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?"
When children say things like "This is boring" or "Will I learn anything this year in school?", their needs should be accommodated. It seems criminal, yet all too often such children's pleas simply go ignored.
Do we know how to identify all of them? No. But better to identify the ones we can, and give them every advantage we can, rather than simply running them through a system that, to them, would proceed at a glacial pace.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Sure, there is a certain amount of smarts required for those nifty inventions, those startling revalations and those 'hot damn why didn't I think of that' moments, but more often then not its about having the motivation. My sister who isn't too bright and barely grasps the concept of shared printers, got a UAI of 99.3, and was working 2 jobs, while studying at Uni. Me on the other hand, prefered to read slashdot and ended up working as telemarketer for a couple of months.
Motivation is what changes the world. Attitude is central to survival, not always intelligence.
Karma whoring
How long until every parent asks why little Johnny or little Mary isn't in the "gifted" program. Surely they are the smartest in their class. Why does it seem like we hear about some sort of drive for the gifted every few years, but then it amounts to nothing? I'd bet that it's simply that people are unwilling to tell parents that their kid doesn't know jack, if only because of the lawyers.
I wish I had been in something that would've challenged me when I was younger, rather than simply being bored to tears after either already knowing things or figuring them out after 30 seconds. Yes, it's a shame that smart kids are still relegated to the same level of classes as the below-average kids, but can you really blame school districts for not wanting to go out on a limb and classify students? How many lawsuits would that bring up?
Instead we get education that suits neither the brightest nor the dimmest, nor pretty much anyone for that matter. We just get simple, boiled down cookie cutter lessons for everyone. No wonder public education sucks.
Hear, hear.
When I was a kid, people asked me if I wanted to become "the next Bill Gates". Most seemed to think that money or power was my end goal in life.
While there are bright kids that seek that, I'd say the majority of them would rather pursue interests in some field of study that appeals to them. Most of them don't have the disposition that they'd need in the business or political world, because 1: they don't like to screw people over and 2: they aren't willing to compromise their ideals. Knowledge for knowledge's sake, good for goodness' sake.
But do we know how to identify the child whose brilliance might change the world?
We've been identifying those we think of as brilliant and world changing for centuries. We've also been laughing at those who think of themselves as brilliant or world changing and telling them to go back to the patent office or selling their lousy paintings and hanging out in Munich's beer halls.
This implies:
1) What we see as brilliant or world changing (whether world changing is good or bad) often isn't. What we don't understand and therefore, in our arrogance, can't identify as brilliance often is.
2) Ever notice how the truly brilliant ones are the ones who faced adversity? The ones who make a real difference seem to do so because they've learned to fight damn hard. The ones we tell are geniuses tend to expect things to be handed to them, are obsessed with their own genius, and rarely seem to really do anything that truly amazing - as opposed to simply being pretty successful and massively bipolar.
Given the second, perhaps the best thing we can do is not identify those poor kids? Adversity seems to harden the amazing ones; over attention seems to lessen them.
I think the major problem with this kind of thinking is that gifted programs generally are mostly just trying to take up more of a kid's time. They basically just seem to give extra homework, and are maybe advanced by a year or so in terms of what they are studying.
I don't know anybody who's public school 'gifted program' gave them what they really needed, self expression. Smart kids generally will give that to themselves, but gifted programs, in my opinion, actually stifle their ability to do so by trying to fill up all their time with academic busywork, as if somehow rigid structure is going to make them smarter.
Intelligence is next to nothing without creativity. The benefits of being a couple years ahead of your peers academically diminish greatly as you age. Missing out on the freetime of youth is something very difficult to make up for.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but conformity and "proper" socialization are primary goals of the public schools. They may even be a higher priority than learning.
I hope I don't sound like the type wears a tinfoil hat to block and/or magnify my brain waves, but I really do think that is what the schools are set up to do. And for what it's worth, it's not an entirely bad thing to include some of that in your goals as a school. Society will work better if kids who beat up other kids learn they'll be punished, if people are taught to show up on time and be respectful to others (not just those in authority), if they're encouraged to be organized and dress neatly and all that. The problem happens when learning goes out the window in favor of all those other goals.
I second your theory on this .. I was tested several times in a G.E. program when I was young, and was given an I.Q. that I am always embarrised to share in mixed company, lets just say its a signifigant number.
:)
That out of the way, I SWEAR I have gotten dumber as I have gotten older.
First there were girls,
then money,
then 'advancing my career'.
With each step on society's ladder, i've shed IQ points like water off a duck.
I recently had a kid, He seems pretty bright, and thus will probably bring be down to a nice society average I.Q. in record time
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Your Uncle is in good company. Einstien was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't find a University that would take him. Getting a formal education and a "good job" has a lot more to do with persistence than IQ. Also there are many differing opinions as to what a "good job" actually is. If your Uncle enjoyed his 40yrs of driving he is not only smart but wise too.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.