[ianb]

I am disappointed when I hear the term "socio-economic factors" in discussions of education. First, as if "economic" wasn't enough you add in "socio" to create a term that means "factors coming from every part of a person's life". Of course there are socio-economic factors.

But I dislike it particularly because often it feels like a statement: we don't know what the causes are (which is why we make the weakest possible claim by using this incredibly expansive category), and we aren't going to try to find out.

So I particularly appreciate this program, and the research it is based upon. We have a pretty well identified phenomena: talking a lot to kids, at a young age, helps them. A lot. And some people talk to their kids a lot more than other people. We should delight in this finding! We have a pretty clear way to identify a lot of kids whose lives could be greatly improved through changes in their parents' behavior, and that change is widely accessible.

It's this kind of finding that penetrates "socio-economic factors" and in the process identifies something actionable.

[ballard]

Some of the best hackers &| hustlers I know come from average to slightly-below average backgrounds. The biggest challenge for anyone, given any background, is what they tell themselves they can't do.

In addition to talking, it's important that the parent is a decent human-being. An awful person interacting with a kid probably does more harm than good. I don't think there's much correlation with decency and socioeconomics.

--

"Give me guys that are poor, smart, and hungry and no feelings." - Gordon Gekko

[Kudzu_Bob]

When you say that some of the best hacker and hustlers that you know come from unimpressive backgrounds, does "some" mean "most" or "a few" or "hardly any"?