Slashdot Mirror


The Poor Neglected Gifted Child

theodp writes "'Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore,' explains The Boston Globe's Amy Crawford in The Poor Neglected Gifted Child, 'have national laws requiring that children be screened for giftedness, with top scorers funneled into special programs. China is midway through a 10-year "National Talent Development Plan" to steer bright young people into science, technology, and other in-demand fields.' It seems to be working — America's tech leaders are literally going to Washington with demands for "comprehensive immigration reform that allows for the hiring of the best and brightest". But in the U.S., Crawford laments, 'we focus on steering all extra money and attention toward kids who are struggling academically, or even just to the average student' and 'risk shortchanging the country in a different way.' The problem advocates for the gifted must address, Crawford explains, is to 'find ways for us to develop our own native talent without exacerbating inequality.' And address it we must. 'How many people can become an astrophysicist or a PhD in chemistry?' asks David Lubinski, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University. We really have to look for the best — that's what we do in the Olympics, that's what we do in music, and that's what we need to with intellectual capital."

38 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. Higher SAT scores, etc by tomhath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fast tracking higher potential students is common pretty much everywhere except the US. Here we "foster understanding and tolerance" by mainstreaming students with special needs. We also ensure the average SAT score is below that of countries that limit who can take it to their top students.

    1. Re:Higher SAT scores, etc by ideonexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's interesting that no one is questioning the basic premise of this article: that the US puts more resources into remedial students than gifted. It makes for just one more thing people can complain and get self-righteous about, but my experience in Virginia schools is just the opposite. Here in Virginia, my gifted friends got to attend special highly-funded magnet schools or got to attend the #1 public high school in the country and the gifted classrooms at my high school got the best supplies and brightest teachers. As someone who was originally tracked in remedial everything and had to fight his way up to advanced-level courses, I can tell you that the remedial classes received no instruction whatsoever and were basically just holding-pens for students until they turned 18 and the system could kick them out.

      Maybe some states don't have a gifted program, but before we all go tilting at windmills, maybe we should realize this is a state-level problem, one that does not apply to Virginia, and may not apply to your state either.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    2. Re:Higher SAT scores, etc by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Gifted musicians should learn their instrument without a teacher. Gifted athlets should train all by themselves.

      No. It's actually hard work to turn a gifted child into a prodigy and later a well educated adult. Everything else is a waste of talent.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Higher SAT scores, etc by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must be a teacher. A couple years ago I overheard some teachers saying almost exactly the same thing: "gifted students take care of themselves."

      Except ... When everything is super easy, it is easy to learn how to coast with no effort. Then when things get hard, the reality check can be horribly destructive. And while it is true that left to his/her(*) own devices, a 12 year old is going to take care of himself, with the brain still developing it's a total crapshoot as to whether he'll be making choices that will be personally helpful in life.

      Finally, there will be some example of some city kid learning everything in the college library on his own. Awesome. Except millions of kids don't have that opportunity because they don't live in a great city, or even a city, nor have access to a library anywhere but at school (a tiny crappy one). When all you have to do is look out the window and daydream, you don't learn many useful life skills.

      (*) last male/female

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  2. Reality in the USA.... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Smart and gifted kid? Shove them to the back of the class. Oh that not so bright kid that can run and catch really good? he is a superstar!

    We worship the Low IQ and brawn. (NFL players for example) while ridicule anyone smart. It is a culture thing, and in inner city urban cultures being a smart kid get's you isolated badly as your peers try to make you feel as if you are a traitor.

    It has always been this way, on top of that Teachers are scared to death of kids that are smarter than them, and will punish the smart kid. Our education system is set up for average and can not handle the two sides of the bell.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Reality in the USA.... by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh that not so bright kid that can run and catch really good? he is a superstar!

      You've really only touched upon the disfunction in American society. I could write a Ph.d thesis on how the United States is breeding itself into obsolecense. We are a country that is more obsessed with brawny men in tight pants moving a ball from one end of a large field to another than we are with keeping our country educated and competitive.

