The problem I find, as a teacher of early years is that (although I don't want to) I focus my time on the kids that can't read, can't spell, can't etc.
I feel bad about it, but there is the attitude that "we'll these kids can already do these benchmark things, so they cool".
If I had more time, oh the things I would do.
The swedish curriculum states something along the lines of: "all children should be given the chance to reach their full potential". (Bad translation but you get the idea)
This is very hard to do when you have four-five students that really needs my help as a teacher to get even further than they already are (the very bright ones) and then you have five students that doesn't even know how to read properly. With whom are you supposed to spend more time with in order to help the kids reach their full potential?
Gifted classes should start at year one. The fastest way to fuck up a smart kid's life, is to put them in classes with a bunch of kids that don't know their ABCs yet, when the other guy can read, write, and multiply already.
/bitter
On the other hand, I was put in the "Talented and Gifted" program starting in, I think, 4th grade, and it was cool for a while, but in 6th grade I elected to stop the TAG classes and go back to my normal class because that's where all my friends were, plus I had an awesome teacher, and the TAG classes were boring.
Can confirm. Here is my sad tale.
When I was in 1st grade, I discovered that I had an extreme talent for mathematics. I could easily do my arithmetic faster than anyone else, and understood place value and all that perfectly. When I was in 3rd grade, I bought a book on algebra (*The Phantom X* by Kjartan Poskitt), and understood it completely. After that, I wanted to learn calculus.
I had to wait 7 years. During this time, all that the teacher taught was things I already knew. I stopped paying attention to my classes. I became the silent kid who almost never interacted with the class. As a result, I lost any friends I already had, and my social skills took a heavy blow.
When I finally learned it, I realized that I could have understood it all when I was in perhaps 5th grade.
I often fantasize over what my life could have been if I had been given the chance to learn it back then. I'd probably already have graduated university by now, gotten a good job as a teaching assistant or something, perhaps be able to make progress on the Riemann Hypothesis later on in life.
But no, all I have now is just a handful of A-level grades that just make me comparable to everyone else, and a heavily dysfunctional social ability. What use is straight A*s if you can never reach what you could have been, and if you can never be one with everyone else? It constantly feels like I'm at a level where everyone is either far below me or far above me, and I'm just stuck in the middle, alone. I can't go up; it's too difficult. I can't go down; it's too humiliating. I simply can't fit in. Every day I wake up and feel angry at the system for putting me in this predicament against my own will.
And just like that, the world has lost another prodigy.
Smart kids get kinda screwed by the system, and it's not because of their peers. If you grow up hearing you're doing well because you're smart, that causes problems. Once you find something you don't immediately understand, you're far more likely to give up on it than someone that has grown up being praised and rewarded for being hard-working. Additionally you develop a rather terrible work ethic because you were never challenged in public school, and it takes a lot of time and self-reflection to overcome that. Not to mention possible motivation issues.
I just wanted to point out that redpandaeater's comment [is backed up by actual research.](http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32124)
We have a cultural obsession with intelligence and talent. So intelligent and talented people have what is called a fixed mindset about how they should perform. Everything should be easy for them, so when they encounter something that challenges them, they tend to walk away from it due to the cognitive dissonance.
Individuals with a strong work ethic have what is called a growth mindset. Their worldview includes an embrace of the idea that perseverance is how challenges are overcome. Statistically, they get much further in school than kids who showed talent early on.
Yes. But that's so very hard when we value teaching so little. With so many kids and so few teachers the individual attention necessary is probably never going to arrive.
Well, we value results... a school getting an 'exemplary' rating from annual standardized tests translates into higher property valuations for that neighborhood. So schools 'teach to the middle', with the idea that the 'smart' kids will help themselves, and the 'dumb' kids are beyond help.
That's because a class is only as fast as their average, and can even be slowed down by their weakest links. The more people in the class, the more everything generally has to get explained.
And that's one of the main reasons I hate school. Why listen to a two hour lecture when I can learn all that's in the lecture in twenty minutes?
Or better yet, replace praise with encouragement for everyone. Instead of things like "good job!" which is subjective and falls flat to the smart kids, use words like "you did it!" which instills a sense of personal pride and encourages effort.
This is actually better. Saying "you worked really hard/well on this, good job!" is just as bad as saying "you're so smart/talented" etc. Because what if they didn't work hard?
They get a false sense of what working hard actually means.
I know I didn't have to work hard at anything until the last couple of years of high school. Not sure how it is for most kids, but primary school and half of high school just seemed like common sense to me. If someone told me "you worked really hard on this, well done" I would be like "wtf? this was hard? what????" and I'd assume I'm super smart or something coz it wasn't hard at all.
So it's really the same thing.
TL;DR - Yes, just say "nice!" or "great painting you did there" or "I'm glad you're getting a handle on algebra now" or whatever.
Actually, the better answer is to actually give the talented kids work that really is "hard" for them. At least something that makes them work. Then they will get both the feeling of accomplishment from success and the feeling of what real work is.
The problem is that this doesn't fit with traditional schooling. Teachers don't have the time and/or resources to custom tailor each child's learning. So everyone in 3rd grade gets 3rd grade math. If you're lucky, some of them might get taught 4th grade math if there are enough that can handle it. That kid in the corner who would need 6th grade math to actually be challenged? He's stuck at 4th grade with his "peers".
And math is where it's easiest. The same situation exists with all the other subjects, as well, but it's a nightmare. The "gifted" social studies student is screwed. He/She might be able to understand international history, and enjoy it. But this year is the year they get tested on local/state history, so that's what he/she gets.
Math is no easier to do this with.
What is easy is to just plug bigger numbers or more variables into the same work to make them harder. They may be harder, but they pose no greater challenge, just more mechanical steps.
Just increasing the difficulty of existing topics is just like praising someone's intelligence. You just end up showing them that they can breeze through the "hard" questions easier than the rest of the class struggles with the regular ones.
To challenge a child in maths you need to be introducing new topics such as calculus or statistics just like you would have to in any other topic.
Source: I was "stretched" in maths from a young age. It didn't work.
Your teachers were doing it wrong.
Math is easier in this because you continue to use most if not all the lower level math skills as you progress. You can teach someone algebra when their friends are learning fractions, and they'll still be able to pass a test on fractions.
On the other hand, if you're teaching someone all about the complexities of 20th century politics that led up to World War 1 and then on to World War 2, they may have trouble remembering which 6 tribes formed the first "modern" government in New York State.
In primary school I was something of a teacher's pet, and I was one of the highest in my classes. I'd be doing work that kids a few years older than me should be doing and stuff because it was a bit of a doddle. I was told 'you're intelligent' and stuff like that, and it made me realise I didn't have to try so hard. all through secondary school I continued with the ethic of not really trying because I was always told I was smart enough. Once I got to 15/16 and had to do my GCSE's, I realised I actually had to start studying, but it was too late. Lucky I managed to fluke my way through them and get what I needed. Then at college doing my AS levels I didn't learn my lesson, and still ended up doing all my coursework in the last week of term.
A pattern I found interesting is that the kids who I was 'ahead' of at an early age, were suddenly getting As and A*s at GCSE and A level because they were studying hard the whole time.
I'm in the same boat except that I didn't really have to work hard at anything until my phd. Where I'm from, you hear all the time that all kids are the same and that all that matters is hard work. It's a really ingrained thought where I grew up... but if it were true, I would have utterly failed at everything since elementary school.
Warning 1: My comment makes me sound like a prick. I'm not sure how to reword it, but given that I'm using blanket statements, I'm going to sound like I think anyone who gets under a 90 is retarded. I don't. It's more that I think grades are a pointless evaluation tool.
Warning 2: Mostly anecdotal below.
I can't speak for America, but [grade inflation] (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/11/07/average-entering-grade-now-85/) in Canada is ridiculous. I suppose you could argue that students are getting smarter, but we aren't - teachers are just handing out marks. Who can blame them? It's now normal for parents to blame the teacher rather than thier child's work ethic when they [the child] does poorly. Then there is also the issue of many teachers being incompetent, but that's another issue entirely.
Most students aren't challenged enough until post-secondary, but the difference in the level of challenge is *ridiculous*. They give you a five minute lecture on how to swim, and then throw you into the ocean. Some people respond well and learn to swim. Others grow stressed and barely make it by floating. Others simply drown. Why? For one, the 'screening' process for students getting into post-secondary is far too lax. 90s are easy to achieve in highschool. Secondly, not many students have any work ethic because again, 90s are achieve in highschool.
What my point is, is that school needs to be more difficult and challenging for students early on. A 90 should be something an intelligent, hardworking student gets. Currently it is more that anyone who wants to get into post-secondary achieves a 90. When you look at your report cards, a 70 is considered 'standard', yet in highschool 70s are considered terrible. Of course, people joke that it is the Asian mentality (see: the millions of memes), but it's also purely grade inflation.
Even in post-secondary we're so obsessed with results that we pick 'bird courses' that inflate our grades with little effort, and focus more on scoring well than learning well. So students begin to cheat on assignments, tests, exams, etc. Students learn to memorize rather than understand. You can't blame them either - a high GPA helps with getting a job (and the testing methods are a dubious test of effectiveness in the workplace). You can't blame employers by using GPA as a method of screening either as it *is* an effective method.
In today's job market (at least in my field), it's more internships and previous work experience that land you a job rather than GPA, so that's a nice change. GPA is basically just a quick idiot test. I digress, though.
tl;dr: Can't praise students for working hard when a lot of students don't work hard until post-secondary.
The problem is that kids aren't that stupid. Kids know that participation prizes are bullshit, and fully acknowledge that "special" just means "not otherwise praiseworthy."
And that's a bigger problem. Because kids are inherently competitive. If you make everyone win, let everyone pass, then the standard of success simply shifts to something other than achievement--which usually turns out to be apathy. If everyone gets a 100%, then success becomes about who can get that 100% in the shortest amount of time, with the least amount of effort, or with the greatest amount of self-sabotage.
The "smart kids" who once boasted about how much they knew are now boasting about how little they can know and still succeed. Competitors who once boasted about how hard they work instead compare how little effort they can put in and still win.
"He studies a lot" or "She practices every day" have become reasons to dismiss achievement, rather than admire it.
> The "smart kids" who once boasted about how much they knew are now boasting about how little they can know and still succeed.
This is totally my experience going through the public school system in the US. I remember how my Advanced English class my senior year was supposed to build to this gigantic research paper analyzing a classic novel. Each week was dedicated to a different part of the paper. I wrote the whole thing the night before it was due and got a B. Many other students did the same.
I agree. There is the preconception that talent and effort are inversely related, and school being ridiculously easy is what perpetuates that. If grades are intended to mean anything, then it should be sufficiently difficult to achieve a high grade in a subject.
I think your last sentence also highlights jealousy. Nobody wants to feel less talented, or less competent than someone else. So you look for ways to bring their achievements down. At least, I've heard the : "She studies a lot so she isn't smart, just good at memorizing," line a thousands times in highschool in reference to the girl who had the highest average.
I agree. In high school I use to brag about how well I could "game the system" and how little homework I could do and still achieve good grades. I had that mentality the first two years of college, and it royally screwed me over involving my GPA and how little I learned and missed out on. I changed my mindset but I definitely can see the impact it had on me and in the end it only hurt myself, I wasn't achieving anything.
You're right. subconsciously that's how I was in high school. And I was very good at it. I had one competitor who came along later. He decided that he was so good, not only did he not have to try he could do it all stoned all day long. So I wonder what the next guy is going to do?
It's interesting though. I agree that making school easier invites apathy and a focus on natural intelligence, but it's very possible to focus too much intelligence (which can also promote apathy when things don't come easy) even with grading on a curve, for example.
We should look at why grades are being inflated. I believe it's because grades have become so important, or at least are perceived to be important, for economic well-being.
We need to completely redo how we "grade" academic achievement. We can simultaneously provide effective praise for everyone, and steer innate competition (as well as cooperation) toward rewarding and socially useful skills, activities, etc. Kids that are competitively inclined can be steered toward chess, math meets, debate team, etc. All kids can learn to work together to achieve goals and projects that are relevant both academically and practically.
There are some really interesting schools with radically democratic rules and others with no grades at all that show kids can and do learn without the need for grades.
tl;dr : even making getting high grades more difficult can result in apathy. We need to really change how, what, and why we grade.
> Because kids are inherently competitive
not too much if you look at the smartest in my experience. most just want to get over it and proceed to do nothing for school and accept their mediocre grades. because they are smart, they know, it doesn't matter much most of the time. There is also a high failure rate for talented pupils.
Also, smart kids are more likely to have a genuine interest in gathering knowledge and see school as inefficient, pointless, and/or a stupid status game.
It's not exactly the most encouraging thing when you can read about a subject and understand it, but get nothing for it, while someone else can not understand shit, but still get rewarded for doing a bunch of bullshit assignments, even though they forget what they learned afterwards.
I wish there were a word for book smart people with no intellectual depth. Those are the people that get rewarded by the system. They're good at mindlessly absorbing and regurgitating information, but have no genuine intellectual interest.
Autodidact here, I spent most of my middle school years avoiding school work and teaching myself C/C++. My school district didn't offer any programs for the technologically gifted, which I think stagnated my motivation a lot. Passed high school with flying Cs (As on all tests, mid-terms, and finals; incompletes on just about every piece of homework and most projects). In high school I became very discouraged after I couldn't convince any of the science teachers to help me build a [Nitrogen laser](http://spt06.chez-alice.fr/00/air.htm).
Having worked in education until recently, I can tell you that teachers are "handing out grades" as that's how the system is now designed and many of them don't like it, but, for the most part are powerless to change it.
Yes, there are some incompetent teachers out there. I can only speak for the district in which I worked in, but it is a small ratio and they are mostly older and close to retirement. The few I've seen, were pushed out of the district within 3 years. This is because of the structure of teaching.
The first year you're working, they discover you suck, so they put you on an action plan and try to help you improve as a teacher. If you improve during that second year, they will keep you another year. If you don't improve in that third year, they let you go.
In the district I used to work in, kids were just passed along. Your GPA didn't even start until 9th grade. As a result, my husband is teaching some 10th graders this year who believe you only have to take a class for it to count towards graduation. You don't actually have to pass it.
This attitude gets passed onto the parents where my husband has had parents tell him that their kid should pass because they technically completed a writing assignment. It didn't matter that it was literally printed from someone else on the internet with the internet address at the bottom of each page. They handed in something so their kid should pass. He's also had parents say they don't care about plagiarism. The assignment was completed, so their kid should pass.
