Slashdot Mirror
Eight Year Old Physics Student Admitted to College
paris writes to tell us that The Korea Herald is running a story about Song Yoo-guen, the youngest university student that Korea has ever seen. At eight years old Song is already talking about building flying cars and defying Newton's law of gravity while others his age are attending the first grade. He completed his elementary, junior-high, and high school curricula in just nine months, something that usually takes 12 years, and has been admitted as a freshman to the physics department of Inha University.
Hang on, explaining or regurgitating what his parents told him? All this smacks of publicity stunt... both for the anxious parents (it'll help junior in our hyper-competitive society) and a middling Korean university (at best).
Is this worse than drafting or buying a very young sportsman? Whether you play soccer in the English Premier League at the age of 16 or you get a PhD at the age of 16 you will not be able to grow up in the same way as others, but with that kind of talent comes certain issues. If they hold him back and force him to "be his age", it will most likely severly hurt his intellectual growth.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but wonder how screwed up this kid will be at oh, say age 25 or so. One of the most important things my parents did for me when I was young was prevent my school district from having me skip... well, about 10 grades. Not as fast as this child, but nonetheless.
The reason? Simply that there are other things in life besides simply rushing through academics. There are issues which can't be handled simply from an academic perspective-- each day the engineers among us solve some new problem while thinking "outside the box," and this kid won't be able to do that. Because he doesn't have an "outside," he has what he's learned in books.
So I'm of mixed feelings on this one: on one hand, I'm happy for him, because he obviously has great potential, and parents that support him.
On the other hand, the best superstring theorists in the world, can't work for more than a few, perhaps 5 at a stretch, years from their start at that level. They simply burn out, every one. So if at 14, this kid's entirely burnt out... will it have been worth it?
I talked about building flying cars at the age of 6. In fact, I built one. It amazing what legos and some good old childhood imagination can do.
"The interview was conducted mainly with the senior Song since Yoo-geun is lacking in his ability to communicate with adults."
Something tells me that he might no be ready for college just yet. . .
I feel pretty bad for this kid. After all, he will never have a normal life. I've known a genius who burnt out and worked a crappy job. I'm not saying that will happen with this kid, but I fear that there is a strong chance that he will crack at some point. Imagine living your whole life around people who are so much "slower" than you that they might as well be retarded for all intents and purposes. He will likely relate to adults better than kids, which is going to be hard because so many will envy him. There will be many who are threatened by his precociousness. Think of Good Will Hunting x 20. He will never know what it is to have a normal life and that may cause him to envy "normal" people to an extent. That being said, I really hope he does well and can find a good core group of people who will guide him and treat him well. This kind of makes me think that reincarnation truly happens....
This feat has been accomplished before. Children of only average intelligence, if they are drilled at early enough age, can master the basic GED curriculum by eight years old. They tend not to do well in university however as they usually have not developed the abilty to think critically and independantly. A teenager coming up with a nobel prize worthy idea is a prodigy. An eight year old who gets into university is just an example of a yet to be identified form of child abuse.
Why do so many people think it's so awesome to be a kid? Being a kid sucks! Life doesn't get good until you get into college. It sounds to me like this kid is skipping the crappy parts of growing up.
Cow Cube
kids at the upper and lower 10 percentiles should not be in the main stream. Whether university is right for him is an open question. I suspect they have nothing else to challenge him.
He will find physics challenging.
As for the social side - well - he'll have to do the best he can. If anyone wants to ponder what it is like to be the brightest kid in the classroom then consider how it would feel to be sitting in a classroom of monkeys being taught by a monkey.
Once you get past the 99th percentile the measuring stick no longer is working.
So the post is not insightful. I could have moderated it down but I chose to reply instead.
Please note that I am not talking about accelerating someone with a high 80's average. I'm talking about those few kids that nail 100% time after time after time and don't bother to study becuase there is nothing to study.
For them, being in a gr 12 math class is like asking a normal "A" student to take a grade 2 math class.
I'm sorry, but in what parallel dimension do they teach maturity in the school system?
