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?"

Comments

The children will ask themselves

[vijayiyer]

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.

Re:The children will ask themselves

[mattwarden]

If a super smart kid can't figure out a project of their own, how smart are they?

If that's the logic we're using, why are they in school at all? If they can't develop their own lesson plans, how smart are they?

The point is: no matter how apt someone is, the ability to succeed at a task is limited by that person's experience. That's why we have teachers who have gone through the education system and then learned how to re-teach what they learned those 12 years. They can draw on that experience, plus direct teaching experience as their career continues.

To me it's a little like math classes: you never really know what you're doing in a class until you get two or three classes beyond it. Likewise, a child can't be expected to both learn material and piece it into the bigger picture, most of which has not been exposed yet.

You might think I'm taking your comment too far, and I probably am. My point is just that the child would benefit much more from guidance on those projects. After all, maybe the student projects were "REALLY REALLY stupid" because the students were never given a hint about what makes a good project.

Re:The children will ask themselves

[droptone]

It isn't a matter of the kids being unable to find projects to "entertain themselves", because they will surely do that. It is a matter of using the child's interest in learning/education and guiding them. Before you can learn anything in subjects like physics or math you need to know what to learn, because each step builds off of the previous steps. This is where, I feel, the school systems/teachers need to step in. If the child is catching onto basic math quickly, do not tell the child to sit down and wait for the other kids to finish. You are punishing them for being good at something. You don't need to neglect the others kids, if you make sure the exceptional children are mentally stimulated. I don't expect a child to know what he/she needs to learn. Sure, learning on your own is fine for certain subjects (and god knows plenty of people have done just that, e.g. Srinivasa Ramanujan). That does not mean all can do that. You really shouldn't be fatalistic about education, especially if you want any results at all.

Re:The children will ask themselves

[HooliganIntellectual]

Well some of us are smart enough to understand that IQ tests are only good for measuring somebody's ability to take a specific type of test. Throwing around your IQ on Slashdot is pretty funny. So you are good at taking tests. Some of us understand that intelligence is something more complicated than a test score.

Re:The children will ask themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming up with good ideas for projects and entertaining yourself have very very little to do with intelligence. I have an IQ of 151, and thanks to the public education system, even in the gifted program, I lost all will to learn anything outside of the few topics that are extremely interesting to me, none of which I had any exposure to academically until college since even the gifted programs are aimed to the lowest common denominator, which is the 125-135 people, who aren't too bright.

Wow, that borders on arrogantly condescending, but as I don't think you meant to be, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :-)

Here's a thought, though - consider that perhaps you're not really a genius. My IQ has been measured at 156 and 160, the only two times I've been formally tested (30 minute free tests on the internet don't count). And while I know I'm smart, a natural problem solver, one very clever dude - I know that I'm not a genius.

As different as I am from most other people, I'm more like than dislike them. To me, true genius is manifested by remarkable originality and insight into something - anything, could be physics or math or music or science or even pseudoscience like psychology :-). I'm not talking about savants, who are profoundly deficient in all other areas.

I think genius starts a hell of a lot higher than 145. The 99.9th percentile isn't all that special; you're still talking about 1 in 1000, or two at the high school I went to, or millions of people worldwide. You and I are smart, but we're still a couple standard deviations short of the genius bit of the bell curve.

I don't get straight As. The problem in college is, topics that don't interest us still require learning of simple facts, which we are not necessarily motivated to exert the effort to learn. Being a genius does not imply being a good student, and vice versa.

Speak for yourself. I hated organic chemistry, most of my "general education" requirements ... and yet I still was able to motivate myself to do well in them, because I was mature enough to realize that I needed a high gpa in order to have a strong application for medical school. And here I am, years later, done with school and happy in every way with my life.

It's possible to be a lazy, undisciplined genius. You're not even that, though. You're a lazy, undisciplined pretty-smart guy who thinks his relatively high IQ makes him a genius and justifies his laziness. Quit making exuses for your lack of motivation.

You're not a genius. Get over yourself.

Neglect?

[mattwarden]

Once neglected, the NY Times reports that...

If you ask me, the Times asked for it with all that required registration crap.

Its not the smart kids that change the world

[ryg0r]

IMO, its not the smart kids. Its the kids that are motivated and put in the effort into doing something.

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.

Riiight.

[Chowderbags]

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.