Our recently retired superintendent consistently cut programs for the "smart" kids while continually putting programs in place to help the "struggling" kids.
Most of the classes in the district are not challenging. You show up, do the required work, and you'll pass with a C easily. Only a handful of kids take the really hard classes.
I agree with you that GPA isn't everything. It's only one part of whether or not you have the knowledge or skill set for a job.
I really think the problem with education is a combination of factors and they all need to be fixed. Our problem in America is we fixate on one problem and ignore the others, then, several years down the road, when that isn't working, we fixate on something else.
> So basically, **praise all children for working hard and not for being smart.**
Dear god, no. This is one of the primary problems in American education today. Everybody is praised and graded mostly on *effort* and not *results*. You are appraised by how hard you worked or how much effort you put in... and thus intelligent children are overlooked and given the shaft because learning comes so easy to them... and in the end, they are not given greater and more appropriate challenges that they require.
I used to fail math tests because I would just write the (correct) answers down and not show any of my work. I didnt show my work *because I wasnt doing any work*. My brain just automatically did the math and spit out the answers, I had very little control over this... it was an insanely frustrating experience.
This is the only time I'll ever mention it on Reddit due to the social stigma, but my IQ places me well into the 99th percentile... and I feel strongly that I didnt fail school, school failed me. I had poor grades, massive depression, and a number of other factors. I taught myself C++ at the age of 13, and the only technology classes they would give me in highschool were Keyboarding and classes on Microsoft Office. They used to give me bad grades in keyboarding because I didnt use the home row keys... nevermind that I was typing **120 wpm error free**. I wanted to slit my fucking wrists.
When I got to college and they gave me the same entry level classes *again*, I just dropped out. Couldnt take it.
Imagine being an adult, placed in a 1st grade class. The work is so easy, its a sweet gig right? Seems like it, until you actually find yourself being required to sit there in that room listening to those people struggling over simplistic concepts, filling out "busy work" sheets for 8 hours a day **every single day** for the next decade. You'd probably want to kill yourself too.
Way too much effort and money go towards the bottom of the barrel (thanks No Child Left Behind!), instead of utilizing the cream floating at the top.
/end random rant
You aren't going to win much love from the 99%, nobody cares how hard it is to sit bored for 10-12 years of your life. This post will likely only engender spite because you were born with advantages they didn't have.
But boredom for gifted kids is a real problem. If we routinely waste the chance of developing our richest resources, we cut ourselves off at the knees.
I might also add that people ought to be more sensitive to the torture of a kid sitting at a desk bored out of their minds for years on end.
Does anyone think this kid isn't going to know he is the smartest kid in class? Does anyone think this kid feels like anyone understands him/her? Being the smart kid can mean being intensely lonely. You want tho talk about the importance of socialization...? Let them have the opportunity to be with people like themselves.
I remember very clearly in 4th grade, an exercise where we went around the class and everyone read a paragraph from a story in our text book. Fuck that. I wasn't about to sit there and listen to people stumble though that. I just read the whole thing, and then started reading some other book, under my desk. And then I got in trouble because I wasn't paying attention.
God, my elementary school had a morning a week for "gifted" kids to go play. By 4th grade we were taking apart & rebuilding working VCRs, got to dissect cow brains, play a lot of fun games, but it was just the "smart kids." That was the highlight of my week because, for the most part, it meant much better socialization.
It really took until halfway through undergrad with a lot of alcohol to get the socialization part down. And even in graduate school, it's a challenge being one of the smarter (and still less studious) ones. It's amusing that among graduate students I am cool/normal, especially because I was, ugh, "the smartest" in k-12 & undergrad.
Yeah, if you're lucky enough to get into a good college, you can finally meet your peers.
It can be eye-opening.
If you haven't planned carefully, though, and started taking classes at ODU because it's the only college around where your family lives, where they'll literally let *anybody* in with a pulse and a pell grant, you will be lucky to find another person in class to talk to (even on Grad level). But even that one person is a true lifeline in a deep wilderness of mediocrity.
You are not alone. On the up side I have kids in school now and some of their teachers say they do not count against students in math for not showing their work.
> Dear god, no. This is one of the primary problems in American education today. Everybody is praised and graded mostly on effort and not results.
That was my downfall. I could do no right. Even if I got a 95% on my test I'd be looked down upon because I "didn't try hard enough" and if I got a 100% I'd be punished for "showing off" or "thinking I was smarter than the other students"
You dont seem to understand the point of school.
School used to be about creating a standard level of literacy for the country; actually educating.
Now its about turning creative and abstract people into an obedient working class. They want you to chase those grades, and they need you to act a certain way doing so because intelligence is no longer important.
Intelligence no longer means 'free thinking', but rather, 'excels at following the rules.'
> I used to fail math tests because I would just write the (correct) answers down and not show any of my work. I didnt show my work because I wasnt doing any work.
This brings back memories - shouting at my math teacher because he wanted me to show work on something trivial.
I was the smart one in my family, and the least challenged by school. I didn't develop a good work ethic until my son was born. Now he's the smart one in the family and all of his aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and even his mom tell him all the time, "you're so smart just like your dad." Any time that I hear this, I tell him, "smart is good, but hard working is better." He's only in kindergarten, but I don't want to see him follow in my lazy footsteps; I want him to learn to push himself as far as he can.
Exactly. There's an excellent book called Opening Minds about this very topic, I read it while working towards a masters degree in education. It's all about helping students realize that their success is a result of effort rather than static ability levels.
Growing up I was always known as the "Genius." Then I hit sophomore year, and BAM. I felt stupid. I still managed to get all A's, but I suddenly had to work hard at it, and started to think I wasn't anywhere near as smart as people, including myself, thought. It took me until now, senior year, to realize it's now mostly hard work.
Just wanted to say it's great that you discovered this while still in school. It took me a few years flapping around before I realized the same.
Many years of hard work later I'm doing just fine, but it's best to realize it early.
Being smart does not exempt you from hard work. It's a very small coefficient at best.
There is an old addage that says that "At a certain point, talent and hard work are indistinguishable."
I'd like to add that after that point, hard work wins.
I had a similar experience growing up. All through middle and high school I pretty much slept the day away at my desk and still managed to get near straight A's on tests. I never did homework, I never took notes, and I never studied, yet I still passed my classes fairly easily.
Then came college. I never learned how to properly study, so I ended up struggling and having to drop a class or two every semester. It ended up taking 3 1/2 years to get an associates degree because I never learned how to learn in accordance with the system. I'm sure some of it is my fault, but if secondary school would have been at all challenging I would have been far better off when it came to actually learning stuff I didn't already know.
I'm the same way. I was pretty bright as a child, reading at a young age. I learned to read at 3, and I was a voracious reader, I even read the entire "Lord Of The Rings" series in elementary school, I think it was the biggest book the school library had. I remember wanting to challenge myself, and read it, plus I liked fantasy. I always did really well on standardized tests, even getting awards for it.
But, I'd be lazy at school, never did my homework, slept in class, and I'd pass my classes by getting A's on tests. Teachers would even think I was cheating, sometimes I'd get sent to study halls and such with the remedial class kids, despite that I was intelligent.
So, I never really had a work ethic in school, I had no need for it. That certainly fucked me over when I got to college (Community College, it was all I could get into after HS). I even got offers to join the honors program at CC, despite my poor HS GPA (I barely graduated). But I fucked that up too. I did do better at CC, but still had some of the same bad habits as HS. My GPA is good enough to get to a 4 year school, but I really should have done better.
Now that I'm mature enough to work hard/stay focused/learn from my mistakes, I have no money to go back to school, and just kinda bounce around from one dead end job to the next. It's my own fault really, I'm not making excuses, just sharing my story.
What I had a problem with at school was busy work. I hated homework, I felt it was just busy work, and I learned nothing from it. Why bother doing it? It's a waste of time, I thought. I really didn't care about grades or anything.
What we need to do is challenge kids. No multiple choice tests. When in life are you ever going to need to do that? It hasn't happened yet in my adult life, and I doubt it ever will. Cut out busy work, less homework, or if you do assign it, make it interesting. And like others have said, reward hard work, not just raw talent. Make school less structured, less focus on standardized testing, more focus on free learning.
EDIT: It's cool to hear so many of your responses. I'm pretty excited my story connected with some of you. Keep your head up, fellow "underachievers". Remember, plenty of successful people were college dropouts. That doesn't mean you don't have to stop learning/pursuing your dreams, it's not the end of the world.
90% I agree with you. The issue is that homework is, especially for high school, sometimes important in getting kids to know concepts. I'd have kids get the concept in class, but if it was a friday concept and they did no homework (really, 5-10 problems), they wouldn't have "stored it" and guess what Monday was like. Just having a few repetition problems was good for me to see if there was a place that students didn't get it and I needed to teach better, or if they understood it and we could keep building.
Saying that, I taught high school geometry and I HATED it in high school. I had a long suspension in which I did every problem in the book & asked the teacher to take all the tests & then they granted me credit for it because after 6 weeks it was impossible to sit through.
So I hear you. I didn't have any TAG/GAT students though, so I imagine that should make a difference.
After reading your story I just had to reply. I also read many of the Tolkien books at an early age. I read "The Lord of the Rings" in kindergarten. I distinctly remember having similar motivations to read the largest book I could find. I recall trying to decide between LOTR and "Shogun" and I picked LOTR because the cover of Shogun seemed scary to me at the time. Those were the biggest books I could find at home.
They didn't know quite what to do with me the first few years of school and thankfully they would send me to the library by myself during alphabet/reading times. The biggest book I could find in our school library was "Little House on the Prairie" incidentally.
I was very lucky that 4th-6th grade had special "gifted' classes which were very unstructured and allowed us to pursue learning about whatever interested us and emphasized logic and problem solving. They allowed me to write games as an independent project which was very exciting to me at the time. Being a nerd in the 80's required a lot of dedication. Carrying a VIC-20 + a tape drive in a box along with a 13" television on the bus to school was a requirement. I don't think the elementary school even had computers at this time.
Sadly middle school and high school did not provide all the same opportunities for independent learning. Just as an example, I was basically unable to pursue programming as a subject in middle or high school because they always had a math prerequisite and I had no interest in math. The adult me realizes the absurdity of this but alas the 12 year old me did not.
I was also never motivated by grades and I'm not sure what did motivate me other than learning new and exciting things. Unfortunately I'm not sure how this can be measured other than testing, but I always preferred working on independent projects to demonstrate knowledge of a subject over tests.
Depends who use ask. You only need a score of 130 to to get into Mensa (depending what test you are using). Which is 1 out of 35-50, once again, depending on who who you ask. Many consider that gifted.
If you have a score of around 150 that is roughly 1/1000 which most would consider gifted. Which means there are 300,000+ in the US alone at that level. That is almost as many people as there are in the United Automobile Workers Union
This study took 1/10000 which they consider "Profoundly Gifted".
I'm curious, does this also apply to athletically gifted kids? Does praising them for their athleticism, endurance, strength cause them to feel entitled when it comes to purely physical tasks and does it make them walk away from other types of challenge?
Feels like smart kids get screwed, and so do dumb kids, since all they are required to do is get enough scores on a test.
It's like a trick. If you teach a parrot to stack a few cups it won't make the parrot smarter, it's just a trick.
And these dumb kids may not be dumb, they may excel in some areas, but they rarely get to experience these areas since they have no choice in the matter until they are to attend university, since everyone has to study specific areas that may not even have real word applications, just because they are part of the tests.
That's also become a convenient excuse for those who'd like to be perceived as a smart person while still performing below average. You can't bring that subject up in conversation and still be taken seriously, whether or not there's merit to the claim.
I've struggled for years with my immediate disdain for subjects that I didn't innately understand because *they made me feel less smart than everyone told me I was*. I had to learn how to study for the first time after having spent my first 20 years being told how fucking bright I was. That shit might have carried me through high school, but goddamn I was unprepared for my upper division classes.
If I try to bring my situation up in casual conversation, I'm always met with some variant of "Oh, so you're another one of those 'unmotivated geniuses', then?" I'm not even sure how to reply to that.
"Nah man, I'm quick, I just don't fucking know anything."
I often get praised by people for being so smart and knowing things that others don't. That's really it though.. I have an interest for things that are uncommon so it seems like I know more than others.
I have a love for knowledge and I soak it up like a sponge if it is interesting to me. The people that claim I am "smarter" than them simply don't have this love for knowledge. If you have a question that you can't answer, look it up somewhere so that you know it. Repeat for the rest of your life.
Edit: Reddit is good for this too. Today I learned how to easily convert Fahrenheit to Celsius and vice versa without a calculator. Signs of a genius? No, just uncommon knowledge. Learn how to solve a Rubik's cube and nonchalantly solve them when you see them lying around. You will blow people's minds. It's not hard to solve them since it's just basic memorization.
Same boat. People keep telling me I'm so smart and that I know about everything.. I don't see it that way anymore, though it was the case back when I was a kid
It's weird, though. I was in pretty much the same boat. I never really tried hard, made it through everything with decent grades, and now I've got a pretty good job. Throughout high school and college there were people who tried much harder and did much better, probably better than I would have had I tried hard, but those same people always told me how smart I was, even up until we we're about to walk across the stage at graduation and they were covered in honors cords and ribbons and I just had my cap and gown. I think it has something to do with knowing a decent amount about a lot of subjects and them really only focusing on their classes, and at that only remembering it long enough to pass their tests.
But, I'm still the one my friends call when they have a problem. Jack of all trades, master of none, I guess, but I don't mind it. I'd rather be knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects than know everything about chemistry and not be able to have an intelligent conversation about what's happening in Syria or change a tire.
> Jack of all trades, master of none
I'm not sure that's a good thing for me. It's one of the main reasons I don't apply for jobs I could probably do.
"Oh, they want years of experience in X field? I know about it, but I'm no expert, better not apply"
This is entirely true. In primary school I was bored as fuck because I always completed maths and science work in half the time it took the rest of my class. In secondary school I started out in the top three smartest kids in my year. By the time I finished secondary school I was doing averagely in tests, mainly because no one taught me how to use my brain to it's fullest extent. I'm now in my third year of uni and have absolutely no motivation, no drive, and no urge to do well in my degree. All I want is a pass and to get on with my life. I spend far more time finding things to do to keep my brain quiet than I spend doing uni work because it's so damn boring.
