are cutting enrollment. That means the bar for getting into college based on intellectual merit will be even stricter. It was also reported this week in the news that unemployment among 22-24 year olds is almost 15%.
10,000 Hours
According to the author, success is talent plus preparation. There needs to be some innate talent to start with, but that, alone, does not make someone a success. Various studies show that it takes an average of 10,000 hours to be at the top of your game.
One interesting example: violinists at Berlin’s elite Academy of Music were divided into 3 groups and answered questions about how much playing they’d done in their life. Additionally, it was determined they all started playing at roughly the same age, 5 years old:
1. “stars”:
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week
By Age 9: 6 hours a week.
By Age 12: 8 hours a week
By age 14: 16 hours a week
and so forth until they were practicing over 30 hours a week, totaling approximately 10,000 hours by the time they entered the Academy.
2. “good”:
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week
Increasing, but not at the rate as the stars. Totaling approximately 8,000 hours
3. “mediocre” (actually, the author describes the bottom group as people who will never be professional and will only be suited to teach music in public school).
Age 5: 2-3 hours a week,
never increasing and totaling approximately 2000 hours.
Game Plans
I’m not trying to raise elite athletes so I am not going to reorganize my life around a sports schedule. However, I do want to prepare my kids for the big world. The information I'm reading forces me to recommit myself to keeping the TV off at night and focusing on reading, math, artistic expression, and family togetherness. I figure a strong self-esteem built on the confidence that your family loves you paired with strong math, reading and creative thought will help my kids be successful wherever their dreams take them.
Which means I'll have to record "NCIS" and view it later.
I’m also looking at how I use my time and where I’m growing my skills because even though I'm technically an "old dog", there's no reason I can't learn new tricks. Fitness is an ever-present activity in my life and I’ll never have the free time to train for elite racing. That’s okay because that’s the kind of dream that keeps me striving while I maintain resonable expectations. The other ever-present hobby is my fiber arts and I spend 5-20 hours a week on them. I’ve put in about 80 hours since mid-September on my current project, which got me thinking. If I average 10 hours a week, which is about 500 hours a year, it would take me 5 years to accumulate 10,000 hours. I wonder how close I am to 10,000 hours of embroidery. How about costuming? Hmm… I’d have to go through old projects and do a rough estimate but I may do that out of curiosity. I do know that I kept pretty rigid sewing schedules before I had kids and I'd sew for a few hours every night and skimp on sleep. And weekends were often a sewing-fest.
But it's interesting to my pattern-seeking brain. Had I recorded my weekly hours of sewing starting from my first serious endeavor, I wonder how many hours I'd spent sewing before I felt confident in my work. And what period of time was that across? 5 years? 10 years? I could probably pick out the projects that book mark the period.
I was pondering, if the total time in the activity d'jour is spread out over a longer period, eg, let's say I put in 10,000 hours between 1994 and 1999 and reached a certain level of ability, would I have to accumulate 12,000 hours if I did it over a 10 year period instead of a 5 year? The true question being that if I slacked off, do I lose ground on my skill level? Personally, I think so, but there's no real way for me to tell at this point. But my gut feeling is that if you set aside the skills, they will go fallow and you have to relearn some of them.
I'm intrigued on what others my have observed about themselves. Anyone else have some idea of how much time they feel it took them to achieve a level of competence? how about a level of excellence?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-09 10:09 pm (UTC)As for how long it took to achieve a level of competence, I would say that starting at the age of 6, putting in regular daily practice, I felt competent at age 17, I felt NOT AT ALL competent later at 18, I felt like hot shit at 20, but at 21 I felt like I had merely a teacup of the ocean of music. So...the more I learned the more I knew I had yet to achieve, and my estimation of my skills varied depending on who I was bumping up against in my field on a regular basis.
I think you're right that the longer you take to put in those hours (10k hours in 5 years vs 12k hours in 10 years) the more you will need, because a slow progression means you have time to forget some of the things you wouldn't forget with a more constant focus, but this is just conjecture on my part.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-09 11:03 pm (UTC)As a "good" competitive gymnast between the ages of 11-18, I only put in about 1/2 that time. In my case, I believe that I did *not* miss out. I did not have the talent to become an elite or Olympic level gymnast. Please note that I am not trying to run myself down, and I do not suffer from lack of self esteem here. It's no biggie, really. I got to have a boyfriend in high school, take AP English classes, and sleep in on weekends.
Interestingly, the SquireBro brought up the 10,000 hour mark as the amount of stage time he needs to be a success as a comedian. I expect that I need 10,000 hours of writing, too.