      When I was getting my degree, our school would close off parking for academic purposes so the football spectators could park. Nevermind that we had group assignments to complete; there be a bunch of young boys moving their balls across the field!

      Our society is slitting its own throat.

    2. Re:Reality in the USA.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We worship the Low IQ and brawn.

      Nah, the USA worships one and only one thing: money

      NFL star of the day is making money. Worship.

      Former NFL star who blew all his money away? No worship. Might even laugh at him

      Different former NFL star who uses his money to build a business? Worship.

      Note that worshiping money isn't the same as worshiping wealth. As comedian Chris Rock once said: Shaq is rich. The guy who pays Shaq is wealthy.

      Americans worship the rich NFL star, but not the wealthy guys who run the NFL. The truly wealthy people mostly operate unnoticed, or they're seen as "evil rich people". Only a few people worship the wealthy, and they're often called right-wing nutjobs

    3. Re:Reality in the USA.... by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Smart and gifted kid? Shove them to the back of the class. Oh that not so bright kid that can run and catch really good? he is a superstar!"

      I can't speak of the entire job market, but there are a lot of very smart people without jobs right now. If smart kids are encouraged to be smart and pursue higher academic goals, we need an economy that can support them first and not just at the Grad school level. One major hurdle is TFA posted yesterday about Gates predicting workforce replaced by AI/Robots article. We need to plan and prepare for the future by having real discussions on the future workforce. With all the recent unemployed/underemployed Grads right now, there isn't much motivation as it is.

      The start-your-own business model fails miserably when too many people are competing for finite resources.

      "Teachers are scared to death of kids that are smarter than them"
      Not only that but we have an education system that 'forces' everyone to think the same way.

    4. Re:Reality in the USA.... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we also need to seriously reevaluate how we're thinking about which kids are "smarter". At least when and where I was going through school, the school wouldn't "shove the smart kids to the back of the class," so to speak. By high school, they did put the "smart kids" into honors classes and AP classes and spent a lot of time helping them get into college and all that.

      The problem was more that all the "smart kids" were largely upper-middle class white and Asian kids who had no behavior problems, no learning disabilities, and were all sweet little goody-two-shoes who did exactly what their teachers said. If you strayed at any point from the approved path, or from the approved line of thinking, you were a "bad kid" who no longer deserved an education. It very much fit into the complaints that I've read that our education is a "factory model", i.e. children are comparable to cogs being churned out in a factory. If the kids adhere to the specs we have set out, then they're "good" and should be move along in the process. If they don't adhere to spec, then they're defective and need to be thrown out.

      The problem is that there are lots of wonderful and intelligent and useful people who don't "adhere to spec". There may be people with a lot of potential who don't score well on standardized tests. They may be brilliant in some ways but a disaster in other areas of their academic career. We learn, sooner or later, that different people have different strengths, but just because they don't fit the mold of a "perfect student" doesn't make them worthless.

  3. Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The entire POINT of offering special educational opportunities to gifted children is to help them grow further than they would in a standard classroom. That increases inequality between them and the other children that aren't capable of handling the gifted kids' workload.

    1. Re:Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by eapache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, taking the premise that inequality is bad, then this is bad. In fact, under that premise, meritocracy itself is bad because it awards benefits to those who already have an advantage of some sort.

      The west's obsession with both meritocracy and equality is hilariously impossible.

    2. Re:Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, taking the premise that inequality is bad, then this is bad. In fact, under that premise, meritocracy itself is bad because it awards benefits to those who already have an advantage of some sort. The west's obsession with both meritocracy and equality is hilariously impossible.

      Balancing two competing but important objectives? Impossible?

      No, it is the basic problem of all life. If you can't do that, you can't do anything of value.

      Note the poster has framed this to push the view that it is "worrying about inequality" that must be bad, not inequality itself.