In all the schools I went to, the clique-ized and institutionalized immaturity was actively supported by the teaching staff that openly favored the "popular" kids. The end result when this cancer has fully metastasized is national news stories of the football team stuffing foriegn object up the asses of other students while the coach looks on approvingly. Google on "mepham high football". And that's the best case. Worst case is Columbine.
Maybe that's teaching about the real world, but don't you dare call it maturity.
He's only 8. Barring disaster, he's got plenty of time.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
If high school was no challenge why would university be a challenge? After all it's geared to average learning for people who survived public school.
... Was it that long ago that I balanced a chemical equation?
The whole idea is to have an effective algorithm for acquiring knowledge. Bingo, you don't need school. What you need is a bit of time to learn (i.e., run the algorithm) and objectives or problems or whatever. In other words, after a year or two, graduate and get on with life.
Now can we have the 10 DVD set of Educate Yourself This Week by Watching Nonstop? After a person goes through school, how much of that knowledge is ever applied? It all seems so irrelevant. Let me see, the last time I applied the quadratic equation
By the way, we never really explained to you, school is just an IQ test. It seems a bit of a waste of 12+ years. Why not just launch kids straight into university right out of kindergarten - in other words, make graduating really count?
The one thing about university is it's rigor - failure is not tolerated well. The age of the student means nothing in first year. Even someone 80 years old is totally comfortable.
But, you know, starting kids into university young may be a good thing. A lot of people don't know how to communicate well, and first year university would be mostly about communications since 5 and 6 year olds really have no language skills. A university-standard education on communications would do wonders for the world. At any rate, it would cause wonders.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
It's a good point, the difference between intelligence and wisdom. It's relatively easy to learn something, even Schrodinger's equation. It's far more difficult to try and explain the implications, or to formulate your own perspective. Breakthroughs in knowledge come from experience and creating your own version of the universe, not what is taught.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I heard that his father had quit his job so that he could help his son studying (or whatever). I don't know but it seems he isn't a total publicity whore after all. Good for him? That I'm not sure. (If there's nothing I can do to protect the kid, at least I can hope his family get some money)
Earth has billions of people on it.
Is it really a problem if a few take an uncommon path? His childhood won't be "better" or "worse" than yours, just different.
...and yeah, he is the first 8 year old ever to dream of flying cars.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I took a course in BS Physics and I had a classmate like that. He entered University at the age of 10 direct from grade 5. His teachers noticed him sleeping most of the time in classes but when tested he knew more than his teachers. He was accelerated to a special science high school for above-average kids but after 6 months his teachers told his parents that they have nothing more to teach him. He was then sent directly to university where he was enrolled in the BS Math, BS Physics and MS Physics courses at the same time! He is good! He can compute sines and cosines in his head and can sum a taylor series without writing anything down. When he became my lab mate, we would use him as a calculator because he can compute much faster than our electronic calculators. During the time spent entering numbers on the calculator he would be able to tell us the results. We just decided to call out the numbers to him rather than have the calculator do it for us. He is a walking calculator. That was more than twenty years ago. Ever since graduating from university I have sought to find out if he has somehow made a significant contribution to physics commensurate with his abilities. After scouring newspapers and the university newsletters, I have found none. It was a disappointment. I don't know if going to university at such an early age was the right thing he did. Obviously, he was far too advanced to stay in grade 5. However, I doubt it if being forced to study in the university at his age was the right approach. He was interviewed by a newspaper once when he was my classmate. He was asked how he felt about being accelerated from grade 5 to university in less than a year. I can't forget what he said in the interview. He said he felt lonely because he has no friends in the university. All the others guys want to talk about is their girlfriends while all he wanted to do was build a paper airplane and sail it across the classroom.
I'm 15. I've never studied, for anything. Before 6th grade, Anything below a 97% is failing. Since then, I've developed a social life. I still don't study, but I always get 90%s. It's a fair exchange, I can still get into good universities (with a really good resume and interview of course:-) and I have friends now. I always get 99th percentile on standardized tests. The highest grade I've earned was something around a 114% in Geometry (I hate it, but I can visualize anything).
