This review explores how schools are primarily designed to maximize motivation rather than learning, explaining why age-graded classrooms and seemingly inefficient group learning have persisted despite numerous attempts at reform. Longer summary

The post examines why schools have maintained their traditional structure of age-graded classrooms where all students learn the same content, despite its apparent inefficiencies. The author argues that schools are designed primarily to maximize motivation rather than learning, using conformity as a key tool. Through analyzing various attempts at personalized learning and their consistent failures to scale beyond about 5% of students, the post explains how students fall into three categories: no-structure learners, low-structure learners, and high-structure learners. The author concludes that while the current system is far from perfect, it has proven more effective at scale than any alternatives, predicting that despite continued attempts at reform, the basic structure of schooling will remain unchanged. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes poor NAEP test scores and explores whether COVID school closures, systemic changes in education standards, or other factors are responsible for the decline. Longer summary

Scott examines the recent poor results of the NAEP standardized test scores and reflects on his previous prediction that COVID school closures wouldn't cause long-term learning losses. Looking at the data, he notes that the downward trend started before COVID, and states with different school closure policies showed similar results. He explores several possible explanations, including systemic changes like lowered academic standards and increased absenteeism post-COVID. The post analyzes various graphs showing different aspects of the learning decline, though the data presents some contradictions. Scott concludes by standing by his original advice to individual parents while suggesting the current problems may be more systemic than individual. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critically examines studies on preschool effects, finding mixed and inconsistent evidence for long-term benefits. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews multiple studies on the long-term effects of preschool programs like Head Start. While early studies showed fade-out of test score gains, some found lasting benefits in adult outcomes. However, Scott finds inconsistencies between studies in which subgroups benefit and on which outcomes. He also notes concerns about potential p-hacking and researcher degrees of freedom. Ultimately, Scott concludes that the evidence is mixed - it permits believing preschool has small positive effects, but does not force that conclusion. He estimates 60% odds preschool helps in ways suggested by the studies, 40% odds it's useless. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander admits he was wrong about preschool programs like Head Start, discussing new evidence of their long-term benefits and considering the implications for understanding environmental effects and policy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his previous skepticism about the effectiveness of preschool programs like Head Start, admitting he was wrong based on new evidence. The post discusses research showing that while preschool doesn't improve academic skills or IQ, it does lead to better long-term life outcomes such as staying in school longer, getting better jobs, and committing less crime. Scott speculates that these benefits might stem from social factors like freeing up parents' time or exposing children to different environments. He also grapples with how this conflicts with studies showing little impact of shared environment on outcomes, and considers implications for policy support of universal childcare or pre-K programs. Shorter summary

Scott reviews evidence on whether college improves critical thinking, finding modest short-term gains but questioning their long-term persistence. Longer summary

Scott examines the claim that college teaches critical thinking skills. He reviews several studies, finding modest evidence that college improves critical thinking, with effect sizes ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations. However, he notes limitations in the research, such as lack of long-term follow-up and potential confounding factors. Scott expresses skepticism about whether these gains persist after college, drawing parallels to other temporary developmental effects. He also discusses specific aspects of college that may contribute to critical thinking gains, finding little evidence for dedicated 'critical thinking' classes but some benefit from liberal arts education and certain study habits. Shorter summary