Slashdot Mirror
The Prodigy Puzzle
theodp writes "Once neglected, the NY Times reports that America's smartest children have become the beneficiaries of a well-organized effort to recognize their gifts and develop their talent. Programs like those offered by the Davidson Institute, run by Bob and Jan Davidson of Math and Reading Blaster fame, have sprung up to nurture the intellectual development of profoundly intelligent young people. But do we know how to identify the child whose brilliance might change the world? And do we really want to?"
Back in my youth, every year every kid took the Iowa test. Eventually, my grade school district used those test results to start a program for gifted kids. They took the top-scoring 3 percent of all kids in the district into this class. Both I, and my younger sister, made the cut.
My IQ tested out about 165-ish, until I got multiple sclerosis. Now it's down to just 148. Frustrating loss.
Did my intelligence change the world? Nope. I never wanted to change the world. I just wanted to be left alone to tinker with computers and gemstones. I rather suspect many other brilliant kids will share those ambitions. BTW, my brilliant sister is now an RN. No world-changer there, either.
Lemon curry?
I'll tell you what the smart kids won't leanr in standard classes: Good study habits. As an example of myself: in my high school English class, I was reading my own novels for entertainment, cause it was painful lsitening to other students stumble through reading the assigned story out loud, that I had finished the first night. I never studied for ANY tests. I cut an entire week of school between tests for my Econ class, and got a perfect A on the next test, despite nto having even been present for any fo the material. I figured it all out on the fly. (not that high shcool econ is exactly hard) When I actually got to the math classes where I had to do the homework and study to learn the material (Trigonomy and above), I stumbled hard for a while, because I wasn't adapating to the need to actually practice this stuff.
"It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'
As a beneficiary of "gifted education" throughout my elementary and junior high years, I can say that these types of programs are wonderful.
I am not sure that I would have done as well in school if I didn't have a place to go and be challenged... the normal classes were just too slow and I found myself just treading water most of the time. My Gifted classes offered an environment that was both challenging and encouraging while also providing a place for me to be among other people that understood how it felt.
I don't know if they are still doing "Gifted Ed" out there in public schools (I know that in my home town the program got killed shortly after I left Junior high... due to budget constraints)... anyone know? Anyone have a child that is currently in a public school program built specifically for higher IQ children? I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Friedmud
PS - I guess I never really explained what "Gifted Ed" was... basically it was a bunch of kids that were determined to have higher than average IQ's... once a week we met and learned about "other" subjects in "different" ways... I "tested in" when I was in 3rd grade (as did most of my peers)
I don't mean to be mean, but I think if you think the lower 97 percent can be average or above, then your math skills might not be that great.
Preface: The profession for which I am currently receiving training (Ph.D in Neuropsychology; look it up) involves the measurement of cognitive functioning; the assumption that there is some meaning inherent to these sorts of tests is part of my bias. Also, I'll be refering to intelligence as defined by the Western world. Different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes an "intelligent" individual. What many in this discussion fail to realize is that genius and IQ are two very different things. In addition, the way IQ is measured is very important for this discussion. "Genius" is a social construct. Genius is defined as one who has significant acumen in a certain area, while simultaneously being prolific in their participation in that discipline. Einstein is properly labeled as a genius because of the amount of significant work he published in 1905, NOT because his IQ score was 180 or some such arbitrary number. Currently, it would be very inappropriate if a psychometrician were to label someone as a "genius" based solely on their test scores. IQ is a number, supposedly measuring overall intellectual ability. The Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children III (WISC-III) is the most effective measure we have for measuring intelligence in children. HOWEVER, it has been repeatedly shown that the accuracy of this test breaks down past the fourth standard deviation in the upper range; that is, anything past 160. What I'm trying to get across is that genius is a label given by society, while a high IQ is something that is earned by scoring well on a test. Someone who is a genius need not have a high IQ, as IQ measures very specific things, and one can be a genius without excelling in those areas. Likewise, an individual with a very superior IQ need not be a genius; the main character from "Good Will Hunting" spent his time as a janitor in the beginning of the movie (if memory serves), and thus would not be considered a genius at that time. Jon
Psychology is really Biology, Biology is really Chemistry, Chemistry is really Physics, and Physics is really Math.
The main problem with I.Q. is that it seems to be more of a measure of education and diet than intelligence (see The Milwaukee Project). Secondly it was developed to discover mental deficiency, not identify super bright people.
It is also interesting to note the popular misconception about I.Q. scores. I.Q. values between 80 and 130 comprise about 90% of the population, so if you are within these values you are defintely simply 'normal' - note I didn't say 'average', in I.Q. terms that's a score between 90 and 110. You are not anything special until you have a score significantly above 130 (130 is still a surprising - to some - large segment (2.5%) of the population - in the U.S. there are about 7.5 million people with a score of 130 or above, so 130 is hardly exceptional !), perhaps 150 or above and you are starting to be a real stand-out.
Of course, the opposite side of the coin is true too, you would need to have a score below 70 to be considered 'extremeley low' intelligence..
There are many other problems with I.Q. tests, namely that they rely upon linguistic abilities that many people do not posses, or acquire until later in life - since in order to answer a question correctly you must not only understand what is being asked, but also communicate your answer. It has been shown that females acquire linguistic prowess more rapdily in life than males, yet no-one would suggest that it makes sense to say that females have higher I.Q.s than males at the same age - or if they do, they fail to grasp the purpose of I.Q. tests.
While I don't disagree with the gist of these postings I wish to clear up that urban legend about Einstein - that patent clerk job he had was a very prestigious job at that time - the term "clerk" meant something entirely different in the context of that period - it would be more akin to a patent attorney - or head of the patent office - today. And FYI, Einstein was a straight "A" student - I once saw his early school records in a display case in a German library years ago when I was bumming around Europe.