I honestly feel that school is a waste of time. I read probably 20 more books during the summer than I do during the entire school year. I've taught myself more (mostly science, math, and computer science) than I have ever been taught. The school doesn't teach exact things. I learn what I need to as I do it. That's how I teach myself programming languages, I start a project, and learn what I need to as I go. Then I've accomplished something, and I can use the knowledge later. The biggest thing I know how to do would be the ability to find the info that I need. I teach myself (even things concerning language and history) more on my own. I'd say I've never learned anything in school, but as of entering highschool, I have learned a few things.
I could probably enter a local college or even a pretty nice university. But I never would. I'm using this time to go flying, sailing, and to just hang out with friends and getting rides from people old enough to drive me places. I'm mature for my age, honestly, I think you can tell that from me being here and how I write. But I still would not fit in in a university setting. I'm 15, and I'd be with some people 19 or 20. I have friends that age, but they have completely different issues. This 8 year old still must worry about wetting his bed, or wanting his mother to be with him. I don't know much about (N or S) Korean culture, but I imagine the developmental cycle of children still is the same.
Make your computer faster: rm -rf
So much for letting the kid grow up.
I really wish I could fathom why this kind of crap gets modded +5, Insightful. WTF does that comment even mean? You think you know these people? Do you know the kid personally? Do you know the parents? Do you know the society? You think you know the best way to raise such a unique human being, if he is indeed that unique?
But know, I'm sure you're right. What they should have done was give him a lobotomy so he could grow up with his "peers" and have a "normal" childhood wasting twelve years of his life learning how to "socialize". Because God knows socializing is infinitely more important than challenging yourself and using your given abilities to their fullest.
Honestly, what is wrong with so many people that makes them want to tear the kid down and force the parents to push him through the same mold as everyone else? If he passed all the damn tests for the lower grades legitimately what exactly is wrong with letting him (letting, not forcing) further his education in order to work toward his dreams? Yeah, an 8-year-old going to college is going to have a difficult time learning about "life", but as far as I can tell learning about real life is hard no matter what path you walk. As long as he has a good support system and really is super-intelligent he should do just as well as any of us. What is with this subtle (or not so subtle) show of disgust as if he is being used or mistreated somehow, and this seeming urge to stuff the kid back in the box marked "NORMAL CHILD"?
I for one am excited by what this says about the potential for human intelligence, if it turns out to be for real and not just some publicity stunt or fluke of eiditic memory or something. It's really an amazing thing. And I'm so irritated when I think about all the students in this country who could have been done with school within a few years if they hadn't been chained to the almost completely inflexible modern school system, where doing your time seems to be more important than learning anything or challenging yourself to find your potential abilities.
Give the kid a break. He'll either be able to hack it or he won't, and he's either a bonafide super-genius or he isn't. The truth will come in due time, either way. It's not your problem, and it's not your place to be judging people halfway around the world based on one little article. I suppose you'll all be pissed off again when CERN hires him right after he gets his Ph.D. in theoretical physics at age 10-1/2. How awful. Poor kid. What a horrible thing it would be for his dream to come true. Gack. Give ME a break, and get off the high horse(s).
I *was* one of those 8 year olds in college. Feel a little sorry for him, 'cause he's caught in a hard place: as someone else observed, he will stand out and have to deal with all sorts of issues in his college as a result; on the other hand, it's not like he can have anything like a normal life in a normal school, either.
But if his experience is anything like mine, he's *not* regurgitating --- which if you think about it woulldn't work anyway. (Think about the Chinese Room Problem.) If he can "regurgitate" well enough to read what he needs to read, answer questions, and pass tests, how is that *different* from having "really" learned it?
Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment doesn't seem to support your point. The idea Searle attempts to explain isn't that there's no difference between regurgitating information, and actually understanding it. Indeed many of the arguments against AI claim that 'only' machines that externally demonstrate intelligence, but lack a conscious mind, and an ability to actually understand that information, can exist. It's precisely this that Searle tries to demonstrate in his experiment--- the exact opposite of what you seem to be relying on.
t y.html.
;).
Just for an example of how a machine could 'regurgitate' a highly articulate explanation of a certain problem vist: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativi
It seems that my computer can offer a good explanation for a myriad of differing problems, but, I still doubt that there isn't any difference between this and understanding those problems.
