Publish at November 20 2024 Updated November 20 2024
Is there a recipe for success? We've all tried to find one in many sectors. Sometimes, it seems, you just touch on something that's all the rage for a while, and it turns out to be nothing. Most creators know that it's more often a case of trial, error and aligning the right moments.
What about school? Most teachers would love to know what makes each student successful. For the moment, the theories are varied, and most often the idea of the influence of the social and family environment is favored. Does this explain everything? No, that would be too simple, and measures have already been put in place. But what if we're aiming at the wrong target? What if we had to look to the genes?
The concept itself is highly controversial. Are we genetically predisposed to succeed or fail at school? However, with the advances made in genetics over the last few decades, some have been suggesting this possibility for some years now.
Early research looked at identical and fraternal twins and found that the former had similar school results, while the latter did not. This suggested a genetic component in academic success. Since then, researchers have been looking at the genetic profile of children and their parents. The latter are thought to pass on a large proportion of the genes that help or hinder success at school. Even socio-economic achievements in adult life are said to be influenced by genomics.
Other, more recent studies have shown the relationship between genetics and academic results through polygenic scoring. In this way, scientists would have added up the effects of gene variations with the levels of education obtained in a given population, among other things. Among the most ardent proponents of this theory is American geneticist Robert Plomin, whose book "The Invisible Architect" (2023) describes how many genes influence both our physical and mental attributes, including academic success and general intelligence.
The researcher's idea is first and foremost to relieve the guilt of parents who may feel that all their choices and attitudes lead to their children's failure at school. These effects would then be far more minor than what the social sciences have been saying for decades. Which is not to say that they shouldn't take care of the little ones. However, they should keep their impact on children's grades in perspective, and focus instead on providing them with love and support.
Another French proponent of the theory is Franck Ramus. Through various studies, he shows the extent to which children are influenced by previous generations in terms of academic success and potential learning or behavioral disorders, which are said to be genetically transmitted.
These theories raise a multitude of questions and fears. The school system, accustomed to judging its student body according to socio-economic determinants, could be tormented by this research.
Is it all down to a genetic lottery? Some doubt it. According to many critics, it's a new eugenicist approach that puts all the blame on genetics, pushing those who have been unlucky into the ranks of "undesirable students" who would have virtually no support. Supporters of the genomic approach argue against this. Ramus, for example, writes in this Express column that, on the contrary, the aim is not to classify children. In any case, as he asserts, this is already done consciously or unconsciously by teachers through race, socioeconomic background, etc. Rather, the idea would be to get a more accurate picture of each student's reality and adjust didactic approaches accordingly.
He also refutes the idea of a right-wing or even extreme right-wing scientific approach. For him, science has no political value. It is objective. Robert Plomin, on the other hand, considers himself more of a left-wing man, even though he supports this theory.
However, this does not convince critics such as Catherine Bourgain, research director at INSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) in human genetics, who, in addition to seeing it as a dangerous ideological approach, believes that the methodologies used to date are flawed. Most of the samples taken would not be representative of the human population as a whole, and employ school-based measures that would be taken out of context.
Another critic, Julien Larregue, a post-doctoral fellow in the sociology of science, sees this as a way of eclipsing the social sciences of education. Above all, he points out a paradoxical aspect: assuming that genetics really do have a 50% or 60% influence on academic ability, that still leaves a 40% to 50% margin for environmental effects. Totally ignoring this aspect would be counterproductive, even on the principle of genetic ability.
So, who to believe? What if the answer lies somewhere in between? This critic of the genetic approach asserts the following postulate in his text (free translation).
We know what to do for our students: nurture them, make them safe, respect their autonomy, challenge and support them, give them space to fail, remove segregation from their schools and neighborhoods, help teachers [...] It's not mysterious, and the cures to our problems are not to be found in DNA.
Maybe not completely, but if research were to show over the next few years and decades that certain genes play an important role in learning, could we deny it? Wouldn't it be in our interest to take them into account as information to better support children in their emancipation? The danger of genetic eugenics is undoubtedly present. At present, basing everything on a simple profile seems insane. Nevertheless, wouldn't a complete social and genetic portrait be ideal for all those involved in education? That's the question.