Other fun facts to know and share: I was grouped into the "low" reading group in 1st grade. By 4th grade I was in the "high" reading group, I believe. As a high school senior, I scored a 5 on the AP English test. I went on to become an English major at a top-flight university, then to become a professional writer. My birthday is at the end of April--right smack-dab in the middle for public school.
Life is not determined in the first grade. People who want to excel badly enough will do so, regardless of circumstance.
agreed
Date: 2009-12-09 11:20 pm (UTC)I agree, life is not necessarily determined by 1st grade. There are always exceptions to this rule. However, I think the trends noted are valid and I think that if you slip into complacency, I believe we can be taught to believe in the expectations that are set for us. I broke out of the middle reading group into the top reading group because of a competition that arose between myself and my best friend in school. But it took 2 years of reading a ton in my free time to get there. Same for math. So by putting in the hours in my free time to replicate math-club and book club stuff, I was able to keep up with the kids in the advanced groups who were getting additional coaching. But I thinkt that level of personal initiative is the exception and not the rule.
Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-10 02:10 am (UTC)I also have to agree that life isn't determined by first grade despite some of my parents thinking that Stanford is gonna care about the mid year first grade report card (hilarious- but I've had parents ask if colleges look back this far!). I have high hopes for the kids in my class, but sometimes a child is just not developmently ready to grasp what we're teaching. Standards keep increasing in all grades and while kids can rise to the occasion in most cases, the younger ones just aren't ready to be reading as high as some districts (mine included) want them to be reading. The kids who are younger fair the worst in most cases (though there are always exceptions), which might be prevented if the children a)went to pre-k and b)started a little later.
I agree with Thread Walker that there is something to be said about the trends. Here's one that is sad but true: the State uses 3rd grade reading scores to determine future prison populations! So I guess your life is determined in 3rd grade... not 1st ;-)
well ...
Date: 2009-12-10 04:53 am (UTC)I truly believe that natural ability and parental involvement are the most important factors.
Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-11 08:36 am (UTC)Somehow, having never been taught to read, I couldn't read, print, do cursive, or do math when I got into 3rd grade. I don't think I had been intentionally held back prior to 3rd grade, I just think they didn't think about where they were putting me.
In 3rd grade it was just assumed that I was retarded and couldn't learn. I was sent off with the kids who couldn't learn for most of the class periods. I did learn, though.
Ever after, my files said that I wouldn't go anywhere. I was told this by several councilors and school administrators, as were my parents. My parents wouldn't fight for me, other than going in once to find out why I was in introduction to reading and math for the Nth year, even after having my 6th grade teacher inadvertently teach me algebra, and the 7th grade teacher finish off 1st year algebra for that age group (equivalent to 1 semester of regular high school algebra, or 1/2 semester of college algebra). Finally, I threw such a fit when I was put back into introduction to math in 9th grade that one teacher sent me to see my councilor with a message that she would not allow me to return to any of her introductory classes and would personally get involved if I was not placed at my skill level. The councilor threw her own fit, but neither me nor the teacher would back down, so she finally raised me to the same level.
That same councilor later called me into her office and yelled and screamed at me for an hour because she had intentionally not told me about the SAT and ACT tests because I wasn't smart enough to go to college! She actually said that it was clearly stated in my file and she wasn't going to allow me to go to any form of college (even community college) because I just wasn't smart enough! (Obviously, it was her job to be sure that file stayed correct by holding me back!) How dare I find out and take the test anyway! She demanded to find out who had told me about the test so she could punish them! I scored 2nd highest on the entire ACT, except in English, out of all the students in our school who took the test!
It has taken me many years to learn all the stuff I should have been taught in High School, but wasn't allowed to learn because I was categorized.
So, I would have to say that, even if you kids are a little slow in one or more areas, they could catch up, but there is definitely the danger that they could be labeled to slow to be allowed to make anything of themselves.
Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-11 08:39 am (UTC)Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-11 02:13 pm (UTC)Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-11 04:00 pm (UTC)Personally, I see it as MY challenge as a parent to help my kids be successful. I'm also lucky because so far I've had really great teachers who are experienced and who enjoy their jobs. I really enjoy parent-teacher conferences because I can see how much the teachers put their hearts into their jobs.
Re: agreed
Date: 2009-12-11 07:38 pm (UTC)From what you've said about your teaching I wish I had been placed in your classroom, or in the classroom of teachers like you! You sound like my 6th grade teacher, the one who taught me algebra after my records claimed I would never learn addition.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-10 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-11 07:59 am (UTC)Passion means more.
Ability means even more.
All three means the most.