      And of course the premise that attacking inequality must necessarily also attack meritocracy is a false framing. Crony capitalism has far more to do with inequality than "meritocracies" of any sort.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. But what I have to wonder if we are missing out in a different way. Some kids develop at a different pace, is it optimal to have a system where a 'late bloomer' is marked as slow or average for their first few years of school? Once that label is put on, it is part of their self image thereafter. What if there are geniuses who don't really come into their own until high school who then never get a chance since they have been 'average'? I read somewhere that when you test people at 35 years these early differences disappear, at least in most cases. Sorry no reference, so it may not be an accurate recollection. Just thinking out loud here, I am not proposing anything.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by necro81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The inequality they are talking about is social and economic. The children from well-to-do families always have opportunities beyond those of poorer children. A precocious or "gifted" child from a wealthy family has access to all the resources necessary to realize their potential. Where can an equally gifted child from a poor family turn? Their potential is completely unrealized in the U.S.'s current educational system, even though their abilities could easily vault them and their families out of poverty and into prosperity. Meanwhile, the mediocre children and dullards from wealthy families, owing to the resources available to them, gain entrance into Harvard. This situation reinforces (social / economic) inequality and ossifies mobility. In a country that purports to be a merit society, this should be disturbing.

      I don't begrudge wealthy parents doing everything they can to provide for their children - gifted or otherwise. But as a societal matter, opportunities should exist for exceptional students no matter what their economic status. It's not simply a matter of fairness or equality - we are talking about exceptional children here, by definition not the same as everyone else - but of developing the best talent for the good of all.

    5. Re:Of course it's going to exacerbate inequality. by locofungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't giving gifted children the opportunity to take advantage of their gifts.

      The problem is that the wealthy will use their wealth to coach, and otherwise promote their average or slightly above average children so that they get into those places for gifted children in preference to the gifted poor child who can only score as average or slightly above average due to lack of opportunity and education.

      I'm sure the same problem happens in the Asian cultures where this is the norm. There is possibly a difference in that educational excellence is seen as something to boast about and so a poor uneducated peasant who has an exceptional child will still want to see them enrolled in a gifted child program unlike in the west where ignorance is sometimes seen as a badge of honour.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  4. Color me surprised. Not. by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wonder what the problem is? You tell me....

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
  5. Re:Existing programs by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those programs have been defunded in favor of Common Core.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  6. "Steering the money"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this describes the whole thing.

    As if one had to take away from the one to give to the other. That idea of eihter-or is so cynical I can't believe it.

    The "gifted" are so few that it wouldn't take such a huge amount of money. In the meantime, no investment is too small to raise the "general level" -- but who in power really desires well educated (and possibly critical) sheeple?

    Remember: raising the general level will *help* the luminaries. And of course, the luminaries merit special treatment -- and in exchange will raise the general level.

    1. Re:"Steering the money"? by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +5 - someone who thinks instead of priding themselves on being smart.

      Also overlooked is that gifted children should cost no more than average students to educate. Students who are actually gifted should be able to learn more on their own, rather than needing so much handholding. If they can't, then they're not truly gifted.

  7. School is boring smart kids by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By standardizing everything, and focusing on the those who are struggling, we are boring the smarter kids. They go through school with little struggle, because they pick up the content quickly. Later, when the concepts get harder, they have trouble because they were not challenged earlier in the educational process.

    1. Re:School is boring smart kids by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is so true. I have received a few comments from my daughter's teachers that it's amazing to find a student who not only understands the material, but also participates in class.

      I'd also like to point out that we shouldn't be directing the "gifted" children into certain fields but rather trying to figure out what they want to do. When I was in school, I got noticed as gifted, along with a few other kids, and they started a program for us. Mostly a lot of the older sciences like biology and chemistry, which I was really never interested in. They never bothered to ask me what I wanted to learn. Had there been extra computer courses or something along those lines, I would have got a lot more out of the extra work I had to do.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:School is boring smart kids by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True in parts and yet horribly wrong in others.

      Disclaimer: I was a "gifted child" and yes, I was bored in school, so much that my parents sent me to a psychologist (who told them there's nothing wrong with me except that I'm bored) and then to special gifted-child after-school courses. I had my first chemistry course 5 years before I had it in school, and I had computer lessons and shortly after my own computer in 6th grade, at a time when computer stuff was an optional course in high school.

