Interesting. The new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown was picked out as exceptionaly bright.He took the standard IQ test at 10 (in those days all British children took such a test at 11),and was noted as exceptional. He went on to be fast-tracked, together with a few others, through school , taking his 'highers' (university level entrance exams ) two years early and becoming the youngest undergraduate in Scotland since 1945.
He resented it ever after, saying that he was the "victim of a totally ill-sighted and ludicrous experiment in education". He had, in effect, been kept away from 'less able' contemporaries of his own age and emotional development.
Britain has had some more examples of children who were exceptional. These have usually been exceptionally able in mathematics. One or two were allowed to study at university when still very young. In no case did that prove a success, for the same reason as that given by Gordon Brown. Nowadays we treat such youngsters differently and have them go through the system and await entry to university at the proper age.
We do however have special teaching available for exceptionally 'gifted' children whilst trying to have them lead a normal life in all other respects.This should happen in the state sector but I can't say whether this ideal is universally attained in all cases . (In those days, Gordon Brown was in what we called a grammar school and 'fast-tracked' even there: grammar schools were part of the state system. The purpose of the exam at 11, 'the 11 plus', was to segregate those who were academic from those who were not. The former went on to grammar schools the others to less academic schools, in England called 'secondary moderns'. The system was later abolished in favour of 'comprehensive schools' accepting everyone but streaming out those of above average abilities )
Furthermore there are some schools in the private sector which are noted for being exceptionally academic. Some are for fairly young children (7 years +) and have entrance exams which pass only the most 'able'. The great advantage for the children is that they are surrounded by children of equal ability and so don't know they are, or think of themselves as, anything different. In fact, in the very nature of things,they will find, and think of, themselves below average in some subjects: they don't realise that, even so, they are more able there than others of their age . That is easily the best course: their development as children is not affected in any way.
In the private sector too, it is well known that some 'Public Schools' specialise in the academic, just as there those which are known for fostering other talents. Any parent who has such a youngster, and the money, can then choose which kind of Public School the child should attend.All Public Schools have some distinguishing characteristics. (Some are seemingly intended only for boys who would be naturals for the marines or mountaineering, others for aesthetes, others for sportsmen and a few for politicians The girls' versions lack these subtleties, though some are thought decidedly more academic than others)
My mothers sister was advanced several grades after having unusually high tests. What it did was put her into the position of not being able to relate to the other students, being emotionally out of synch with her academic and social development. They did her no favors at all.
I agree that providing the classes that enhance those skills and intelligence without damaging the fragile development of social/emotional skills is very important.
The reverse is true also. My sons with their special needs are no longer being sequestered away from "normal" kids and they are developing emotionally where and how they need to while at the same time teaching tolerance and understanding with the children who have fewer learning issues.
Posts: 9022 | Location: PA, USA | Registered: 06-05-02
I went to school with some kids that were child geniuses. They were kept at grade level but offered college level work within the high school. This was the dawn of the AP courses in high schools and I think the article is a bit too focussed on Texas' system that doesn't cater to achievers. In preschool and then all through grade school our school had a special gifted program and then moving into high school we could take independent study courses that allowed quite a bit of freedom and could be at whatever level we wanted.
The key is having good teachers that are able to address unique students without sticking to a prescribed mold. Creativity in teaching works wonders to keep the brightest interested, but you can't burden the brightest teachers with "No Child left behind". It is a horrible program that needs to be thrown in the garbage completely.
It's also important to let individual schools have flexibility. The location of my school district created some unique circumstances that needed to be addressed - no drop out rate to speak of, 10% low level learners, but about 10% highest level learners and perhaps three geniuses in each class of students. It was a public school and is probably much less successful after all the legislation over the past 20 years because it is different than the norm. Other schools have the opposite situation and also get decimated with the current system.
One thing that is really sad is the administration wings of schools have grown about 600% over the years. Why?
Posts: 3031 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Originally posted by gizmogram: Wait frankvan! I have an IQ of 140 and I'm a Democrat!
Hmm. Gordon Brown [supra] is manifestly a highly intelligent (and sober) individual who has long shown sound judgment in complex matters. He was exceptionally intelligent as a child, markedly cleverer than his contemporaries. He is of the Left.
His counterpart in the US is President George W Bush. Is he of the Right?
Incidentally, Gordon Brown's opponent, the Leader of the Opposition, was educated at the famous Public School, Eton College, and distinguished himself at University only in being a starring member of an exclusive club, the Bullingdon, entry to which was solely for the sons of the rich and aristocratic, the unique aim of this society appearing to be getting drunk expensively.He is, at least notionally, of the Right in our political system.
"i was bored last night, so curiosity got the best of me and i decided to see if there was a correlation between %bush voters and %college grads by state (nerd!). so i found out each state's %Bachelor's degrees from the census and ran it--indeed there was a negative linear relationship between %bush voters and %college grads (R = -0.71)-- which means, the less % of college grads, the more % bush voters. DC had the highest % of college grads (42.5%) and the lowest % of bush voters (9%); West Virginia had the lowest % grads (16.1%) and a relatively high % (56%) bush voters...... Interestingly the last 14 ranking states in grads (<22%) were all bush winners [many 55-60+% voted for bush), and 11 of the top 14 ranking states in grads [>30%) were kerry winners."
Here is a conservative site that appears to debunk the original 2000 election IQ chart thing, and has a lot of relevent information.
I have a low opinion of IQ scores as a measure of people. To the extent that you can describe "intelligence" using a single number, then IQ tests merely measure the ability to take IQ tests. Not that they're meaningless, just that they're useless.