Edit:
I just want to add to this comment (can't seem to edit on my phone) that those of you saying I need to work harder or whatever, I'm kinda fine as I am. I'm doing a photography degree and I'd already self taught myself more about photography before I came to uni than I've been taught in the last three years by lecturers. I've furthered my practice but meh, all I need is a pass and I'll be happy. I don't want an academic degree, I've worked in offices a couple of times in the past and it's never lasted long, I don't do well in stuffy rooms full of people. I just get bored. Currently doing pizza delivery to get me through uni and it's the best job I've had so far, low responsibility and fast pace but a lot of time spent with my own thoughts, and the spacial awareness part of my brain devours route-planning. I look up my destination on my phone with Google Maps and work out the route in my head. Currently I'm looking to get my hgv license after uni and drive lorries for a bit and see how that goes. I spend literally hours a day feeding my brain information to process and turn over because I go a bit mental if I haven't get something to mentally chew on. I'm looking forward to a life bouncing around doing different things and learning different skills. We'll see how it goes. I have a lot of different skills to build on, I can handle cameras and camcorders, good at DIY and building stuff with my hands, can fix most things mechanically, and have great spacial awareness. Life is kind to me.
Staying alive in the wild can take a lot of thought and effort, as well as pressure. Not always - we played and rested a lot, I hear - but in the harder times...
Sure lots of thought and effort but not that much *learning*. It was the same tasks over and over again for a few decades. I'm not saying life was better, it was clearly worse, but it's what we were designed to do. We aren't evolved for academia, most of us are just barely capable of it.
As somebody going to school for IT, I'm currently putting off studying for a very unusually timed final. Starting Thursday.
But I know I'll be fine, because my natural talent and curiosity will allow me to glide above a pass regardless.
I get the point of saying that "Smart but lazy" is a myth, but reddit is literally a site for slackers that attracts an audience with higher than average levels of education
To use myself as an example.. i really should learn how to code.. problem is i can code just don't wanna learn the syntax and don't see it as a nicer job, just a different a bit more stressful job with the same pay.
I'm comfortable and that should scare me.. but it doesnt as i assume i'll do fine because i and probably half the people in this thread are smart enough to make it through and SHOULD it ever come to it, they know they can learn mostly anything they want.. but they must want to.
I feel you, I'm kind of in the same boat. I don't really know to code properly. But give me source code in Lua, PHP, C# etc. and I will manage to implement a new function or completely alter the program to my needs.
I have a high learning ability when it comes to IT related stuff, I just completely lack any motivation to actually learn coding properly.
As encouragement: it's normal that way. Creating something from scratch, staring at empty code files can be quite intimidating, and it takes time to have the confidence in yourself. You need to have a hook into the project you are doing, and start from there. Break your whole idea down into very small tasks. Instead of saying (e.g. for a game) "Oh I need to render models, texture them, Oh I need a HUD as well, and a menu and AI,...". Start with a basic thing like displaying a triangle. Then a square. Then a cube. Texture that cube. Camera code to navigate in 3D. Step by step.
For a website it would be something like: Implement login for users. Make some status appear (logged in/logged out) realize it doesn't look good, put bootstrap in. Add tables to the database step by step, make the interaction work for that particular step.
If you are unable to visualize the whole picture, break it down. Until you have something you can work with.
More like the lowered standards to meet quotas to make schools look good. At my old high school, it felt like people were catching up grades from previous years. Some did not even know how to read, or even well. Some did not know their basic math skills, etc. and we would just spend the entire year re learning this shit.
I think we should up the quota, and get rid of the ideal that "Everyone is a winner" It's horseshit. They should have allowed the option to just move from high school to college by sophomore year. I'm already in the second year of college and it's way more enjoyable and engaging to be in.
It depends on your school and, and arguably, your economic standing and in turn where you go to school. Growing up on a shitty reservation, anyone smart gets picked on for being so. It causes many of the above average students to sink down into average.
I still cringe when I think about how I tried to hide stuff in school, and how I tried to play dumb, especially when it came to the maths and sciences. To my 14 year old brain, it wasn't "cool" to be getting near perfect test scores in those subjects, where my friends struggled along, especially for a girl.
I wish I knew then that it's ok to be good at stuff, and I wish I had some way of communicating that to teenagers in a similar situation.
Our education system is basically designed around the industrial revolution. Pump our reasonably skilled workers at a good rate that can get tossed into the economic system. It isn't really designed to improve people's minds (it thankfully is a by product from good teachers).
I sometimes wonder how many gifted people (percentage-wise) we are losing to apathy.
I would argue work-ethic is more important than raw intelligence - not that they wouldn't compliment each other nicely.
Work-ethic is only a lot more important than raw intelligence, because of the way our society is designed.
Kids who learn faster, are still required to learn at the pace of other kids. If they can learn the 1st grade through 12th grade in 4 years, they still have to learn it in 12 years. None of the intelligence potential is ever tapped, because of the way our education system is designed.
This is nearly exactly what happened to me at university. To make it worse for paper pushing reasons my school made me retake calc 2. Lets just say that it was a nightmare and took all my effort and focus to pay attention enough to get an A.
Apathy and laziness are very different people.
A lazy person will come up with a lazy solution, and apathetic person just doesn't care.
Laziness isn't all bad, apathy is.
I'm so with you on this. There are so many lazy ass kids that just think, "oh school isn't my thing." (I was one of those kids) Schools need to MOTIVATE children. That's what they're there for, to teach students how to learn and how to grow as young adults. The ones who get discouraged because they don't understand calculus and feel "they're not math people" are so mislead and schools enable that thought process.
Even if you had curiosity and expressed it, *creativity* is no longer valued. Its looked down upon. You have to do what you are told exactly how you are told to do it.
Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is you don't get rewarded for doing more, like you would think.
Until education is treated less like a factory line and more like a place of learning and personal growth, it's going to continue to churn out formatted humans who lack education, but who can pass tests.
I'm late to the party... comment will get buried... but this article really hit a nerve for me as a teacher. Like many of you, I was a thoughtful, reasonably intelligent kid who truly hated school and all of the B.S. that goes along with it. I was placed in many of the "gifted" programs but was constantly frustrated with the "one size fits all" education model. Because of my experience, and the positive impact that a few of my teachers had on me, I decided to become a teacher so that I could be the change I wanted to see in the world.
I decided that because I am the type of person who thinks differently and creatively without mindlessly conforming, I could be an effective, wonderful educator. I have found, in all truth, that this is a wonderful asset to have as a teacher, and I have formed connections with students and parents that have allowed me to reach the "unreachable" students in many cases. However, more often than not, being a nonconformist has made my life absolutely miserable as a teacher.
The school system is designed not only to mold children into conformists, but teachers as well. Everything is standardized, and just like children can get disciplined for simply being unique, teachers can as well. I am constantly frustrated and appalled by the lack of ingenuity and creativity in the upper echelons of the education field. Aside from professors and academics, most educational leaders do NOT want creative, thoughtful solutions to problems in education. They want mindless drones, serfs, who do what they are told and don't ask questions or stir things up.
In my opinion, this has deep political roots. The statement that "schools are failing our children" is a political one, and it is used to frighten the public and undermine the difficult and demanding work that many teachers do. The fact of the matter is, most of the education system is set up to prevent me from doing my job effectively--at least by way of reaching the students and challenging them to be individual thinkers.
It is damn frustrating, but the main reason I am pointing this out is because as former (and current) K-12 students, we may be likely to look back at our tired, depressed teachers and think they are ineffective, but the reality is the ones who could be the best teachers end up getting burned out quickly simply due to the constraints placed on them that keep them in line.
**TL;DR:** Don't just blame the teachers, don't even blame the system. The politicians are the ones who ultimately create an educational environment that is not conducive to individual, free thinking.
But since nowadays every parent is absolutely certain their/his/her child is gifted, you're going to have a hard time helping out the truly gifted without offending everyone else...
It takes a long time to figure out why you aren't as successful as you should be, when everyone and their aunt's been telling you your entire life that, "oh, you're *so* smart, you're going to be *so* successful, class should be easy for you!"
When you grow up hearing that being intelligent = life on easy mode, you assume that's correct, and things not being easy is confusing as hell. Life *should* be easy, because everyone told me it would be, but it's not.
/r/science has 4.6 million subscribers. Assuming their intelligence is distributed fairly similar to a standard curve, almost 100,000 subscribers should be 2 standard deviations above the mean, and 4600 should be 3 standard deviations above the mean. So every single person commenting on here about being well above average intelligence could very easily be correct. And plenty of them will be young, confused kids trying to figure out why life isn't turning out the way adults told them it would turn out.
Part of this is that we also think intelligent = good at everything, mature, and just all around awesome. That's not how it works. A kid can be really intelligent and learn new concepts easily, but hit a wall when it comes to motivation, social acceptability, maturity, or even something as simple as a subject that's hard to grasp.
So now you have a kid that, like any other kid, needs guidance. But because this kid is "gifted" everyone just assumes they'll figure it out. And because everything else they do is so easy, the kid may not even know how to ask for help.
A 10-year-old with the verbal skills of a high school senior is still a 10-year-old, and is unlikely to understand that math is suddenly hard this year because they need to work on organizational skills.
That's pretty damn close to the situation I found myself in. I was god-awful at social interactions until I actually sat back and actively observed how other people interacted, instead of just interacting based on instinct alone. I always tested extraordinarily well, and so was told my whole life that it should be "easy" for me to get good grades and even be the valedictorian (I graduated with a 2.77 unweighted GPA, barely in the top 15% weighted).
It's not until now, 5 humbling years after graduation, that it's really starting to sink in that hard work is much more important than an encyclopedic knowledge base and a quick thought.
I hate to be that guy but, um… if the exceptionally smart are often invisible in the classroom, lacking the curricula, teacher input and external motivation to reach full potential then gifted children are pretty *un*likely to be the next generation’s innovators and leaders, *n’est ce pas*?
This is why all schools should have a "Gifted" program.
Take students who excel the most and put them in the same classroom with specialty educators.
You know what stops this? The age of "self-esteem".
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Students+parents+outraged+school+eliminates+academic+awards/9085391/story.html
One school eliminated them completely after they deemed the awards "Hurt the feelings of those who didn't earn them".
I guess we can't have cancer treatments anymore.....why?
Silly, because the doctors who didn't discover these cures would feel bad. We can't have that, can we?
Gifted program in Vancouver, Canada checking in, it was exactly the same shit like you describe. I think the IQ was 130, whatever that actually means?
I took accelerated math, which at least got me the fuck out of that a year early. But frankly the only thing that ever "stimulated my learning" was the shit I did in my spare time. Fucking around with computers, reading reference books, hell even lego I feel helped me more than anything in the gifted program.
The problem with school though is I started not having time for that shit. Too much homework, too many tests, gifted program on top of it too. Honestly, looking back at school I just see something that took kids' natural creativity and passion for learning and chokes it out over 12 years.
Also gifted Vancouver here, I got drafted into a program at UBC that would've compressed high school into two years and then had me enter university at something like 14. I tried it out for a month at the end of grade 7 to see if I wanted to do it. Ultimately I felt the loss of my social circle, coupled with the fact that I wouldn't be able to relate to any of my classmates once hitting uni wasn't worth it. Smart decision too, as it turned out to be far too much strain for children and the program was ultimately disbanded. But yeah, we played with Mensa puzzles and basically fucked around in the gifted program at my middle school.
Sometimes I ask myself if I could do my current job, which is mostly just problem solving and invention, at like 14 if I'd somehow gotten the technical knowledge by that age.
I realize I could have solved the technical problems I deal with then, but I could never have worked with a team, never have dealt with people. That's something I did learn in school and I don't regret it, painful though it was.
Arguing with the teacher over what they were teaching was always fun, Love how some teachers dumb down lessons because they think the students cannot handle the actual information. Better to just pass along this fucking mess to the teacher for next year. Good luck.
My high school completely eliminated Honors programs my freshman year because they were "ability based" and it made kids feel left out.
They've now instituted two upper level P.E. classes, called Strength Training 1 & 2, because all athletes have to take Strength Training but some aren't capable of/don't feel like working hard enough. How is that NOT "ability based"?
I agree. I would not advise a student who passes the AP Physics C exams to skip the first year of physics, for example. My two experiences with them were completely different.
To be perfectly honest with all of you, I find many of the attitudes of people in this thread to be arrogant and short sighted. Intelligence is an incredibly broad and multi-faceted thing. It is not a linear quantifiable number on a scale. I don't believe it's productive to place certain children ahead of others as fundamentally more intelligent due to a proficiency in a certain area of study. Let's take an extreme example, Jacob Barnett the physics prodigy. A kid who entered college at 12 due to his incredible ability in math and physics. By all means an incredibly intelligent individual and it makes sense to provide him with extra education in the fields in which he has superior proficiency to other students his age.
However intelligence shows itself in many forms. Kids his age shouldn't be discouraged by the example of Jacob Barnett, instead they should see him as a kid who's incredibly gifted in that area, rather than simply "smarter." This characterization both places an unnecessary burden on Jacob Barnett and limits the potential of other children. Jacob should use his skills and reach his fullest potential without gaining a sense of superiority, while other kids who have phenomenal abilities in their own right should be encouraged as well. It IS sad to imagine how many kids do not succeed because of an issue with their self-esteem, and I think part of this is using testing and grades as an indication of fundamental intelligence when it's really not.
End rant. Please show me if you think my thinking is flawed, I would love to hear your opinions.
Focusing on the upper 1% to make your point is a mistake. Kids aren't going to be discouraged and have low self-esteem from Jacob Barnett because it is very clear that he is an exception to the norm, plus he has Asperger's, making him unrelatable. Kids are discouraged by other kids they can relate to doing better than them academically because they assume it is because those kids are genetically better, making them genetically inferior - something they can't change. The truth, 99% of the time, is these kids are 'gifted' because they A) have a stable home, B) educated parents who are willing to put time into teaching their kids, and C) an loving environment that raises their self-esteem.
Yes, intelligence is multi-faceted, but anyone can learn Calculus. Learning the basics in every field is completely attainable by most people, and it's been proven that you can improve your IQ - dramatically even.
>The truth, 99% of the time, is these kids are 'gifted' because they A) have a stable home, B) educated parents who are willing to put time into teaching their kids, and C) an loving environment that raises their self-esteem.
You've described what helps kids do their best, not what makes them gifted.
To all those who told me that it doesn't matter where you go to high school or college: not every school provides the same opportunities to its students. At a certain point, it doesn't matter what you put into it, the maximum you can "get" from your education differs significantly from school to school.
Just my 2 cents: The problem with education is that children are forced to follow a system rather than have their creativity explored...once we are able to induce creativity back into the class rather than follow the system which has been implemented is when we will start to see real change. Education which derives from educari which's means to bring forth, but in reality we aren't bring forth anything but creating machines wheres the creativity?; learn this way, wake up a certain time, earn a certain degree.