      And yet, I don't blame school for ruining my chances. On the contrary, I believe school should be much like it used to, i.e. roll back the dumbing down you've done to it just because you want better PISA scores. Schools purpose is to create a baseline, a solid level of basic education that later on in life you can expect everyone to have. As such, it has to be so that everyone can acquire it. Some easily, some will struggle, but it is a (low) standard and exactly because of that it is useful.

      What needs to change is the attitude that school covers everything. These days, not only have people largely stopped understanding that you can (*gasp*!) educate yourself out of school, in addition to whatever you get there, but you should also (*big gasp*!!) let the school do the teaching and keep things like teaching manners and basic social skills at home with the parents who desperately need to stop thinking they can outsource the raising of a child.

      If more people understood school correctly as a standardized base-level, less people would send their kids to school and think that covers their parental responsibilities and aside from that it's just feeding and housing the brat.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  8. It's okay to screen for exceptional athletes. by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But somehow, if you begin to screen for exceptional intelligence, you are (horrors) implying that some of the snowflakes aren't so special after all.

    We have an active religious lobby in the US that discourages free thinking, preferring indoctrination that includes no Bayesian interference.

    Unless and until equivalent accolades are placed upon the throne of intellectual exceptionalism, American society is doomed to do well in the Olympics and poorly in graduating advanced math/science/physics wunderkind.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  9. what an idiot by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But in the U.S., Crawford laments, 'we focus on steering all extra money and attention toward kids who are struggling academically, or even just to the average student' and 'risk shortchanging the country in a different way.'

    No, you utter imbecile. The problem of the western culture is not fund distribution. It's attitude.

    Our "stars" are musicians, actors and professional athletes. Certainly people who work hard and having natural talent definitely helps - but it's not the smart, gifted people we adore in our culture. There's no science-based equivalent of the Super Bowl. The closest we get is that we sometimes thing astronauts are pretty cool.

    You want more smart people in your country? I don't have a magic pill for that, but I can give you an indicator of how close you are: When the sexy girls fuck the geeks instead of the football studs, you're getting somewhere. When this map has more scientists on it than coaches, you're pretty close. When we pay two-digit millions in salary not to people who pretend to be a robot from the future on camera, or throwing an air-filled dead pig gut around, but to people who work on curing cancer or inventing new methods for energy production, then you won't have to worry about not having enough brains in the country.

    The funding thing is just a small part of that culture.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:what an idiot by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You want more smart people in your country? I don't have a magic pill for that, but I can give you an indicator of how close you are: When the sexy girls fuck the geeks instead of the football studs, you're getting somewhere.

      Parent is describing Nerdtopia.

      And there's something else in there about higher pay, too.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  10. At the same time... by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why are we looking Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and China as our models? What scientific advances have come out of those countries recently?

    US universities still generate a disproportionate fraction of scientific research, and US companies generate a disproportionate fraction of technological innovation.

    There's nothing wrong with spending money on gifted kids, but something is wrong with how those countries do it.

    1. Re:At the same time... by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why are we looking Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and China as our models? What scientific advances have come out of those countries recently?

      Not many, because they send their kids to US universities which get the credit. Look at the names on those research papers getting published. Last I checked, Yang, Matsumoto, and Konwa were not common last names in the US.

      US universities still generate a disproportionate fraction of scientific research, and US companies generate a disproportionate fraction of technological innovation.

      Of course they do. But look at the rosters. Do you think US universities and companies limit themselves to the US? On my own projects it's pretty common to have 50% or more of the team be from a foreign country. Both universities and companies pull the best they can the cheapest they can and take the credit where possible.

      --
      ~X~
  11. Re:Niggers and Jews by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anonymous cowards
    Can be deranged
    This one’s below the IQ range.

    Anomymous cowards
    Some say they love God
    But this one’s behavior would make that seem odd

    Consider this
    It’s no surprise
    That the stench of his stink, will water your eyes

    For in fair society
    If you know you are wrong
    Post anonymously as none can tie you to your bomb.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .Yes, I know that not all Anonomous Cowards posting on this site are like this fine example of humanity. So, my apologies in advance

  12. Home school by aethelrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having spent pretty much my entire school life bored out of my mind and unchallenged by uninterested and uninteresting teachers, I recognized this starting to happen in my own son's life. After some initial reluctance and self-doubt, my wife and I removed him from mainstream education and started to home school. We're fortunate that my wife is a stay-home mum dedicated and intellectual enough to do a fantastic job teaching our kids. I help out with the sciences, maths and programming lessons in evenings and on weekends.

    In short our choice to home school is the best thing we could have done for our kid, he's significantly happier, learning much more and crucially he's capable of much more than he would be at school because we're prepared to teach him at HIS pace.

    We periodically test our son to check how he compares to other students in core subjects like english, maths etc. The last time we did this was a couple of months ago and he was comfortably working at GCSE level in these core subjects. He's well beyond GCSE level in the fields that interest him. He's eight years old.

    His teachers could not sufficiently challenge him or make the most of his talents so he was side-lined and ignored at school. My wife and I are now quite confident of our abillity to impart knowledge to our son so we've decided to do the same thing with his little sister.

    I don't think mainstream education makes the most of our kids and I don't think it makes great employees either. Having recently tried to hire new junior programmers for my team I was astounded by how weak the candidates were even though they had CS degrees from good universities. Like lots of things in life if you want them doing well you're probably best doing them yourself. Homeschool for the win!

    1. Re:Home school by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with homeschooling is consistency. It's also commonly used by parents who just want to mold their children into little duplicates of themselves - which is exactly what you are doing. Fine for you, you sound like a good person to duplicate, but there's a reason much of the homeschool movement in the US is run by fundamentalists who want to shield their children from 'evilution' and make sure they grow up to be flag-waving american-exceptionalist patriots.

      Unfortunately most parents are not so intellectually capable nor so intellectually honest as yourself, so homeschooling is really not a good general solution.

    2. Re:Home school by dbc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stop spreading uninformed drivel. In one large, mainstream, local homeschooling group, about 45% of the members homeschool for religious reasons. The rest have a large variety of reasons. In the homeschooling group we are most active in, it is 100% gifted students who's parents were dissatsified with the various public and private school options.

      Modern homeschooling doesn't happen so much at home any more anyway. There are many online options. It becomes online schooling with home tutoring. You might want to read "Disrupting Class" by management consultant Clayton Christensen. His thesis is that soon public schools will switch to the same model -- online class delivery according to the students' needs, with teachers reinforcing and tutoring on a more individualized basis.

      Homeschooling is a great option for gifted kids. They crave challenge -- as a parent, you want to find good mentors and activities for them, and then stand back.

    3. Re:Home school by s0nicfreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As another homeschooler; my kids are ahead on social development, because they have the ability (and the time) to interact with a wide range of people daily. Being kept in a room all day, surrounded by people of only your own age, mostly your own race and family-income-level, that you can't even talk to for much of the day does not do well for your social skills. Sure, you'll be okay with interacting with people of your own age, race and income level, but not so good beyond that (and where, beyond school, do you see that kind of segregation?).

      Even my autistic son's social skills are thriving; I'm sure if he went to school he'd be ostracized and miserable.

    4. Re:Home school by dbc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So my daughter completed multi-variable calculus at a local university at age 13 and got the top score in the class, sitting along side all the freshman engineering students. She took the AP Bio at age 10 and scored a 5. She herself feels the local schools would not serve her well, concluding this after taking with age-peer friends at gymnastics practice, track club, and orchestra, just three of the activities that provide social interaction for our daughter. You and all your nanny-state know-it-all kindred need to stop telling other people how to raise their kids.

      Your nephews, perhaps, are not getting the kind of social experiences that you think they should -- and you may have a point, they may not be served well by their current social experiences. First of all, don't paint all homeschoolers with the same brush. Secondly, is there a permanent harm? Thirdly, you'll never convince me that the socialization of a typical public school with all of it's dysfunctional cliques, dysfunctional fashions, and bullying is somehow better. I can only imagine the kind of severe bullying that my daughter would have to endure at the typical high school, just because she is a girl that likes math and science. Go read "They Sibling Society" by Robert Blye and then try to tell me the current public school system is good for kids' socialization.