Image by IA (Copilot)
References
Bourgain, Catherine. "Succeeding at school, a genetic predisposition?" HAL Open Archive. Last updated: January 18, 2024. https://hal.science/hal-04397970/document.
Larregue, Julien. "Réussite scolaire : " Rien ne permet d'affirmer que le QI est lié pour 50 % au patrimoine génétique "." Le Monde.fr. Last updated: May 20, 2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/05/20/reussite-scolaire-non-la-genetique-ne-determine-pas-tout_5301859_3232.html.
"DNA, a factor in academic success?" Octopus.ca. Last updated September 8, 2024. https://www.pieuvre.ca/2024/09/08/societe-education-enseignement-adn/.
Mahler, Thomas. "Robert Plomin: 'Parents and school have little influence on children's success'." L'Express. Last updated: January 12, 2023. https://www.lexpress.fr/sciences-sante/robert-plomin-les-parents-et-lecole-influent-peu-sur-la-reussite-des-enfants-D2AB2XQ4DNAYRGFUDAWZTHY5OU/.
Olson, Richard, Brian Byrne, and Katrina Grasby. "Genes can influence school performance by up to 80%." The Conversation. Last updated June 27, 2016. https://theconversation.com/les-genes-peuvent-influencer-jusqua-80-les-resultats-scolaires-61321.
"A parent's genes can influence a child's educational success, inherited or not." UCL News. Last updated May 6, 2022. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/aug/parents-genes-can-influence-childs-educational-success-inherited-or-not.
Ramus, Franck. "When social sciences meet genomics." Ramus Méninges. Last updated: October 29, 2024. https://ramus-meninges.fr/2024/10/13/sciences-sociales-genomique/.
Ramus, Franck. "Academic success: what to do about the genetic lottery? By Franck Ramus." L'Express. Last updated: April 11, 2023. https://www.lexpress.fr/sciences-sante/reussite-scolaire-que-faire-face-a-la-loterie-genetique-par-franck-ramus-V5D7ORM46VEQZLM4AJN5FU3NEM/.
"Same genes predict educational attainment and socioeconomic success." MedicalResearch.com. Last updated June 7, 2024. https://medicalresearch.com/same-genes-predict-educational-attainment-and-socioeconomic-success/.
"According to this geneticist, DNA has more weight on children's personality than parents' upbringing." Parole De Mamans. Last updated: February 7, 2024. https://paroledemamans.com/ma-vie-de-maman/psycho-2/selon-ce-geneticien-ladn-a-plus-de-poids-sur-la-personnalite-des-enfants-que-leducation-des-parents.
Warner, John. "Why we shouldn't embrace the genetics of education." Inside Higher Ed. Last updated July 25, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/why-we-shouldnt-embrace-genetics-education.
You might also like:
Making an alliance with nature
A review of the effects of climate change and the solutions to be engaged in each area: 8 essential MOOCs to share. Let's go!
Non-traditional students or obsolete universities?
People who return to and initiate higher education during their working lives or in retirement. Universities classify them as non-traditional students. Some dare to call them contemporary students. But these people don't return to classroom or online study just for the pleasure of learning. They have goals and needs that faculties must take into account, in their best interests.
How big data could change the social sciences
Research evolves, whatever the field. In the social sciences, Big Data is changing study methods. According to the most optimistic, data banks will enable even more relevant and precise analyses. However, by fishing for such vast quantities of information, don't researchers run the risk of getting lost in a sea of useless data?
Protecting and Using Personal Data in Education: Where Do We Stand?
The arrival of the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is currently causing a certain amount of excitement in the field of personal data: the possibility of reclaiming one's data and reusing it is now enshrined in a common regulation. But in practice, there is still a long way to go, with legitimate misgivings and initial attempts that are sometimes too ambitious
Vocational training: quality versus quantity
How can we prepare a generation of workers to drive the continent's economic transformation without exacerbating social inequalities?