Is it surprising that better-educated Americans tended to vote against Bush? Does it have to be about IQ? College teaches open-mindedness -- a "liberal" education in the original sense of "free-thinking" -- and the Democratic Party embraces diversity and accountability. The Republican party, aligned as it is with the religious right, has a tendency to select for gullibility. I'm not sure that intelligence is a primary factor. In any case, what's remarkable is how close both Bush elections have been.
The article that DG posted to start this thread is about a very exceptionally bright girl -- perhaps a genius, though that's a term I rarely use. Richard Feynman was a genius.
I grew up around a lot of smart kids. My high school frequently had one or two top-40 national finalists in the Westinghouse (now Intel) Science Talent Search, the top-level national science fair. I knew a kid who came in 2nd. I knew many kids with 800s (highest possible score) on the SAT math test, though one student at my school had the much rarer double 800 (math and verbal). Another guy, a year older than I, was both a mathematics and violin prodigy. As a high school student I attended a summer institute in mathematics at the University of Illinois, with 30 or 40 other kids. Most of them, like me, were between junior & senior years of high school and were about 17. I met the guy with the highest score on that year's MAA (Mathematical Assn of America) test given every year at my school, with problems designed to challenge all levels of ability. I met a 13- or 14-year old who was at a very advanced level (and, understandably, a little socially inappropriate but not weird). At Cornell University I met students in a now-defunct project of the NSF (National Science Foundation) to put a dozen or so very talented graduating high school students into an accelerated 6-year B.A./Ph.D. program. We called them the "Fuds."
My point is, the really smart kids -- what you might call "true geniuses" -- generally get recognized for their gifts and placed with appropriate teachers in a supportive environment. Look at the 14-year-old Texas girl who's the subject of the article: Her photo and story are featured in Time Magazine! The system hasn't failed her. But then she's in the "top 0.1% of the population," making Mensa, which takes the the top 2%, look like a dummies' club by comparison.
It's the rest of us -- not geniuses but merely smart -- who are more at risk to fall through the cracks, be dragged to the least common denominator, and regress to the mean if there are no teachers prepared to deal with kids who are at least as smart as they are. Or if the whole system is steeped in a tradition of dogma and anti-intellectualism.
As for "Gifted Education," here's my experience is with California's GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) program of the 1980s: Both of my daughters were, on the basis of teacher nominations and a qualifying test, enrolled in GATE. The girls' main take on the program: "Just more homework." Was it on the level, or was there also a strong incentive for the school to enroll more students to gain additional state funding? I never understand these things.
Somehow, in the final analysis, the only way to improve all levels of public K-12 education is to pay teachers more.
Posts: 1857 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
Yes, Professor. This topic has been discussed in the Times' [London] letter page. Today Emeritus Professor John Radford wrote " IQ is simply an index of certain core intellectual abilities, and is useful as an indicator of performance in tasks that require those abilities. Success in life involves many other abilities.....A thermometer does not measure health, but it is still useful"
That is as much as can be said of IQ and of intelligence tests , however good, refined and culture fair the particular tests may be.
I rather think that education systems are failing the not-so-gifted children. Gifted children are self-starters and need comparatively little help academically. If they're being let down it is in terms of emotional development. Those kids who are being left on the side of the educational road - the under-achievers - not only have severe emotional issues also but will disproportionately turn to crime, etc.
Posts: 509 | Location: Australia | Registered: 02-19-03
Just because it can't be accepted as proof, doesn't mean that it isn't true. A hoax that gains wide acceptance proves, at least, that it confirms a lot of suspicions. Has there been a valid study contradicting the basic premise?
Someone else can make the comparison. I suggest that, since IQ is an average, that there would be smaller differences in the states than the figures given by the ubiquitous internet table that Fuse's link showed. However, I think it likely that there are some differences. The range of the about table seems to be more acceptable. I further suggest that the lower income of some of the states affects SAT scores.
I am not a big fan of IQ tests having any real meaning. According to tests I took as a child, I was destined to invent a perpetual motion machine, find a source for free energy for all, cure the common cold, and find a cure for British cooking. I did none of these. (And I truly apologize for failing on the last one. I have come to the conclusion that there is no cure. Sorry.)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16172 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by Adi: I rather think that education systems are failing the not-so-gifted children. Gifted children are self-starters and need comparatively little help academically. If they're being let down it is in terms of emotional development. Those kids who are being left on the side of the educational road - the under-achievers - not only have severe emotional issues also but will disproportionately turn to crime, etc.
Adi, I think that our education system fails children that don't fit into a preconceived idea of the way a student learns. There are few "typical" students. Gifted children aren't always self starters, and need our attention and guidance. As you say, their emotional development is important.
Under-acheivers don't always have severe emotional issues, however, but sometimes lack the motivation to get the best out of the education system. Is that their fault? I don't think it is, but rather, a falure of our system, to help them fulfill their potential.
DG:
quote:
I am not a big fan of IQ tests having any real meaning. According to tests I took as a child, I was destined to invent a perpetual motion machine, find a source for free energy for all, cure the common cold, and find a cure for British cooking. I did none of these. (And I truly apologize for failing on the last one. I have come to the conclusion that there is no cure. Sorry.)
There is no hope for you! We have wonderful food in Britain, to which I'm sure Ritz, Jenny, Bedstor and Fred..all the Brits, can attest. It's maybe not as spicy as you would like, but good, nonetheless. I sent you a package of delicious British cuisine, when I was in the UK, did you receive it yet? dg
. That is easily the best course: their development as children is not affected in any way.
The girls' versions lack these subtleties, though some are thought decidedly more academic than others)
olitics.
Was it on the level, or was there also a strong incentive for the school to enroll more students to gain additional state funding? I never understand these things.