      I really get tired of people who haven't thought deeply about the problem, haven't read widely about the issues, and don't face the problem in their own life somehow thinking they should be able to dictate to me.

  13. Better than skipping them by rebelwarlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in primary school, it was pretty evident that I was bored in class, simply because it was too basic. You know what they did? The just pushed me forward a year. And then another, and another, and another. This meant I was 10 when I started high school. You know what sucks about being 10 in high school? Everything. Other kids are assholes - even more than usual - because you make them look bad. Teachers expect more from you, but at the same time, they don't really want to put up with you. Even PE is bullshit at that point, because 10-year-olds suck at physically keeping up with 14-year-olds.

    I'm not sure about the numbers, so I don't know if this is a worthwhile endeavor, but here's what I always thought would be a better solution: gifted students should progress at a social pace similar to other kids. This means they would be in a class with other students their age who had also been placed in the gifted student program up until the age of 17 or 18, when they would normally graduate high school anyway. The major difference would be that these students, at a time deemed fit by qualified educators, would begin earning college credits. That way, they would have a running start upon entering college, and not be socially crippled.

  14. Re:Niggers and Jews by nucrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My best student would qualify as on the street in the AC. He may very well end up that way. He is no doubt my best and brightest student that can't make it to class. When he does, he's straight A, all the way. Yet because he's working extra hours just to get by, because he doesn't have backing to focus on school without having to have two jobs to get in, he's struggling to make it to class.

    While I know you are just trolling, I do want to point out that I have some of the best and brightest who just can't seem to get the assistance they need and because of that they are struggling with the basics. The bigger point is that we aren't seeking out these bright few and culturing them to become the best and then we wonder why our advanced college programs only have a select few from other countries in them.

    This argument, tried and true boils down to the following:
    1. We don't have the support infrastructure in place to culture the best and brightest
    2. Society is too busy with bread and circuses to care about those of innovative talent. As long as we are fed and entertained, we are happy.
    3. We focus on people who use the existing infrastructure to get ahead as leeches.
    4. We do not respect hard work at all levels. Ditch digging is hard work, and I don't think you could get a CEO to do that for a day. (A new show idea.)

    --
    Place something witty here
  15. I know this is Slashdot, but... by superdude72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let me pose a counter argument.

    In many fields, we already have more PhDs than we know what to do with. There aren't enough university positions for all of them. Their salaries end up not being commensurate with all those years spent in school, and they live miserable frustrating lives trying to raise funding for their research.

    On the other hand, in the USA the public debate still revolves around things like supply-side economics, climate change, and what God thinks about abortion. Issues that are settled among educated people who aren't demagoguing an issue for personal gain.

    I would posit that we are already doing enough for the gifted in our society. What we really need to do is *raise the average*. If that means we end up with plumbers who speak three languages and have a B.S. in chemistry, so be it. We are better off as a society when the average person is equipped with the skillset of a university graduate. If you look at the Nordic countries, they're pretty much already there, and better for it.

    This was the reason people like Thomas Jefferson supported public education. Not as job training, but as a prerequisite of citizenship. For democracy to succeed, the average person must possess the "ars liberalis"--the liberal arts--literally, the arts and skills of being a free person.

  16. Re:Existing programs by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ^^^^ Wish I had mod points to mod this up.

    In our school district, they are talking about cutting art and music in elementary school due to lack of funds. However, they are hiring 4 administrators whose job it will be to teach teachers how to implement Common Core the "right way." The "right way" in New York being EngageNY which is literally a script that teachers must read to their students. They are told what to say, how to say it, when to say it and how long to stay on each topic - broken down into 10 - 15 minute segments. They are not allowed to deviate from the script (though some teachers still do, risking getting in trouble in favor of educating their students). All students, meanwhile, are required to learn in exactly the same way at exactly the same pace. Because we all know that all kids are exactly alike, right?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  17. Re:Niggers and Jews by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Very funny, however, I think the final verse should read

    Anonymous cowards,
    You know you are wrong
    So, don't post anonymously, just move along.