Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Creativity is at once our most precious resource and our most inexhaustible one. As anyone who has ever spent any time with children knows, every single human being is born creative; every human being is innately endowed with the ability to combine and recombine data, perceptions, materials and ideas, and devise new ways of thinking and doing. What fosters creativity? More than anything else: the presence of other creative people. The big myth is that creativity is the province of great individual geniuses. In fact creativity is a social process. Our biggest creative breakthroughs come when people learn from, compete with, and collaborate with other people.

Cities are the true fonts of creativity with their diverse populations, dense social networks, and public spaces where people can meet spontaneously and serendipitously, they spark and catalyze new ideas. With their infrastructure for finance, organization and trade, they allow those ideas to be swiftly actualized.

As for what staunches creativity, that's easy, if ironic. It's the very institutions that we build to manage, exploit and perpetuate the fruits of creativity our big bureaucracies, and sad to say, too many of our schools. Creativity is disruptive; schools and organizations are regimented, standardized and stultifying.

The education expert Sir Ken Robinson points to a 19681968 study reporting on a group of 1,6001,600 children who were tested over time for their ability to think in out of the box ways. When the children were between 33 and 55 years old, 9898 percent achieved positive scores. When they were 88 to 1010, only 3232 percent passed the same test, and only 1010 percent at 1313 to 1515. When 280,000280,000 2525 year olds took the test, just 22 percent passed. By the time we are adults, our creativity has been wrung out of us.

I once asked the great urbanist Jane Jacobs what makes some places more creative than others. She said, essentially, that the question was an easy one. All cities, she said, were filled with creative people; that's our default state as people. But some cities had more than their shares of leaders, people and institutions that blocked out that creativity. She called them "squelchers."

Creativity (or the lack of it) follows the same general contours of the great socio-economic divide our rising inequality that plagues us. According to my own estimates, roughly a third of us across the United States, and perhaps as much as half of us in our most creative cities are able to do work which engages our creative faculties to some extent, whether as artists, musicians, writers, techies, innovators, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, journalists or educators those of us who work with our minds. That leaves a group that I term "the other 6666 percent," who toil in low wage rote and rotten jobs. if they have jobs at all in which their creativity is subjugated, ignored or wasted.

Creativity itself is not in danger. It's flourishing is all around us - in science and technology, arts and culture, in our rapidly revitalizing cities. But we still have a long way to go if we want to build a truly creative society that supports and rewards the creativity of each and every one of us.

The 1968 study is used here to show that

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

From passage: "When the children were between 3 and 5 years old, 98 percent achieved positive scores. When they were 8 to 10, only 32 percent passed the same test, and only 10 percent at 13 to 15. When 280,000 25 year olds took the test, just 2 percent passed."

The study shows creativity dropping dramatically as kids age -> But what's causing this decline? -> The passage connects this right to schools being "regimented, standardized and stultifying" -> So the study proves that our education system kills creativity.


Many students get confused between options 2 and 3 because both talk about decline. Here's how to think through it:

šŸ”“ Option 1 -> opposite-direction -> Says creativity increases with age, but study shows 98% to 2% decline

🟢 Option 2 is correct -> The study directly supports the passage's claim that schools "staunch creativity" and are "stultifying"

🟠 Option 3 -> too-broad -> Says "learning" in general causes decline, but passage specifically blames how schools teach (standardized, regimented), not learning itself

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> irrelevant -> Technology isn't mentioned anywhere in relation to this study

Key insight: The passage doesn't say learning itself is bad -> it says our current school system's approach to learning kills creativity. Big difference!

From passage: "It's the very institutions that we build to manage, exploit and perpetuate the fruits of creativity our big bureaucracies, and sad to say, too many of our schools."

The study is evidence that schools are creativity "squelchers."

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question