Paying for grades, will it work?
Perhaps, by now, you should have heard of the proposal by economist Roland Fryer that poor children in New York City and their parents be given financial rewards, money, for good grades in school, for good attendance, making it to parent/teacher conferences and so forth. I am worried that payment for certain behaviors will create expectations for payment for others. Behavior not rewarded may be the same as behavior that is punished, and less of these other behaviors would be expected to occur. While I am not a fan of Fryer’s proposal, middle-class families, parents, or more usually grandparents, often give kids a few bucks for good grades. Parents and grandparents giving money to kids for good grades certainly seems to encourage school performance, not diminish it. Poor children, however, seldom have such generous grandparents, so Fryer’s proposal, if enacted, does seem as if it would encourage good school performance. Barry Schwartz, a Swarthmore psychologist, penned this editorial for the New York Times, suggesting that Fryer’s proposal will backfire. Schwartz’s argument is “filled with holes.” (That is a great phrase, isn’t it? Filling something up with holes–the Louisiana Department of Transportation’s method of road repair.) For instance, his Swiss Canton example is about hypothetical choices. What peoples say they will do or accept, and how they act are often at odds.
A similar argument was made in 1970 by a British social scientist, Richard Titmuss, wrote a book, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (see this book review of a 1999 reprint of Titmuss’ book). In his book, he argued that the British system, where blood given out of altruistic motivation (love) was superior to the
There are, admittedly, safety reasons to be concerned with paid blood. Many blood banks located near skid row and paid homeless men (we called them bums back then) for their blood, who sometimes gave blood tainted with hepatitis. The problem, though, with the safety of the U.S. blood system, however, was that the medical associations in every state of the union had lobbied their state legislatures to make blood supply a “service instead of a good.” This enabled them to skate product liability laws that would have made the doctors liable for giving tainted blood. Doctors, however, are the ones administering the blood and are in the best position to pick blood banks. If doctors had be liable, they would not have used blood banks that used the homeless. In fact, in those days, the safest blood in the country was “paid’ blood in Minnesota used by the Mayo Clinic.
Titmuss was exactly wrong about blood and so is Schwartz about the rewards of learning. Different people see different things as rewarding. Some see learning as its own reward, but many of the students that Fryer is dealing with, from poor, disadvantaged families in New York City, do not. The thing about money is that it is a generalizable reward, and can increase selected behaviors with just about anyone–if the monetary reward is salient. The larger the monetary reward, the more people who will engage in the monetarily rewarded behavior. So, while one person out of a thousand may have their warm fuzzy rewards of learning “crowded out” by financial rewards, so many more will perform according to Fryer’s expectation.
The idea that one reward crowds out others, seems mostly mistaken. Suppose in my earlier years, I had been a roady for my favorite rock band. I might have done it for free, to get to go to all their concerts, hang out with them. Oh, but they want to pay me, too? Can life get any sweeter?
Not everyone gets warm fuzzies from giving blood. Not everyone gets warm fuzzies from learning Shakespeare, or high school chemistry. The ones that do say “wow, I get to do what I like and someone pays me for it, too.”
Do scholarships reduce the learning by students? If we gave everyone A’s (or C’s) would they start learning more because now there is no kick to learning? Does the performance of TOPS scholars fall because of the financial aid? I doubt it.
While there may be one or two twisted souls who respond as Schwartz suggests, far more people respond to monetary incentives, especially people who are on the financial edge. Monetary rewards are likely to be more important for the very poor than for the well-to-do for the same behavior.
There are very few things that people do that they take offense to getting paid for. There are, admittedly a few. Dating and sex seem to lose a bit of excitement when they involve financial exchanges. On the other hand, very few people who love to play sports would say “gee, now that someone wants to pay me for doing something I love, it loses all its spark–find someone else to return kickoffs–I’m outta here.”
While there may be cases where students who see learning as its own reward, with the financial worries of poor families, and the extent that educational success is often looked down upon by peers in poor communities, it is doubtful that the net result of Fryer’s suggestion of paying for grades will be reduced performance. The Church relies on higher callings to fill the ranks of the Priesthood, and few, at least few Americans, get called. We rely on Titmuss and Schwartz reasoning and forbid payment for blood and for organs–and we see bad shortages of each with thousands dying each year waiting for organs to be donated, while viable organs get buried. What if we relied on altruism to fill the ranks of the military, the police force and the medical profession. We would be very sick victims of crime, living in a country over-run by some foreign demagogue, such as Venezuela’s Chavez.
–MC
July 5th, 2007 at 8:19 am
We all love incentives, especially money. I remember my grandmother giving me $20 for all A’s once. Although my school gave me a free slushie from the 7-11, that was hardly enough to get me to study harder. Consumers react differently in certain markets than they would in another- take Titmuss’ example of blood and Fryer’s cash rewards. I would certainly rather get paid to study than give blood. Not because I’m afraid of needles, but I rather do something that I personally could gain from. Call it selfish, but the incentive of gaining knowledge outweighs that of giving blood. Nonetheless, Fryer’s idea of rewarding students with money lacks support and should I add financial contributions? This money is most likely going to come from our pockets. Although we all like incentives, especially money, Fryer’s rewards would just cause a demand for rewards elsewhere. Going to church, taking the bus, not smoking… Almost anything seen as beneficial to the environment or to oneself could be rewarded, but sometimes we don’t know where to draw the line.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Mr. Toups,
An excellent point. One that would have made Bastiat hemiself proud. The money that Fryer is planning on using, of course, would come out of tax-payer pockets. The result, of course, would be reduced incentives for everyone else, those past school age. It is important to remember to look not only at what is above the surface, that which is seen, but also below the surface, that which is unseen, as Bastiat reminded us. We must look at both the direct and indirect effects of policy suggestions. Good job, Mr. Toups.
MC
July 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
My parents never believed in paying my siblings and me for grades. They would always tell us that the good grade was reward enough. I can see both sides of the argument. Parents want to motivate their children to do better, but children should want to be successful in school for more then direct payoff at the end of the semester. If they value their education then the grades that they earned should be enough of a reward.
I think Fryer’s idea to pay children for grades would be the beginning of many problems. As Derrick pointed out, what else will people want to get paid for? It is not the governments job to motivate people to be the best they can be. The government already does its part to help those in need and people take advantage of it. Who’s to say they won’t in this situation as well? I am a firm believer in the idea that hard work pays off, which doesnt necessarily mean $20 for an A.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Likewise, my parents rewarded me for getting good grades my whole life. They did not reward me with money. Instead my reward for getting good grades consisted of my family and I going eat out at my favorite restaurant or my parents allowing me to have friends sleep over or something like that. By them giving me the incentive to continue to get good grades allowed me to look forward to making those good grades. I did not realize that good grades could be enough of a reward until I graduated high school and came to Nicholls. Now my incentive to get good grades will be rewarded with a college diploma and a promising career for the rest of my life. My parents did the same thing for my older brother, but he did not take to their incentives as much as I did. I agree with Derrick on the point of consumers acting differently for certain things that have incentives such as Titmuss’ example of giving blood. I give blood on a regular basis and feel very rewarded by the thought of my blood saving someone’s life. If someone would pay me to give blood it probably would be more of an incentive ,but would take away from the good feeling of giving something to someone with out a payment. When someone pays you to do a good dead it doesn’t seem so good any more.