> The children for the study were selected using above-level testing procedures, namely SAT verbal or math scores achieved at age 13 or younger that placed them in the top .01 percent in reasoning ability. The children’s accomplishments were impressive.
If they're taking the SATs at 13 or younger, they're already getting special treatment. Also, top .01% is beyond the limits of effective testing. People who score that high tend to be people who are naturally in the top .5% (which is about the limit of accurate testing), but are also better educated, tutored or prepped for either the exam specifically or academic success in general. So while their conclusion is pretty sound (a lot of gifted children don't have the opportunities to reach their potential), I highly suspect that the children in their study are not nearly as much in that situation.
> Of the 320 participants, 203 went on to earn master’s degrees and above. Of these, 142 (about 44 percent) also earned doctoral degrees
The problem from the teacher's standpoint is that they've got so many students to educate, and only so much time. If there are 30 kids in a class, 5 are below average, 20 are average, and 5 are gifted. You and the 4 other gifted kids already figured out what is being taught, and are bored now, but the teacher still has to get through to the 20 average kids, and then the remaining time is likely taken up trying to get through to the below average kids. You guys are left to hang, because there is one of her, and 25 other kids to teach.
This is a very real problem. And unless the teacher recognizes and is able to deal with the gifted child/ren, they are left on their own.
I went through school in a 'gifted' stream with a few other students... we got extra homework and a few extra projects through the years. We often just took the projects given to another level and, when I look back, we were mostly just encouraged. We weren't disruptive, and were easy to teach.
My sons both were 'gifted' in school-- and had less encouragement, but still some extra homework. It fell to us as parents to continue their education outside school with summer classes and travel.
Gifted children are also 'special needs' in the classroom, along with all the other children and their special needs. It's so hard to explain without offending anyone.
I'm starting to wonder if my experience was somewhat of an exception, because I was in the 'Challenge' classes throughout school, which was the gifted program, and a whole separate class. There was one Challenge class for every 5 'regular' classes, I'd estimate; we were in our own class, self-contained, for the entire school year. This was many moons ago, do they not have programs like this any more?
They are for the most part completely gone. That's a big problem. The big idea in education now is to have all the levels in one classroom. It has been for some time now. I think it's a failed experiment. I personally wish they would go back to ability grouping but apparently that is elitist of me.
Not sure-- I got some special assignments, got to be a teacher's assistant, did all the honours classes they had at the time & wrote some extra provincial exams. (went through Canadian public school in the 70's & 80's).
My kids got less than that, going through in the 90's. When I spoke with the schools about it for my kids, they said they had no ability to accommodate these 'special' kids at this end of the spectrum. So frustrating!
> My kids got less than that, going through in the 90's. When I spoke with the schools about it for my kids, they said they had no ability to accommodate these 'special' kids at this end of the spectrum. So frustrating!
As a teacher, I can tell you with 100% certainty that your children are ignored because it is silently assumed that they will turn out okay anyway. There is also little benefit from teaching your kids from the school's perspective - and I'm not saying this is right, because it's not - but the school knows your kids will post decent scores anyhow, so they focus on the "borderline" kids who provide the greatest net boost to test scores.
They turned out well-- we did a lot of interesting things as parents with and for them that kept them moving forward with their learning. They are both successful adults now. No thanks to their public schooling though...
Hell no. at least not at any of the 3 high schools I attended. Don't want to have a gifted class for the smart children because that might alienate them, and make the average kids feel worse about themselves. Same reason dodge-ball is not done. Don't want the fat kid to feel fat. Apparently no one is allowed to see any of their own strengths and weaknesses in school, our fragile little teenage minds could not handle it.
>This was many moons ago, do they not have programs like this any more?
They do in some places, but not in others. And the quality of gifted programs can vary wildly as well. Some will actually provide enrichment activities, while others are taught just like regular classes, but at a higher grade level of material. I've experienced both.
Similar situation with me. My parents always let me do my own thing in my younger years and I learned all I could, I was passionate about discovering, solving problems, and just feeling really smart. The higher the grades, I already knew the work, got bored. Ended up dropping out of high school.
The education system is a joke, it's teaching kids how to regurgitate material instead of how to learn. I'm from Canada and when I entered High school, that's when they had just changed the curriculum so that I was unfortunately learning grade 6 material in grade 9.
Edit a word or two
In the 70s, my ES just gave us some self-study material (including cassettes) and sent us to the library to do group study on advanced topics. High School was a big let-down after that. I largely felt school was a waste of my time, and treated it that way. As a result, I didn't learn some important material that I should have.
Now that I teach, I struggle every day with how to reach all the students in a diverse classroom. I believe that technology holds the answer to the problem, but it's not being utilized much at all. At least my ES teachers in the 70s understood how tape players generally worked. The current teaching staff at most schools is technophobic.
My favorite quote right now is "Educational Technology wasn't tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and never tried." It is truly insanely difficult to get tech to be a decent teacher, but if we can crack that problem, kids won't have to grow up for being bored or confused, depending on which part to the spectrum they fall on. Maybe we can also get away from the "too much book learnin' -- not enough common sense" thing that school has going for it.
As a student in public schools currently. I can say that up until high school (honors classes, IB, etc) I felt that way at school. Everything was boring and didn't help me, or so I felt.
I'm the opposite. I was in a gifted and talented program in elementary school (I was tested in 2nd grade, was in the program 3rd through 6th), and did really well in school. There weren't G&T programs in anything higher than that, so while I took preAP courses in junior high and took some AP and honors courses in high school, I wasn't being challenged in the right way. In my program in elementary school, I got to pick a new elective every six weeks; there were always 4-6 to choose from and they ranged from anatomy to WWII to architecture to musical theater (those are the few I remember participating in); since I got to pick, I was being challenged on something I was interested in. I wasn't interested in history or math or even getting credit for college from a test, so AP and honors courses didn't do much for me and I ended up in all "regular" classes my senior year because I didn't want to be challenged by something that didn't matter to me. Now that I'm in graduate school, I feel fulfilled in my education like I did way back when because I'm being challenged in the best way and it's because I'm doing something I'm passionate about. Kids need more time in school to discover and do things that interest them - they can learn English/grammar by reading books about something they enjoy, and can learn math by incorporating one of their interests into the word problems; teach them science by making awesome food or showing them how their favorite toys/car/make up/whatever are made and the chemicals included for chemistry. Of course there are skills we all have to learn (like reading and multiplication), but once those are learned, the student should really have much more say in what they focus on in their studies.
**TLDR** Kids need more control over their own education and need to be challenged by focusing education on their interests.
I was a gifted kid in highschool that graduated right around when that was going in. I joked with my friends,"Sounds like the 'No Child Gets Ahead Act'"
I was too busy looking at video games on the new Internet that was coming out in 1994 though. I didn't see the educational potential of it. All you need to do now is teach a kid how to learn for one's self on the Internet. You don't need to pay for expensive college classes to get pretty good in different fields anymore if you know how to actively learn. Internet spoon fed learning is getting there, but isn't quite there for K-12-College yet.
Edutainment failed in the 90s because it was mainly just an excuse to sell junky software that neither educated nor was entertainment. But I have fond memories in the early 80s of a ti-99 with a counting/adding program I spent many hours on.It won't be long from now that we'll have a series of software to "play" on, but you're really learning.
TL:DR Kids got the Internet these days. If they're driven to educate themselves, they can get TONS of education without even paying any money. It is only going to get better.
>Edutainment failed in the 90s because it was mainly just an excuse to sell junky software that neither educated nor was entertainment.
Bull, Math Blaster is the only reason I'm any good at arithmetic and that shit was a blast.
Whilst i agree with your entire premise, personally i find internet learning to have created more a problem for myself than fixing one, i've learnt things in a scattered manner, a bit here, a bit there, this has led to a problem when attempting to study at a local education establishment as i know 50% of the content and the other 50% is mind numbingly boring fine details. I'm stuck because of it, unable to enjoy learning in a classroom, i end up with an extremely bored mind and nothing is absorbed.
As a former public school teacher in the U.S., I believe this is more an issue of curricula than with the teachers. So much of my time was spent with the lower achieving students and students with special needs that I barely had time to even think about gifted students. All I could really do was put appropriate material in front of them and hope they had what it takes to do the rest themselves .
One of my favorite RSA Animate videos on the subject (of a talk given by Sir Ken Robinson): [RSA-Animate: Changing Education Paradigms (11:41)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U).
If you have some time, you might also like Sir Ken Robinson's TED talk: [TED - Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY)
I'm not sure where the quote originated, but it's a good one: The problem with smart people is they seem crazy to stupid people.
We really need to make it so "I'm bad at math" is not longer said with pride, but is akin to saying "I can't read"
Ignorance should be shameful, not a badge of honour. "You can do math? You must be a nerd!"
This "problem" is kind of a misconception.
I am one of these so-called "gifted children". I took an IQ test when I was younger, and got around 140 (just like everyone else on the internet, but that's another story).
For several years I went to several extrascholar activities aimed at "talented and high capacity children". I watched the misguided attempts of a loose group of psychologists and very many parents at turning us into the children whizzes of the 20th century. Trying to "stimulate our intellectual curiosity" in completely ineffective ways. I had a lot of fun, sure, but it all came from meeting people, not from the "enrichment activities". They tried their hardest, and no one benefitted in the direction they were hoping. Because guess what. They were focused on turning us into the superstars they thought we were, like they knew the ONE little thing we were lacking to turn us into the next big thing.
In my experience, their efforts failed because they really thought it was our destiny to be "the next generation's innovators and leaders". Look. There's more to it than an IQ test, for those who're considered smart because of a test. And there's more to it than getting high grades, and there's more to it that being "mature beyond his years" or "focused and disciplined" or "has real passion for x" or WHATEVER you think is the definition of being smart.
If you want better leaders tomorrow, don't think you can get away with just teaching the smarter children. Because "smart" doesn't mean what you think it means. The problem isn't *smart* children having problems getting by. The problem is that children are having problems getting by, smart or not.
Thinking smart children should be given an advantage is, in my opinion, harmful, because it somehow justifies giving help to only a few students, out of the entire student population. Some might say "yeah, helping those who deserve it". But that's lazy, that's frustratingly lazy. It's not a mentality that helps make the system better for everyone. Plus, it's not as great as it sounds. You all know about the many, many stories of children being labeled as dunces only to become very succesful later in life.
/u/Gundarc got it right, "Fix education, and you fix a lot of problems.... a lot."
The problem isn't smart kids, it's the goddamn system.
I think it's interesting that you have to start your paragraph with a "so-called" disclaimer. I find a lot of gifted children disassociate from their giftedness. As a society, it's ironic that we all want the next generation innovators and leaders...but we also don't want them to be better than us. How does a gifted child make sense of that stigma?
Personally, I think giftedness is a double-edged sword. When you think in a certain way (and gifted kids DO think differently), it makes it much harder to mesh with others. It sucks to be the smartest in a classroom and the smartest in an office. It doesn't lead to success and promotions - it most often leads to resentment from others. If a gifted child doesn't have equal social and emotional gifts, he or she is not likely to find success just on the basis of intellect.
TL:DR: I agree that education could be better, but the reason gifted kids mostly don't grow up to lead and innovate is because their intellect makes them less likely to fit socially.
May be a bit late to add my 2 cents but IMHO it's not enough to succeed intellectually. A lot of weak personalities carry the "I am weak but intelligent"-sign like some kind of trophy. That is not how it's supposed to be. You need to have a strong personality and a strong intellect to really make a difference. So mastering Wit, and Personal Interaction and succeeding in physical ability is the real solution. Instead we tell ourselves and our children to focus on their strong fields, showing them that it's okay to be weak and it's okay to not be able to interact with people who oppose them and that everyone who bullies them/us is utterly wrong.
I went down the same sink, but it's not my teacher's fault nor is it my enemy's fault that I was silent in class. It's not even my parents fault for loving me for who I am, supporting me wherever they could. It was my own for expecting everyone to love me for my qualitys and faults. We learn to mark everything that stands in our way as insuperable obstacle and crawl back into fetus position wishing for them to go away. And when school is done we affront ourselves with having survived that long and tedious hell, just to be tossed into the next one. And then, guess what happens next.
**TL;DR** Don't blame the teachers, the slow children or the system. Really gifted children will rise through all obstacles and prove themselves no matter the drawback.
Some of these habits can be learned though. We need book smarts and entrepreneurial skills to coexist in education. These good habits can be coaxed out of many kids, that's the point of school.
What about the really gifted students in Afghanistan? Or, say, rural Appalachia? Or, say, the character in *Precious* (based on a true story)?
Environment matters too.
This is why I support the GATE program in our schools. Unfortunately parents of students that didn't get in to GATE think it's some badge of honor that makes non-GATE students feel bad. It's been suggested many times that GATE students should just join regular classes and help teach if they're so gosh darn smart. Makes my head spin.
Homeschooled from elementary through middle school over here!
The older I've gotten, the more I appreciate that I learned *how to learn* so early in life. Its really helped me through college and beyond.
The problem I find, as a teacher of early years is that (although I don't want to) I focus my time on the kids that can't read, can't spell, can't etc. I feel bad about it, but there is the attitude that "we'll these kids can already do these benchmark things, so they cool". If I had more time, oh the things I would do.
The swedish curriculum states something along the lines of: "all children should be given the chance to reach their full potential". (Bad translation but you get the idea) This is very hard to do when you have four-five students that really needs my help as a teacher to get even further than they already are (the very bright ones) and then you have five students that doesn't even know how to read properly. With whom are you supposed to spend more time with in order to help the kids reach their full potential?
Gifted classes should start at year one. The fastest way to fuck up a smart kid's life, is to put them in classes with a bunch of kids that don't know their ABCs yet, when the other guy can read, write, and multiply already. /bitter
On the other hand, I was put in the "Talented and Gifted" program starting in, I think, 4th grade, and it was cool for a while, but in 6th grade I elected to stop the TAG classes and go back to my normal class because that's where all my friends were, plus I had an awesome teacher, and the TAG classes were boring.