The Turing experiment, I believe would support your opinion. Turing's major claim is that if you, as a third party observer, couldn't tell the difference between a computer and a human through blind dialog--- then that computer is intelligent. For one, this test judges intelligence through how well a machine relates to our particular brand of social interaction. It doesn't seem fair to say that something isn't intelligent if it's incapable of human communication. If an intelligent alien species that communicated through beams of light, or sonar, were to analyze our species this way, we would quickly be determined not to demonstrate intelligence. It also heavily relies on the social and conversational abilities of the judge in the situation. Many template based bots, whom most people would agree are not intelligent, have tricked judges into believing they're intelligent. An entertaining programming pass time involves creating bots and attempting to fool random individuals into having deep personal conversations with them. In the end Turing's method seems too subjective, and it doesn't seem entirely logical. It isn't apparent that a machine that only seems to be intelligent can't exist, and I would assume this could also be true for human beings
John Searle argued against this using a parody of the Turing Experiment, the "Chinese Room" experiment. This thought experiment involves an intelligent human being, interacting with the outside world via a proxy of a limited symbolic interface. Through this interface he can place answers to given questions in the Chinese language by following a complicated program, or rule book, without understanding a word of Chinese. In essence, he claims to have crated a machine incapable of ever being intentional. His second claim is that no rule book exists that would allow you to, as the operator, to understand Chinese.
While I agree with Daniel Dennett that this is just intellectual sleight of hand, and in the end Searle's experiment makes several logical errors that fail to prove that intelligent machines can not exist; I don't believe it either proves, or disproves, the possibility of zombie machines existing.
You know, I had a chance to start College at age 14, not quite 8, but still. I'm really glad I didn't take it.
Sure, highschool sucked. But highschool sucked for a whole lotta people. I read a lot on my own time, and I don't think humanity was deprived of any potential fruits of my intellect while I was spending my efforts avoiding football games and vainly attempting to figure out how to talk to girls.
When I started college at the normal age, I had a blast and did well academically.
I remember reading an article about what prodigies were up to 20 years later (looking at what happened to a bunch of kids who'd gone into college before puberty, which apparently there was a rash of in the 70s) and none of them were doing anything *that* earth-shaking. All smart men and women, sure, but no nobel prizes.
Think of it this way: You're a professor starting a new research project. Which early PhD student do you want to be your research assistant, the 24 year old with an apartment and a settled life, or some kid who'se just started the roughest years of puberty? They both have the same amount of education, and the kid is way more impressive *for his age* but what the hell do you care about someone being impressive for their age? You want work to get done. I really suspect this kind of thing happens more to stoke parental egos than anything else. It just doesn't make that much sense to get so far off of the clock that your society expects of you.
There are a whole lot of square pegs out there, and the standard education system is nothing but round holes. Some parents give their kids pills or push them onto the chearleading team in order to make them round pegs. Some parents look around frantically for square holes for their precious square pegs. I personally am a big believer in the value of spending a few years getting whacked in the head by a hammer as society tries to cram you down the damn round hole. The adult world isn't that much different, and you learn to deal with it without developing a massive ego or the belief that nothing is right if it doesn't feel like a special magical little cradle created just for unique little you.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
While he obviously didn't go on to fully utilize his talent, I severely doub it's because his gift was nutured. His reclusiveness was inspired mostly because of sever criticism from the media who constantly belittled him; equating his gifts to rote memorization and obsessive cramming, something that his parents had set out to discourage in their child.
Even with all that in mind, I wouldn't necessarily call him a failure. For the most part it was a combination of being too ahead of his time and society in general not being receptive enough to him. He postulated the existence of black holes before anyone else, pioneered the establishment of modern libertarianism, and developed methods of improving public transportation that are only now gaining acceptance. In relation to how incredibly gifted it was it's obviously a huge waste, but not for the reason you're implying. Not because he had an "abnormal social development," but because of distrust and hostility in society.
The notion of the tortured child prodigy is, in my opinion, just a cliche. I don't doubt there are severe problems that are typical in the lives of these people, but it's society in general that's responsible.
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz