Pay for Performance

by rrusczyk, Mar 4, 2009, 7:43 PM

Here's a New York Times article on paying for grades. I think this issue is very deeply tied to my musings earlier about "what's the point of education". (It's also tied to the issue of whether or not you really can impact people's natural work ethic. I'm agnostic on this right now.) I do think these sorts of incentive systems should be empirically judged. There are all sorts of essentially unfounded theories one could use to support or oppose pay-for-performance in school, but I think it is at heart a question that can only be judged empirically. However, this judging has to be performed by someone without a vested interest in the result, and without a predisposition to one side or the other of the issue. Good luck finding such a person. I suspect many of the studies of these types of issues are rife with biases that reflect the investigators' inclinations. Even more complicating, I suspect that a thorough study of these systems will find that they are good for some general classes of students and bad for others, and the ultimate distinction of whether the approach is "good" or "bad" will really depend on what groups of students are valued most by the person making the distinction.

Comment

7 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
This article seems to only discuss rewards for short-term performance (like grades in a given course, or on a given test). What about scholarships? They reward students for good performance in the long term over a range of subjects, and the financial rewards are re-invested in the students' education (usually-- I know of a few people who have gotten more scholarship money than their educational and living expenses).

by Osud, Mar 4, 2009, 9:28 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
That's a good point, and something that should be included in the testing. I have seen a couple very small examples of this sort of thing. For example, I think there have been a few cases of an athlete "adopting" a kindergarten class and offering to pay for college for any of them who get into college. (David Robinson comes to mind.) If I'm remembering right, the result was that there was no effect on the success rate, which isn't surprising, I think.

by rrusczyk, Mar 4, 2009, 10:59 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
It might be effective if you targeted the right students-- students who are smart and talented but don't believe there's much point in working to get into college because they would have no way of paying for it. Kindergarten seems a bad place to start because children that young have almost no conception of what going to college would mean, or even what college is. Why work for something you can't visualize?

by Osud, Mar 5, 2009, 12:51 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
The first person I am aware of to adopt a school class was Eugene Lang, who went on to create the "I Have a Dream" foundation. He promised a group of poor 6th graders free college tuition. My understanding is that the program made a big difference in the lives of those students, compared to their peers. At least that's what the foundation's PR says:
http://www.ihaveadreamfoundation.org/html/history.htm.

Money was just part of the story though -- the hook. Personal attention seemed key too.

by Ravi B, Mar 5, 2009, 2:01 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I would guess that the personal attention is essential, and perhaps even more important than the money. (But again, something worth testing.)

by rrusczyk, Mar 5, 2009, 4:57 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I think the key here is what (good) economists call "time preference." We all have an individual, subjective and ever changing preference for consuming now or in the future. For social or biological reasons, (many) adults tend to have lower time preferences and will defer consumption in the present for presumably greater gains in the future, e.g., putting money into retirement funds. These adults will badger kids about thinking about their "future."

Many younger people (but certainly not all) seem to exhibit greater time preference. You can therefore promise them all sorts of future riches if they stay in on the weekend to study, but they simply don't value their future consumption of free time and money as highly as the opportunity in the present.

I don't know if this is good policy, but it does seem to be addressing (or pandering too) this tendency towards greater time preference.

by djcordeiro, Mar 5, 2009, 1:28 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
People who get incentive for getting good grades will in the long run still be the same, all they will do is study hard for 1 test then completely forget about what they learnt, also they will get "hooked" on getting rewards and will stop working when they stop getting rewards. I find that people who like to study do it because they want to learn, you can't make someone like to learn, you can inspire them but not with rewards...

by ritwik_anand, Mar 6, 2009, 2:19 AM

Come Search With Me

avatar

rrusczyk
Archives
+ December 2011
+ September 2011
+ August 2011
+ March 2011
+ June 2006
AMC
Tags
About Owner
  • Posts: 16194
  • Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Blog Stats
  • Blog created: Jan 28, 2005
  • Total entries: 940
  • Total visits: 3309451
  • Total comments: 3879
Search Blog