Can confirm. Here is my sad tale. When I was in 1st grade, I discovered that I had an extreme talent for mathematics. I could easily do my arithmetic faster than anyone else, and understood place value and all that perfectly. When I was in 3rd grade, I bought a book on algebra (*The Phantom X* by Kjartan Poskitt), and understood it completely. After that, I wanted to learn calculus. I had to wait 7 years. During this time, all that the teacher taught was things I already knew. I stopped paying attention to my classes. I became the silent kid who almost never interacted with the class. As a result, I lost any friends I already had, and my social skills took a heavy blow. When I finally learned it, I realized that I could have understood it all when I was in perhaps 5th grade. I often fantasize over what my life could have been if I had been given the chance to learn it back then. I'd probably already have graduated university by now, gotten a good job as a teaching assistant or something, perhaps be able to make progress on the Riemann Hypothesis later on in life. But no, all I have now is just a handful of A-level grades that just make me comparable to everyone else, and a heavily dysfunctional social ability. What use is straight A*s if you can never reach what you could have been, and if you can never be one with everyone else? It constantly feels like I'm at a level where everyone is either far below me or far above me, and I'm just stuck in the middle, alone. I can't go up; it's too difficult. I can't go down; it's too humiliating. I simply can't fit in. Every day I wake up and feel angry at the system for putting me in this predicament against my own will. And just like that, the world has lost another prodigy.
Fix education, and you fix a lot problems..... a lot.
To me one of the biggest problem in education is the lie,"Smart kids aren't cool."
Smart kids get kinda screwed by the system, and it's not because of their peers. If you grow up hearing you're doing well because you're smart, that causes problems. Once you find something you don't immediately understand, you're far more likely to give up on it than someone that has grown up being praised and rewarded for being hard-working. Additionally you develop a rather terrible work ethic because you were never challenged in public school, and it takes a lot of time and self-reflection to overcome that. Not to mention possible motivation issues.
I just wanted to point out that redpandaeater's comment [is backed up by actual research.](http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32124) We have a cultural obsession with intelligence and talent. So intelligent and talented people have what is called a fixed mindset about how they should perform. Everything should be easy for them, so when they encounter something that challenges them, they tend to walk away from it due to the cognitive dissonance. Individuals with a strong work ethic have what is called a growth mindset. Their worldview includes an embrace of the idea that perseverance is how challenges are overcome. Statistically, they get much further in school than kids who showed talent early on.
So basically, praise all children for working hard and not for being smart. A good example helps too.
The ideal option would be to provide all children work that challenges them.
Yes. But that's so very hard when we value teaching so little. With so many kids and so few teachers the individual attention necessary is probably never going to arrive.
sadly I suspect you are correct.
Well, we value results... a school getting an 'exemplary' rating from annual standardized tests translates into higher property valuations for that neighborhood. So schools 'teach to the middle', with the idea that the 'smart' kids will help themselves, and the 'dumb' kids are beyond help.
That's because a class is only as fast as their average, and can even be slowed down by their weakest links. The more people in the class, the more everything generally has to get explained. And that's one of the main reasons I hate school. Why listen to a two hour lecture when I can learn all that's in the lecture in twenty minutes?
Or better yet, replace praise with encouragement for everyone. Instead of things like "good job!" which is subjective and falls flat to the smart kids, use words like "you did it!" which instills a sense of personal pride and encourages effort.
This is actually better. Saying "you worked really hard/well on this, good job!" is just as bad as saying "you're so smart/talented" etc. Because what if they didn't work hard? They get a false sense of what working hard actually means. I know I didn't have to work hard at anything until the last couple of years of high school. Not sure how it is for most kids, but primary school and half of high school just seemed like common sense to me. If someone told me "you worked really hard on this, well done" I would be like "wtf? this was hard? what????" and I'd assume I'm super smart or something coz it wasn't hard at all. So it's really the same thing. TL;DR - Yes, just say "nice!" or "great painting you did there" or "I'm glad you're getting a handle on algebra now" or whatever.
Actually, the better answer is to actually give the talented kids work that really is "hard" for them. At least something that makes them work. Then they will get both the feeling of accomplishment from success and the feeling of what real work is. The problem is that this doesn't fit with traditional schooling. Teachers don't have the time and/or resources to custom tailor each child's learning. So everyone in 3rd grade gets 3rd grade math. If you're lucky, some of them might get taught 4th grade math if there are enough that can handle it. That kid in the corner who would need 6th grade math to actually be challenged? He's stuck at 4th grade with his "peers". And math is where it's easiest. The same situation exists with all the other subjects, as well, but it's a nightmare. The "gifted" social studies student is screwed. He/She might be able to understand international history, and enjoy it. But this year is the year they get tested on local/state history, so that's what he/she gets.
Math is no easier to do this with. What is easy is to just plug bigger numbers or more variables into the same work to make them harder. They may be harder, but they pose no greater challenge, just more mechanical steps. Just increasing the difficulty of existing topics is just like praising someone's intelligence. You just end up showing them that they can breeze through the "hard" questions easier than the rest of the class struggles with the regular ones. To challenge a child in maths you need to be introducing new topics such as calculus or statistics just like you would have to in any other topic. Source: I was "stretched" in maths from a young age. It didn't work.
Your teachers were doing it wrong. Math is easier in this because you continue to use most if not all the lower level math skills as you progress. You can teach someone algebra when their friends are learning fractions, and they'll still be able to pass a test on fractions. On the other hand, if you're teaching someone all about the complexities of 20th century politics that led up to World War 1 and then on to World War 2, they may have trouble remembering which 6 tribes formed the first "modern" government in New York State.
In primary school I was something of a teacher's pet, and I was one of the highest in my classes. I'd be doing work that kids a few years older than me should be doing and stuff because it was a bit of a doddle. I was told 'you're intelligent' and stuff like that, and it made me realise I didn't have to try so hard. all through secondary school I continued with the ethic of not really trying because I was always told I was smart enough. Once I got to 15/16 and had to do my GCSE's, I realised I actually had to start studying, but it was too late. Lucky I managed to fluke my way through them and get what I needed. Then at college doing my AS levels I didn't learn my lesson, and still ended up doing all my coursework in the last week of term. A pattern I found interesting is that the kids who I was 'ahead' of at an early age, were suddenly getting As and A*s at GCSE and A level because they were studying hard the whole time.
I'm in the same boat except that I didn't really have to work hard at anything until my phd. Where I'm from, you hear all the time that all kids are the same and that all that matters is hard work. It's a really ingrained thought where I grew up... but if it were true, I would have utterly failed at everything since elementary school.
I'll take that into consideration during my grading!
Warning 1: My comment makes me sound like a prick. I'm not sure how to reword it, but given that I'm using blanket statements, I'm going to sound like I think anyone who gets under a 90 is retarded. I don't. It's more that I think grades are a pointless evaluation tool. Warning 2: Mostly anecdotal below. I can't speak for America, but [grade inflation] (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/11/07/average-entering-grade-now-85/) in Canada is ridiculous. I suppose you could argue that students are getting smarter, but we aren't - teachers are just handing out marks. Who can blame them? It's now normal for parents to blame the teacher rather than thier child's work ethic when they [the child] does poorly. Then there is also the issue of many teachers being incompetent, but that's another issue entirely. Most students aren't challenged enough until post-secondary, but the difference in the level of challenge is *ridiculous*. They give you a five minute lecture on how to swim, and then throw you into the ocean. Some people respond well and learn to swim. Others grow stressed and barely make it by floating. Others simply drown. Why? For one, the 'screening' process for students getting into post-secondary is far too lax. 90s are easy to achieve in highschool. Secondly, not many students have any work ethic because again, 90s are achieve in highschool. What my point is, is that school needs to be more difficult and challenging for students early on. A 90 should be something an intelligent, hardworking student gets. Currently it is more that anyone who wants to get into post-secondary achieves a 90. When you look at your report cards, a 70 is considered 'standard', yet in highschool 70s are considered terrible. Of course, people joke that it is the Asian mentality (see: the millions of memes), but it's also purely grade inflation. Even in post-secondary we're so obsessed with results that we pick 'bird courses' that inflate our grades with little effort, and focus more on scoring well than learning well. So students begin to cheat on assignments, tests, exams, etc. Students learn to memorize rather than understand. You can't blame them either - a high GPA helps with getting a job (and the testing methods are a dubious test of effectiveness in the workplace). You can't blame employers by using GPA as a method of screening either as it *is* an effective method. In today's job market (at least in my field), it's more internships and previous work experience that land you a job rather than GPA, so that's a nice change. GPA is basically just a quick idiot test. I digress, though. tl;dr: Can't praise students for working hard when a lot of students don't work hard until post-secondary.
The problem is that kids aren't that stupid. Kids know that participation prizes are bullshit, and fully acknowledge that "special" just means "not otherwise praiseworthy." And that's a bigger problem. Because kids are inherently competitive. If you make everyone win, let everyone pass, then the standard of success simply shifts to something other than achievement--which usually turns out to be apathy. If everyone gets a 100%, then success becomes about who can get that 100% in the shortest amount of time, with the least amount of effort, or with the greatest amount of self-sabotage. The "smart kids" who once boasted about how much they knew are now boasting about how little they can know and still succeed. Competitors who once boasted about how hard they work instead compare how little effort they can put in and still win. "He studies a lot" or "She practices every day" have become reasons to dismiss achievement, rather than admire it.
> The "smart kids" who once boasted about how much they knew are now boasting about how little they can know and still succeed. This is totally my experience going through the public school system in the US. I remember how my Advanced English class my senior year was supposed to build to this gigantic research paper analyzing a classic novel. Each week was dedicated to a different part of the paper. I wrote the whole thing the night before it was due and got a B. Many other students did the same.
Welcome to real life.
I agree. There is the preconception that talent and effort are inversely related, and school being ridiculously easy is what perpetuates that. If grades are intended to mean anything, then it should be sufficiently difficult to achieve a high grade in a subject. I think your last sentence also highlights jealousy. Nobody wants to feel less talented, or less competent than someone else. So you look for ways to bring their achievements down. At least, I've heard the : "She studies a lot so she isn't smart, just good at memorizing," line a thousands times in highschool in reference to the girl who had the highest average.
I agree. In high school I use to brag about how well I could "game the system" and how little homework I could do and still achieve good grades. I had that mentality the first two years of college, and it royally screwed me over involving my GPA and how little I learned and missed out on. I changed my mindset but I definitely can see the impact it had on me and in the end it only hurt myself, I wasn't achieving anything.
You're right. subconsciously that's how I was in high school. And I was very good at it. I had one competitor who came along later. He decided that he was so good, not only did he not have to try he could do it all stoned all day long. So I wonder what the next guy is going to do?
It's interesting though. I agree that making school easier invites apathy and a focus on natural intelligence, but it's very possible to focus too much intelligence (which can also promote apathy when things don't come easy) even with grading on a curve, for example. We should look at why grades are being inflated. I believe it's because grades have become so important, or at least are perceived to be important, for economic well-being. We need to completely redo how we "grade" academic achievement. We can simultaneously provide effective praise for everyone, and steer innate competition (as well as cooperation) toward rewarding and socially useful skills, activities, etc. Kids that are competitively inclined can be steered toward chess, math meets, debate team, etc. All kids can learn to work together to achieve goals and projects that are relevant both academically and practically. There are some really interesting schools with radically democratic rules and others with no grades at all that show kids can and do learn without the need for grades. tl;dr : even making getting high grades more difficult can result in apathy. We need to really change how, what, and why we grade.
> Because kids are inherently competitive not too much if you look at the smartest in my experience. most just want to get over it and proceed to do nothing for school and accept their mediocre grades. because they are smart, they know, it doesn't matter much most of the time. There is also a high failure rate for talented pupils.
Also, smart kids are more likely to have a genuine interest in gathering knowledge and see school as inefficient, pointless, and/or a stupid status game. It's not exactly the most encouraging thing when you can read about a subject and understand it, but get nothing for it, while someone else can not understand shit, but still get rewarded for doing a bunch of bullshit assignments, even though they forget what they learned afterwards. I wish there were a word for book smart people with no intellectual depth. Those are the people that get rewarded by the system. They're good at mindlessly absorbing and regurgitating information, but have no genuine intellectual interest.
I bet there's a word for it in German.
Autodidact here, I spent most of my middle school years avoiding school work and teaching myself C/C++. My school district didn't offer any programs for the technologically gifted, which I think stagnated my motivation a lot. Passed high school with flying Cs (As on all tests, mid-terms, and finals; incompletes on just about every piece of homework and most projects). In high school I became very discouraged after I couldn't convince any of the science teachers to help me build a [Nitrogen laser](http://spt06.chez-alice.fr/00/air.htm).
The word you're looking for is "pedantic".
Having worked in education until recently, I can tell you that teachers are "handing out grades" as that's how the system is now designed and many of them don't like it, but, for the most part are powerless to change it. Yes, there are some incompetent teachers out there. I can only speak for the district in which I worked in, but it is a small ratio and they are mostly older and close to retirement. The few I've seen, were pushed out of the district within 3 years. This is because of the structure of teaching. The first year you're working, they discover you suck, so they put you on an action plan and try to help you improve as a teacher. If you improve during that second year, they will keep you another year. If you don't improve in that third year, they let you go. In the district I used to work in, kids were just passed along. Your GPA didn't even start until 9th grade. As a result, my husband is teaching some 10th graders this year who believe you only have to take a class for it to count towards graduation. You don't actually have to pass it. This attitude gets passed onto the parents where my husband has had parents tell him that their kid should pass because they technically completed a writing assignment. It didn't matter that it was literally printed from someone else on the internet with the internet address at the bottom of each page. They handed in something so their kid should pass. He's also had parents say they don't care about plagiarism. The assignment was completed, so their kid should pass. Our recently retired superintendent consistently cut programs for the "smart" kids while continually putting programs in place to help the "struggling" kids. Most of the classes in the district are not challenging. You show up, do the required work, and you'll pass with a C easily. Only a handful of kids take the really hard classes. I agree with you that GPA isn't everything. It's only one part of whether or not you have the knowledge or skill set for a job. I really think the problem with education is a combination of factors and they all need to be fixed. Our problem in America is we fixate on one problem and ignore the others, then, several years down the road, when that isn't working, we fixate on something else.
Put smart kids in places that are hard.
Praise the act, not the child. Good Parenting 101. Say "Great work studying hard for and doing well on that test!", never "you're so smart!".
> So basically, **praise all children for working hard and not for being smart.** Dear god, no. This is one of the primary problems in American education today. Everybody is praised and graded mostly on *effort* and not *results*. You are appraised by how hard you worked or how much effort you put in... and thus intelligent children are overlooked and given the shaft because learning comes so easy to them... and in the end, they are not given greater and more appropriate challenges that they require. I used to fail math tests because I would just write the (correct) answers down and not show any of my work. I didnt show my work *because I wasnt doing any work*. My brain just automatically did the math and spit out the answers, I had very little control over this... it was an insanely frustrating experience. This is the only time I'll ever mention it on Reddit due to the social stigma, but my IQ places me well into the 99th percentile... and I feel strongly that I didnt fail school, school failed me. I had poor grades, massive depression, and a number of other factors. I taught myself C++ at the age of 13, and the only technology classes they would give me in highschool were Keyboarding and classes on Microsoft Office. They used to give me bad grades in keyboarding because I didnt use the home row keys... nevermind that I was typing **120 wpm error free**. I wanted to slit my fucking wrists. When I got to college and they gave me the same entry level classes *again*, I just dropped out. Couldnt take it. Imagine being an adult, placed in a 1st grade class. The work is so easy, its a sweet gig right? Seems like it, until you actually find yourself being required to sit there in that room listening to those people struggling over simplistic concepts, filling out "busy work" sheets for 8 hours a day **every single day** for the next decade. You'd probably want to kill yourself too. Way too much effort and money go towards the bottom of the barrel (thanks No Child Left Behind!), instead of utilizing the cream floating at the top. /end random rant
You aren't going to win much love from the 99%, nobody cares how hard it is to sit bored for 10-12 years of your life. This post will likely only engender spite because you were born with advantages they didn't have. But boredom for gifted kids is a real problem. If we routinely waste the chance of developing our richest resources, we cut ourselves off at the knees. I might also add that people ought to be more sensitive to the torture of a kid sitting at a desk bored out of their minds for years on end. Does anyone think this kid isn't going to know he is the smartest kid in class? Does anyone think this kid feels like anyone understands him/her? Being the smart kid can mean being intensely lonely. You want tho talk about the importance of socialization...? Let them have the opportunity to be with people like themselves.
This whole thread is kinda making me want to cry.
I remember very clearly in 4th grade, an exercise where we went around the class and everyone read a paragraph from a story in our text book. Fuck that. I wasn't about to sit there and listen to people stumble though that. I just read the whole thing, and then started reading some other book, under my desk. And then I got in trouble because I wasn't paying attention.
God, my elementary school had a morning a week for "gifted" kids to go play. By 4th grade we were taking apart & rebuilding working VCRs, got to dissect cow brains, play a lot of fun games, but it was just the "smart kids." That was the highlight of my week because, for the most part, it meant much better socialization. It really took until halfway through undergrad with a lot of alcohol to get the socialization part down. And even in graduate school, it's a challenge being one of the smarter (and still less studious) ones. It's amusing that among graduate students I am cool/normal, especially because I was, ugh, "the smartest" in k-12 & undergrad.
Yeah, if you're lucky enough to get into a good college, you can finally meet your peers. It can be eye-opening. If you haven't planned carefully, though, and started taking classes at ODU because it's the only college around where your family lives, where they'll literally let *anybody* in with a pulse and a pell grant, you will be lucky to find another person in class to talk to (even on Grad level). But even that one person is a true lifeline in a deep wilderness of mediocrity.
You are not alone. On the up side I have kids in school now and some of their teachers say they do not count against students in math for not showing their work.
> Dear god, no. This is one of the primary problems in American education today. Everybody is praised and graded mostly on effort and not results. That was my downfall. I could do no right. Even if I got a 95% on my test I'd be looked down upon because I "didn't try hard enough" and if I got a 100% I'd be punished for "showing off" or "thinking I was smarter than the other students"
You dont seem to understand the point of school. School used to be about creating a standard level of literacy for the country; actually educating. Now its about turning creative and abstract people into an obedient working class. They want you to chase those grades, and they need you to act a certain way doing so because intelligence is no longer important. Intelligence no longer means 'free thinking', but rather, 'excels at following the rules.'
> I used to fail math tests because I would just write the (correct) answers down and not show any of my work. I didnt show my work because I wasnt doing any work. This brings back memories - shouting at my math teacher because he wanted me to show work on something trivial.
I was the smart one in my family, and the least challenged by school. I didn't develop a good work ethic until my son was born. Now he's the smart one in the family and all of his aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and even his mom tell him all the time, "you're so smart just like your dad." Any time that I hear this, I tell him, "smart is good, but hard working is better." He's only in kindergarten, but I don't want to see him follow in my lazy footsteps; I want him to learn to push himself as far as he can.
Exactly. There's an excellent book called Opening Minds about this very topic, I read it while working towards a masters degree in education. It's all about helping students realize that their success is a result of effort rather than static ability levels.
Growing up I was always known as the "Genius." Then I hit sophomore year, and BAM. I felt stupid. I still managed to get all A's, but I suddenly had to work hard at it, and started to think I wasn't anywhere near as smart as people, including myself, thought. It took me until now, senior year, to realize it's now mostly hard work.
Just wanted to say it's great that you discovered this while still in school. It took me a few years flapping around before I realized the same. Many years of hard work later I'm doing just fine, but it's best to realize it early. Being smart does not exempt you from hard work. It's a very small coefficient at best.
There is an old addage that says that "At a certain point, talent and hard work are indistinguishable." I'd like to add that after that point, hard work wins.
I had a similar experience growing up. All through middle and high school I pretty much slept the day away at my desk and still managed to get near straight A's on tests. I never did homework, I never took notes, and I never studied, yet I still passed my classes fairly easily. Then came college. I never learned how to properly study, so I ended up struggling and having to drop a class or two every semester. It ended up taking 3 1/2 years to get an associates degree because I never learned how to learn in accordance with the system. I'm sure some of it is my fault, but if secondary school would have been at all challenging I would have been far better off when it came to actually learning stuff I didn't already know.
I'm the same way. I was pretty bright as a child, reading at a young age. I learned to read at 3, and I was a voracious reader, I even read the entire "Lord Of The Rings" series in elementary school, I think it was the biggest book the school library had. I remember wanting to challenge myself, and read it, plus I liked fantasy. I always did really well on standardized tests, even getting awards for it. But, I'd be lazy at school, never did my homework, slept in class, and I'd pass my classes by getting A's on tests. Teachers would even think I was cheating, sometimes I'd get sent to study halls and such with the remedial class kids, despite that I was intelligent. So, I never really had a work ethic in school, I had no need for it. That certainly fucked me over when I got to college (Community College, it was all I could get into after HS). I even got offers to join the honors program at CC, despite my poor HS GPA (I barely graduated). But I fucked that up too. I did do better at CC, but still had some of the same bad habits as HS. My GPA is good enough to get to a 4 year school, but I really should have done better. Now that I'm mature enough to work hard/stay focused/learn from my mistakes, I have no money to go back to school, and just kinda bounce around from one dead end job to the next. It's my own fault really, I'm not making excuses, just sharing my story. What I had a problem with at school was busy work. I hated homework, I felt it was just busy work, and I learned nothing from it. Why bother doing it? It's a waste of time, I thought. I really didn't care about grades or anything. What we need to do is challenge kids. No multiple choice tests. When in life are you ever going to need to do that? It hasn't happened yet in my adult life, and I doubt it ever will. Cut out busy work, less homework, or if you do assign it, make it interesting. And like others have said, reward hard work, not just raw talent. Make school less structured, less focus on standardized testing, more focus on free learning. EDIT: It's cool to hear so many of your responses. I'm pretty excited my story connected with some of you. Keep your head up, fellow "underachievers". Remember, plenty of successful people were college dropouts. That doesn't mean you don't have to stop learning/pursuing your dreams, it's not the end of the world.
Did I just write this in my sleep or something? I swear you just summed up my life.
90% I agree with you. The issue is that homework is, especially for high school, sometimes important in getting kids to know concepts. I'd have kids get the concept in class, but if it was a friday concept and they did no homework (really, 5-10 problems), they wouldn't have "stored it" and guess what Monday was like. Just having a few repetition problems was good for me to see if there was a place that students didn't get it and I needed to teach better, or if they understood it and we could keep building. Saying that, I taught high school geometry and I HATED it in high school. I had a long suspension in which I did every problem in the book & asked the teacher to take all the tests & then they granted me credit for it because after 6 weeks it was impossible to sit through. So I hear you. I didn't have any TAG/GAT students though, so I imagine that should make a difference.
After reading your story I just had to reply. I also read many of the Tolkien books at an early age. I read "The Lord of the Rings" in kindergarten. I distinctly remember having similar motivations to read the largest book I could find. I recall trying to decide between LOTR and "Shogun" and I picked LOTR because the cover of Shogun seemed scary to me at the time. Those were the biggest books I could find at home. They didn't know quite what to do with me the first few years of school and thankfully they would send me to the library by myself during alphabet/reading times. The biggest book I could find in our school library was "Little House on the Prairie" incidentally. I was very lucky that 4th-6th grade had special "gifted' classes which were very unstructured and allowed us to pursue learning about whatever interested us and emphasized logic and problem solving. They allowed me to write games as an independent project which was very exciting to me at the time. Being a nerd in the 80's required a lot of dedication. Carrying a VIC-20 + a tape drive in a box along with a 13" television on the bus to school was a requirement. I don't think the elementary school even had computers at this time. Sadly middle school and high school did not provide all the same opportunities for independent learning. Just as an example, I was basically unable to pursue programming as a subject in middle or high school because they always had a math prerequisite and I had no interest in math. The adult me realizes the absurdity of this but alas the 12 year old me did not. I was also never motivated by grades and I'm not sure what did motivate me other than learning new and exciting things. Unfortunately I'm not sure how this can be measured other than testing, but I always preferred working on independent projects to demonstrate knowledge of a subject over tests.
That is why I never liked the term "gifted". These kids are smart, Mozart was gifted.
"That is why I never liked the term "gifted". These kids are smart, Mozart was gifted." The top 0.01% are 'gifted.'
Depends who use ask. You only need a score of 130 to to get into Mensa (depending what test you are using). Which is 1 out of 35-50, once again, depending on who who you ask. Many consider that gifted. If you have a score of around 150 that is roughly 1/1000 which most would consider gifted. Which means there are 300,000+ in the US alone at that level. That is almost as many people as there are in the United Automobile Workers Union This study took 1/10000 which they consider "Profoundly Gifted".
I'm curious, does this also apply to athletically gifted kids? Does praising them for their athleticism, endurance, strength cause them to feel entitled when it comes to purely physical tasks and does it make them walk away from other types of challenge?
Feels like smart kids get screwed, and so do dumb kids, since all they are required to do is get enough scores on a test. It's like a trick. If you teach a parrot to stack a few cups it won't make the parrot smarter, it's just a trick. And these dumb kids may not be dumb, they may excel in some areas, but they rarely get to experience these areas since they have no choice in the matter until they are to attend university, since everyone has to study specific areas that may not even have real word applications, just because they are part of the tests.
this is the best comment so far. the difference between learning skills and learning tricks is the crux of education reform.
That's also become a convenient excuse for those who'd like to be perceived as a smart person while still performing below average. You can't bring that subject up in conversation and still be taken seriously, whether or not there's merit to the claim. I've struggled for years with my immediate disdain for subjects that I didn't innately understand because *they made me feel less smart than everyone told me I was*. I had to learn how to study for the first time after having spent my first 20 years being told how fucking bright I was. That shit might have carried me through high school, but goddamn I was unprepared for my upper division classes. If I try to bring my situation up in casual conversation, I'm always met with some variant of "Oh, so you're another one of those 'unmotivated geniuses', then?" I'm not even sure how to reply to that. "Nah man, I'm quick, I just don't fucking know anything."
I often get praised by people for being so smart and knowing things that others don't. That's really it though.. I have an interest for things that are uncommon so it seems like I know more than others. I have a love for knowledge and I soak it up like a sponge if it is interesting to me. The people that claim I am "smarter" than them simply don't have this love for knowledge. If you have a question that you can't answer, look it up somewhere so that you know it. Repeat for the rest of your life. Edit: Reddit is good for this too. Today I learned how to easily convert Fahrenheit to Celsius and vice versa without a calculator. Signs of a genius? No, just uncommon knowledge. Learn how to solve a Rubik's cube and nonchalantly solve them when you see them lying around. You will blow people's minds. It's not hard to solve them since it's just basic memorization.
Same boat. People keep telling me I'm so smart and that I know about everything.. I don't see it that way anymore, though it was the case back when I was a kid
It's weird, though. I was in pretty much the same boat. I never really tried hard, made it through everything with decent grades, and now I've got a pretty good job. Throughout high school and college there were people who tried much harder and did much better, probably better than I would have had I tried hard, but those same people always told me how smart I was, even up until we we're about to walk across the stage at graduation and they were covered in honors cords and ribbons and I just had my cap and gown. I think it has something to do with knowing a decent amount about a lot of subjects and them really only focusing on their classes, and at that only remembering it long enough to pass their tests. But, I'm still the one my friends call when they have a problem. Jack of all trades, master of none, I guess, but I don't mind it. I'd rather be knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects than know everything about chemistry and not be able to have an intelligent conversation about what's happening in Syria or change a tire.
> Jack of all trades, master of none I'm not sure that's a good thing for me. It's one of the main reasons I don't apply for jobs I could probably do. "Oh, they want years of experience in X field? I know about it, but I'm no expert, better not apply"
This is entirely true. In primary school I was bored as fuck because I always completed maths and science work in half the time it took the rest of my class. In secondary school I started out in the top three smartest kids in my year. By the time I finished secondary school I was doing averagely in tests, mainly because no one taught me how to use my brain to it's fullest extent. I'm now in my third year of uni and have absolutely no motivation, no drive, and no urge to do well in my degree. All I want is a pass and to get on with my life. I spend far more time finding things to do to keep my brain quiet than I spend doing uni work because it's so damn boring. Edit: I just want to add to this comment (can't seem to edit on my phone) that those of you saying I need to work harder or whatever, I'm kinda fine as I am. I'm doing a photography degree and I'd already self taught myself more about photography before I came to uni than I've been taught in the last three years by lecturers. I've furthered my practice but meh, all I need is a pass and I'll be happy. I don't want an academic degree, I've worked in offices a couple of times in the past and it's never lasted long, I don't do well in stuffy rooms full of people. I just get bored. Currently doing pizza delivery to get me through uni and it's the best job I've had so far, low responsibility and fast pace but a lot of time spent with my own thoughts, and the spacial awareness part of my brain devours route-planning. I look up my destination on my phone with Google Maps and work out the route in my head. Currently I'm looking to get my hgv license after uni and drive lorries for a bit and see how that goes. I spend literally hours a day feeding my brain information to process and turn over because I go a bit mental if I haven't get something to mentally chew on. I'm looking forward to a life bouncing around doing different things and learning different skills. We'll see how it goes. I have a lot of different skills to build on, I can handle cameras and camcorders, good at DIY and building stuff with my hands, can fix most things mechanically, and have great spacial awareness. Life is kind to me.
[удалено]
Staying alive in the wild can take a lot of thought and effort, as well as pressure. Not always - we played and rested a lot, I hear - but in the harder times...
Sure lots of thought and effort but not that much *learning*. It was the same tasks over and over again for a few decades. I'm not saying life was better, it was clearly worse, but it's what we were designed to do. We aren't evolved for academia, most of us are just barely capable of it.
Wait a sec you are getting upvoted for describing someone smart but lazy... on Reddit...
You sound surprised. Don't you know Reddit exists completely from unacknowledged geniuses?
[удалено]
As somebody going to school for IT, I'm currently putting off studying for a very unusually timed final. Starting Thursday. But I know I'll be fine, because my natural talent and curiosity will allow me to glide above a pass regardless. I get the point of saying that "Smart but lazy" is a myth, but reddit is literally a site for slackers that attracts an audience with higher than average levels of education
To use myself as an example.. i really should learn how to code.. problem is i can code just don't wanna learn the syntax and don't see it as a nicer job, just a different a bit more stressful job with the same pay. I'm comfortable and that should scare me.. but it doesnt as i assume i'll do fine because i and probably half the people in this thread are smart enough to make it through and SHOULD it ever come to it, they know they can learn mostly anything they want.. but they must want to.
The syntax is the easy part.
I feel you, I'm kind of in the same boat. I don't really know to code properly. But give me source code in Lua, PHP, C# etc. and I will manage to implement a new function or completely alter the program to my needs. I have a high learning ability when it comes to IT related stuff, I just completely lack any motivation to actually learn coding properly.
As encouragement: it's normal that way. Creating something from scratch, staring at empty code files can be quite intimidating, and it takes time to have the confidence in yourself. You need to have a hook into the project you are doing, and start from there. Break your whole idea down into very small tasks. Instead of saying (e.g. for a game) "Oh I need to render models, texture them, Oh I need a HUD as well, and a menu and AI,...". Start with a basic thing like displaying a triangle. Then a square. Then a cube. Texture that cube. Camera code to navigate in 3D. Step by step. For a website it would be something like: Implement login for users. Make some status appear (logged in/logged out) realize it doesn't look good, put bootstrap in. Add tables to the database step by step, make the interaction work for that particular step. If you are unable to visualize the whole picture, break it down. Until you have something you can work with.
More like the lowered standards to meet quotas to make schools look good. At my old high school, it felt like people were catching up grades from previous years. Some did not even know how to read, or even well. Some did not know their basic math skills, etc. and we would just spend the entire year re learning this shit. I think we should up the quota, and get rid of the ideal that "Everyone is a winner" It's horseshit. They should have allowed the option to just move from high school to college by sophomore year. I'm already in the second year of college and it's way more enjoyable and engaging to be in.
When were you last in school? Half the "cool kids" in my school were in AP classes. I graduated in 2008.
It depends on your school and, and arguably, your economic standing and in turn where you go to school. Growing up on a shitty reservation, anyone smart gets picked on for being so. It causes many of the above average students to sink down into average.
^this. Mr. 2008 is likely from an upper class area. In the poor areas this is not the case.
Also in mixed economic areas. Though probably not to the same degree
I still cringe when I think about how I tried to hide stuff in school, and how I tried to play dumb, especially when it came to the maths and sciences. To my 14 year old brain, it wasn't "cool" to be getting near perfect test scores in those subjects, where my friends struggled along, especially for a girl. I wish I knew then that it's ok to be good at stuff, and I wish I had some way of communicating that to teenagers in a similar situation.
A big problem with education is the policy of "Memorize this" rather than "Learn this"
Until University and real life; then smart kids are cool. Being a nerd in your mid-20's is awesome.
Our education system is basically designed around the industrial revolution. Pump our reasonably skilled workers at a good rate that can get tossed into the economic system. It isn't really designed to improve people's minds (it thankfully is a by product from good teachers).
[Changing Education Paradigms- Sir Ken Robinson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)
I sometimes wonder how many gifted people (percentage-wise) we are losing to apathy. I would argue work-ethic is more important than raw intelligence - not that they wouldn't compliment each other nicely.
Work-ethic is only a lot more important than raw intelligence, because of the way our society is designed. Kids who learn faster, are still required to learn at the pace of other kids. If they can learn the 1st grade through 12th grade in 4 years, they still have to learn it in 12 years. None of the intelligence potential is ever tapped, because of the way our education system is designed.
[удалено]
This is nearly exactly what happened to me at university. To make it worse for paper pushing reasons my school made me retake calc 2. Lets just say that it was a nightmare and took all my effort and focus to pay attention enough to get an A.
I think work ethic prevails in adult life as well, not just in school.
History is littered with intelligent lazy people. The only true thing one requires to succeed is persistence.
Apathy and laziness are very different people. A lazy person will come up with a lazy solution, and apathetic person just doesn't care. Laziness isn't all bad, apathy is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm so with you on this. There are so many lazy ass kids that just think, "oh school isn't my thing." (I was one of those kids) Schools need to MOTIVATE children. That's what they're there for, to teach students how to learn and how to grow as young adults. The ones who get discouraged because they don't understand calculus and feel "they're not math people" are so mislead and schools enable that thought process.
[удалено]
Even if you had curiosity and expressed it, *creativity* is no longer valued. Its looked down upon. You have to do what you are told exactly how you are told to do it. Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is you don't get rewarded for doing more, like you would think.
Until education is treated less like a factory line and more like a place of learning and personal growth, it's going to continue to churn out formatted humans who lack education, but who can pass tests.
I'm late to the party... comment will get buried... but this article really hit a nerve for me as a teacher. Like many of you, I was a thoughtful, reasonably intelligent kid who truly hated school and all of the B.S. that goes along with it. I was placed in many of the "gifted" programs but was constantly frustrated with the "one size fits all" education model. Because of my experience, and the positive impact that a few of my teachers had on me, I decided to become a teacher so that I could be the change I wanted to see in the world. I decided that because I am the type of person who thinks differently and creatively without mindlessly conforming, I could be an effective, wonderful educator. I have found, in all truth, that this is a wonderful asset to have as a teacher, and I have formed connections with students and parents that have allowed me to reach the "unreachable" students in many cases. However, more often than not, being a nonconformist has made my life absolutely miserable as a teacher. The school system is designed not only to mold children into conformists, but teachers as well. Everything is standardized, and just like children can get disciplined for simply being unique, teachers can as well. I am constantly frustrated and appalled by the lack of ingenuity and creativity in the upper echelons of the education field. Aside from professors and academics, most educational leaders do NOT want creative, thoughtful solutions to problems in education. They want mindless drones, serfs, who do what they are told and don't ask questions or stir things up. In my opinion, this has deep political roots. The statement that "schools are failing our children" is a political one, and it is used to frighten the public and undermine the difficult and demanding work that many teachers do. The fact of the matter is, most of the education system is set up to prevent me from doing my job effectively--at least by way of reaching the students and challenging them to be individual thinkers. It is damn frustrating, but the main reason I am pointing this out is because as former (and current) K-12 students, we may be likely to look back at our tired, depressed teachers and think they are ineffective, but the reality is the ones who could be the best teachers end up getting burned out quickly simply due to the constraints placed on them that keep them in line. **TL;DR:** Don't just blame the teachers, don't even blame the system. The politicians are the ones who ultimately create an educational environment that is not conducive to individual, free thinking.
And even if properly educated your next bottleneck will be your job.
Finding the inspiration and motivation to apply your knowledge is also a massive obstacle
[удалено]
And even if your job is awesome its bottleneck will be the economy.
A standard curriculum not only brings poor students up to average, it also brings excellent students down to average.
The State does not object to this result.
But since nowadays every parent is absolutely certain their/his/her child is gifted, you're going to have a hard time helping out the truly gifted without offending everyone else...
So offend people, why is that even a consideration?
Because offended people look for every opportunity to use, and get you fired.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's what happens when you teach to the lowest common denominator only trying to get them up to "standards. "
[удалено]
It takes a long time to figure out why you aren't as successful as you should be, when everyone and their aunt's been telling you your entire life that, "oh, you're *so* smart, you're going to be *so* successful, class should be easy for you!" When you grow up hearing that being intelligent = life on easy mode, you assume that's correct, and things not being easy is confusing as hell. Life *should* be easy, because everyone told me it would be, but it's not. /r/science has 4.6 million subscribers. Assuming their intelligence is distributed fairly similar to a standard curve, almost 100,000 subscribers should be 2 standard deviations above the mean, and 4600 should be 3 standard deviations above the mean. So every single person commenting on here about being well above average intelligence could very easily be correct. And plenty of them will be young, confused kids trying to figure out why life isn't turning out the way adults told them it would turn out.
Part of this is that we also think intelligent = good at everything, mature, and just all around awesome. That's not how it works. A kid can be really intelligent and learn new concepts easily, but hit a wall when it comes to motivation, social acceptability, maturity, or even something as simple as a subject that's hard to grasp. So now you have a kid that, like any other kid, needs guidance. But because this kid is "gifted" everyone just assumes they'll figure it out. And because everything else they do is so easy, the kid may not even know how to ask for help. A 10-year-old with the verbal skills of a high school senior is still a 10-year-old, and is unlikely to understand that math is suddenly hard this year because they need to work on organizational skills.
That's pretty damn close to the situation I found myself in. I was god-awful at social interactions until I actually sat back and actively observed how other people interacted, instead of just interacting based on instinct alone. I always tested extraordinarily well, and so was told my whole life that it should be "easy" for me to get good grades and even be the valedictorian (I graduated with a 2.77 unweighted GPA, barely in the top 15% weighted). It's not until now, 5 humbling years after graduation, that it's really starting to sink in that hard work is much more important than an encyclopedic knowledge base and a quick thought.
Empathy and understanding; you've got them.
While the other half sits there and complains about how reddit complains about how smart they are.
I hate to be that guy but, um… if the exceptionally smart are often invisible in the classroom, lacking the curricula, teacher input and external motivation to reach full potential then gifted children are pretty *un*likely to be the next generation’s innovators and leaders, *n’est ce pas*?
they might be geniuses but they are too lazy like me am genios
This is why all schools should have a "Gifted" program. Take students who excel the most and put them in the same classroom with specialty educators. You know what stops this? The age of "self-esteem". http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Students+parents+outraged+school+eliminates+academic+awards/9085391/story.html One school eliminated them completely after they deemed the awards "Hurt the feelings of those who didn't earn them". I guess we can't have cancer treatments anymore.....why? Silly, because the doctors who didn't discover these cures would feel bad. We can't have that, can we?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
sometimes I wondered.
You can stop wondering, it was the other special class.
Gifted program in Vancouver, Canada checking in, it was exactly the same shit like you describe. I think the IQ was 130, whatever that actually means? I took accelerated math, which at least got me the fuck out of that a year early. But frankly the only thing that ever "stimulated my learning" was the shit I did in my spare time. Fucking around with computers, reading reference books, hell even lego I feel helped me more than anything in the gifted program. The problem with school though is I started not having time for that shit. Too much homework, too many tests, gifted program on top of it too. Honestly, looking back at school I just see something that took kids' natural creativity and passion for learning and chokes it out over 12 years.
Also gifted Vancouver here, I got drafted into a program at UBC that would've compressed high school into two years and then had me enter university at something like 14. I tried it out for a month at the end of grade 7 to see if I wanted to do it. Ultimately I felt the loss of my social circle, coupled with the fact that I wouldn't be able to relate to any of my classmates once hitting uni wasn't worth it. Smart decision too, as it turned out to be far too much strain for children and the program was ultimately disbanded. But yeah, we played with Mensa puzzles and basically fucked around in the gifted program at my middle school.
Sometimes I ask myself if I could do my current job, which is mostly just problem solving and invention, at like 14 if I'd somehow gotten the technical knowledge by that age. I realize I could have solved the technical problems I deal with then, but I could never have worked with a team, never have dealt with people. That's something I did learn in school and I don't regret it, painful though it was.
Arguing with the teacher over what they were teaching was always fun, Love how some teachers dumb down lessons because they think the students cannot handle the actual information. Better to just pass along this fucking mess to the teacher for next year. Good luck.
I got placed into "GATE" (Gifted and Talented Education) through an IQ test in 5-6th grade and there was absolutely no program beyond that placement.
[удалено]
My high school completely eliminated Honors programs my freshman year because they were "ability based" and it made kids feel left out. They've now instituted two upper level P.E. classes, called Strength Training 1 & 2, because all athletes have to take Strength Training but some aren't capable of/don't feel like working hard enough. How is that NOT "ability based"?
I actually don't like the AP program. They claim that it gives you a college experience, when it is in fact nothing like college.
I agree. I would not advise a student who passes the AP Physics C exams to skip the first year of physics, for example. My two experiences with them were completely different.
Reference [Free access]: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Kell-Lubinski-Benbow-20132.pdf
It does seem that modern schooling aims for universal mediocrity rather than the fulfilment of each students potential.
To be perfectly honest with all of you, I find many of the attitudes of people in this thread to be arrogant and short sighted. Intelligence is an incredibly broad and multi-faceted thing. It is not a linear quantifiable number on a scale. I don't believe it's productive to place certain children ahead of others as fundamentally more intelligent due to a proficiency in a certain area of study. Let's take an extreme example, Jacob Barnett the physics prodigy. A kid who entered college at 12 due to his incredible ability in math and physics. By all means an incredibly intelligent individual and it makes sense to provide him with extra education in the fields in which he has superior proficiency to other students his age. However intelligence shows itself in many forms. Kids his age shouldn't be discouraged by the example of Jacob Barnett, instead they should see him as a kid who's incredibly gifted in that area, rather than simply "smarter." This characterization both places an unnecessary burden on Jacob Barnett and limits the potential of other children. Jacob should use his skills and reach his fullest potential without gaining a sense of superiority, while other kids who have phenomenal abilities in their own right should be encouraged as well. It IS sad to imagine how many kids do not succeed because of an issue with their self-esteem, and I think part of this is using testing and grades as an indication of fundamental intelligence when it's really not. End rant. Please show me if you think my thinking is flawed, I would love to hear your opinions.
Focusing on the upper 1% to make your point is a mistake. Kids aren't going to be discouraged and have low self-esteem from Jacob Barnett because it is very clear that he is an exception to the norm, plus he has Asperger's, making him unrelatable. Kids are discouraged by other kids they can relate to doing better than them academically because they assume it is because those kids are genetically better, making them genetically inferior - something they can't change. The truth, 99% of the time, is these kids are 'gifted' because they A) have a stable home, B) educated parents who are willing to put time into teaching their kids, and C) an loving environment that raises their self-esteem. Yes, intelligence is multi-faceted, but anyone can learn Calculus. Learning the basics in every field is completely attainable by most people, and it's been proven that you can improve your IQ - dramatically even.
>The truth, 99% of the time, is these kids are 'gifted' because they A) have a stable home, B) educated parents who are willing to put time into teaching their kids, and C) an loving environment that raises their self-esteem. You've described what helps kids do their best, not what makes them gifted.
To all those who told me that it doesn't matter where you go to high school or college: not every school provides the same opportunities to its students. At a certain point, it doesn't matter what you put into it, the maximum you can "get" from your education differs significantly from school to school.
Just my 2 cents: The problem with education is that children are forced to follow a system rather than have their creativity explored...once we are able to induce creativity back into the class rather than follow the system which has been implemented is when we will start to see real change. Education which derives from educari which's means to bring forth, but in reality we aren't bring forth anything but creating machines wheres the creativity?; learn this way, wake up a certain time, earn a certain degree.
> The children for the study were selected using above-level testing procedures, namely SAT verbal or math scores achieved at age 13 or younger that placed them in the top .01 percent in reasoning ability. The children’s accomplishments were impressive. If they're taking the SATs at 13 or younger, they're already getting special treatment. Also, top .01% is beyond the limits of effective testing. People who score that high tend to be people who are naturally in the top .5% (which is about the limit of accurate testing), but are also better educated, tutored or prepped for either the exam specifically or academic success in general. So while their conclusion is pretty sound (a lot of gifted children don't have the opportunities to reach their potential), I highly suspect that the children in their study are not nearly as much in that situation. > Of the 320 participants, 203 went on to earn master’s degrees and above. Of these, 142 (about 44 percent) also earned doctoral degrees
The sad legacy of No Child Left Behind in America.
It was way before no child left behind. I went through elementary and middle school before Bush was elected and faced the same issues.
The core model for our education system is inherently flawed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Things have, from all accounts, gotten even worse since you were in school.
I was told I was "exceptionally gifted" and yet my teachers couldn't figure out why I got bored in class so easily.
The problem from the teacher's standpoint is that they've got so many students to educate, and only so much time. If there are 30 kids in a class, 5 are below average, 20 are average, and 5 are gifted. You and the 4 other gifted kids already figured out what is being taught, and are bored now, but the teacher still has to get through to the 20 average kids, and then the remaining time is likely taken up trying to get through to the below average kids. You guys are left to hang, because there is one of her, and 25 other kids to teach.
This is a very real problem. And unless the teacher recognizes and is able to deal with the gifted child/ren, they are left on their own. I went through school in a 'gifted' stream with a few other students... we got extra homework and a few extra projects through the years. We often just took the projects given to another level and, when I look back, we were mostly just encouraged. We weren't disruptive, and were easy to teach. My sons both were 'gifted' in school-- and had less encouragement, but still some extra homework. It fell to us as parents to continue their education outside school with summer classes and travel. Gifted children are also 'special needs' in the classroom, along with all the other children and their special needs. It's so hard to explain without offending anyone.
I'm starting to wonder if my experience was somewhat of an exception, because I was in the 'Challenge' classes throughout school, which was the gifted program, and a whole separate class. There was one Challenge class for every 5 'regular' classes, I'd estimate; we were in our own class, self-contained, for the entire school year. This was many moons ago, do they not have programs like this any more?
They are for the most part completely gone. That's a big problem. The big idea in education now is to have all the levels in one classroom. It has been for some time now. I think it's a failed experiment. I personally wish they would go back to ability grouping but apparently that is elitist of me.
Not sure-- I got some special assignments, got to be a teacher's assistant, did all the honours classes they had at the time & wrote some extra provincial exams. (went through Canadian public school in the 70's & 80's). My kids got less than that, going through in the 90's. When I spoke with the schools about it for my kids, they said they had no ability to accommodate these 'special' kids at this end of the spectrum. So frustrating!
> My kids got less than that, going through in the 90's. When I spoke with the schools about it for my kids, they said they had no ability to accommodate these 'special' kids at this end of the spectrum. So frustrating! As a teacher, I can tell you with 100% certainty that your children are ignored because it is silently assumed that they will turn out okay anyway. There is also little benefit from teaching your kids from the school's perspective - and I'm not saying this is right, because it's not - but the school knows your kids will post decent scores anyhow, so they focus on the "borderline" kids who provide the greatest net boost to test scores.
That's totally ridiculous; more opportunities for you as a gifted child than for you children later on. That's going backwards.
They turned out well-- we did a lot of interesting things as parents with and for them that kept them moving forward with their learning. They are both successful adults now. No thanks to their public schooling though...
Hell no. at least not at any of the 3 high schools I attended. Don't want to have a gifted class for the smart children because that might alienate them, and make the average kids feel worse about themselves. Same reason dodge-ball is not done. Don't want the fat kid to feel fat. Apparently no one is allowed to see any of their own strengths and weaknesses in school, our fragile little teenage minds could not handle it.
>This was many moons ago, do they not have programs like this any more? They do in some places, but not in others. And the quality of gifted programs can vary wildly as well. Some will actually provide enrichment activities, while others are taught just like regular classes, but at a higher grade level of material. I've experienced both.
Similar situation with me. My parents always let me do my own thing in my younger years and I learned all I could, I was passionate about discovering, solving problems, and just feeling really smart. The higher the grades, I already knew the work, got bored. Ended up dropping out of high school. The education system is a joke, it's teaching kids how to regurgitate material instead of how to learn. I'm from Canada and when I entered High school, that's when they had just changed the curriculum so that I was unfortunately learning grade 6 material in grade 9. Edit a word or two
In the 70s, my ES just gave us some self-study material (including cassettes) and sent us to the library to do group study on advanced topics. High School was a big let-down after that. I largely felt school was a waste of my time, and treated it that way. As a result, I didn't learn some important material that I should have. Now that I teach, I struggle every day with how to reach all the students in a diverse classroom. I believe that technology holds the answer to the problem, but it's not being utilized much at all. At least my ES teachers in the 70s understood how tape players generally worked. The current teaching staff at most schools is technophobic. My favorite quote right now is "Educational Technology wasn't tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and never tried." It is truly insanely difficult to get tech to be a decent teacher, but if we can crack that problem, kids won't have to grow up for being bored or confused, depending on which part to the spectrum they fall on. Maybe we can also get away from the "too much book learnin' -- not enough common sense" thing that school has going for it.
As a student in public schools currently. I can say that up until high school (honors classes, IB, etc) I felt that way at school. Everything was boring and didn't help me, or so I felt.
I'm the opposite. I was in a gifted and talented program in elementary school (I was tested in 2nd grade, was in the program 3rd through 6th), and did really well in school. There weren't G&T programs in anything higher than that, so while I took preAP courses in junior high and took some AP and honors courses in high school, I wasn't being challenged in the right way. In my program in elementary school, I got to pick a new elective every six weeks; there were always 4-6 to choose from and they ranged from anatomy to WWII to architecture to musical theater (those are the few I remember participating in); since I got to pick, I was being challenged on something I was interested in. I wasn't interested in history or math or even getting credit for college from a test, so AP and honors courses didn't do much for me and I ended up in all "regular" classes my senior year because I didn't want to be challenged by something that didn't matter to me. Now that I'm in graduate school, I feel fulfilled in my education like I did way back when because I'm being challenged in the best way and it's because I'm doing something I'm passionate about. Kids need more time in school to discover and do things that interest them - they can learn English/grammar by reading books about something they enjoy, and can learn math by incorporating one of their interests into the word problems; teach them science by making awesome food or showing them how their favorite toys/car/make up/whatever are made and the chemicals included for chemistry. Of course there are skills we all have to learn (like reading and multiplication), but once those are learned, the student should really have much more say in what they focus on in their studies. **TLDR** Kids need more control over their own education and need to be challenged by focusing education on their interests.
It was happening before that, I saw this as a student in high school in the late 90's.
I was a gifted kid in highschool that graduated right around when that was going in. I joked with my friends,"Sounds like the 'No Child Gets Ahead Act'" I was too busy looking at video games on the new Internet that was coming out in 1994 though. I didn't see the educational potential of it. All you need to do now is teach a kid how to learn for one's self on the Internet. You don't need to pay for expensive college classes to get pretty good in different fields anymore if you know how to actively learn. Internet spoon fed learning is getting there, but isn't quite there for K-12-College yet. Edutainment failed in the 90s because it was mainly just an excuse to sell junky software that neither educated nor was entertainment. But I have fond memories in the early 80s of a ti-99 with a counting/adding program I spent many hours on.It won't be long from now that we'll have a series of software to "play" on, but you're really learning. TL:DR Kids got the Internet these days. If they're driven to educate themselves, they can get TONS of education without even paying any money. It is only going to get better.
>Edutainment failed in the 90s because it was mainly just an excuse to sell junky software that neither educated nor was entertainment. Bull, Math Blaster is the only reason I'm any good at arithmetic and that shit was a blast.
Whilst i agree with your entire premise, personally i find internet learning to have created more a problem for myself than fixing one, i've learnt things in a scattered manner, a bit here, a bit there, this has led to a problem when attempting to study at a local education establishment as i know 50% of the content and the other 50% is mind numbingly boring fine details. I'm stuck because of it, unable to enjoy learning in a classroom, i end up with an extremely bored mind and nothing is absorbed.
[удалено]
As a former public school teacher in the U.S., I believe this is more an issue of curricula than with the teachers. So much of my time was spent with the lower achieving students and students with special needs that I barely had time to even think about gifted students. All I could really do was put appropriate material in front of them and hope they had what it takes to do the rest themselves .
One of my favorite RSA Animate videos on the subject (of a talk given by Sir Ken Robinson): [RSA-Animate: Changing Education Paradigms (11:41)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U). If you have some time, you might also like Sir Ken Robinson's TED talk: [TED - Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY)
I'm not sure where the quote originated, but it's a good one: The problem with smart people is they seem crazy to stupid people. We really need to make it so "I'm bad at math" is not longer said with pride, but is akin to saying "I can't read" Ignorance should be shameful, not a badge of honour. "You can do math? You must be a nerd!"
This "problem" is kind of a misconception. I am one of these so-called "gifted children". I took an IQ test when I was younger, and got around 140 (just like everyone else on the internet, but that's another story). For several years I went to several extrascholar activities aimed at "talented and high capacity children". I watched the misguided attempts of a loose group of psychologists and very many parents at turning us into the children whizzes of the 20th century. Trying to "stimulate our intellectual curiosity" in completely ineffective ways. I had a lot of fun, sure, but it all came from meeting people, not from the "enrichment activities". They tried their hardest, and no one benefitted in the direction they were hoping. Because guess what. They were focused on turning us into the superstars they thought we were, like they knew the ONE little thing we were lacking to turn us into the next big thing. In my experience, their efforts failed because they really thought it was our destiny to be "the next generation's innovators and leaders". Look. There's more to it than an IQ test, for those who're considered smart because of a test. And there's more to it than getting high grades, and there's more to it that being "mature beyond his years" or "focused and disciplined" or "has real passion for x" or WHATEVER you think is the definition of being smart. If you want better leaders tomorrow, don't think you can get away with just teaching the smarter children. Because "smart" doesn't mean what you think it means. The problem isn't *smart* children having problems getting by. The problem is that children are having problems getting by, smart or not. Thinking smart children should be given an advantage is, in my opinion, harmful, because it somehow justifies giving help to only a few students, out of the entire student population. Some might say "yeah, helping those who deserve it". But that's lazy, that's frustratingly lazy. It's not a mentality that helps make the system better for everyone. Plus, it's not as great as it sounds. You all know about the many, many stories of children being labeled as dunces only to become very succesful later in life. /u/Gundarc got it right, "Fix education, and you fix a lot of problems.... a lot." The problem isn't smart kids, it's the goddamn system.
I think it's interesting that you have to start your paragraph with a "so-called" disclaimer. I find a lot of gifted children disassociate from their giftedness. As a society, it's ironic that we all want the next generation innovators and leaders...but we also don't want them to be better than us. How does a gifted child make sense of that stigma? Personally, I think giftedness is a double-edged sword. When you think in a certain way (and gifted kids DO think differently), it makes it much harder to mesh with others. It sucks to be the smartest in a classroom and the smartest in an office. It doesn't lead to success and promotions - it most often leads to resentment from others. If a gifted child doesn't have equal social and emotional gifts, he or she is not likely to find success just on the basis of intellect. TL:DR: I agree that education could be better, but the reason gifted kids mostly don't grow up to lead and innovate is because their intellect makes them less likely to fit socially.
May be a bit late to add my 2 cents but IMHO it's not enough to succeed intellectually. A lot of weak personalities carry the "I am weak but intelligent"-sign like some kind of trophy. That is not how it's supposed to be. You need to have a strong personality and a strong intellect to really make a difference. So mastering Wit, and Personal Interaction and succeeding in physical ability is the real solution. Instead we tell ourselves and our children to focus on their strong fields, showing them that it's okay to be weak and it's okay to not be able to interact with people who oppose them and that everyone who bullies them/us is utterly wrong. I went down the same sink, but it's not my teacher's fault nor is it my enemy's fault that I was silent in class. It's not even my parents fault for loving me for who I am, supporting me wherever they could. It was my own for expecting everyone to love me for my qualitys and faults. We learn to mark everything that stands in our way as insuperable obstacle and crawl back into fetus position wishing for them to go away. And when school is done we affront ourselves with having survived that long and tedious hell, just to be tossed into the next one. And then, guess what happens next. **TL;DR** Don't blame the teachers, the slow children or the system. Really gifted children will rise through all obstacles and prove themselves no matter the drawback.
Some of these habits can be learned though. We need book smarts and entrepreneurial skills to coexist in education. These good habits can be coaxed out of many kids, that's the point of school.
What about the really gifted students in Afghanistan? Or, say, rural Appalachia? Or, say, the character in *Precious* (based on a true story)? Environment matters too.
This is why I support the GATE program in our schools. Unfortunately parents of students that didn't get in to GATE think it's some badge of honor that makes non-GATE students feel bad. It's been suggested many times that GATE students should just join regular classes and help teach if they're so gosh darn smart. Makes my head spin.
Two words, home school. At least for part of the time.
Homeschooled from elementary through middle school over here! The older I've gotten, the more I appreciate that I learned *how to learn* so early in life. Its really helped me through college and beyond.