OK. What about a pretty people class then? Since squishy drew that parallel for physical beauty?
Where the school would be setting policies for admission, and attendees would be selected based on whatever mix they settle on -- whichever kids the teacher think are cutest, plus some kind of semi-scientific evaluation based on how symmetric their faces are plus their BMI?
Graduating high school classes often vote for the best-looking seniors and put their photos in the yearbook.
Modeling agencies do precisely what you outlined and the parents and their kids definitely go to extremes. But it all starts with an innate quality.
[sigh] I guess what's striking me is that we have two constant contradictions running through not only this thread, but the forum as a whole:
- Gifted kids have special educational needs that are not being met. This practice can be very damaging and it's extremely frustrating when schools deny that giftedness exists and when they base GATE programs largely on achievement: giftedness is innate and not necessarily tied to achievement.
- Saying that kids are gifted, especially in even a semi-public way is a very, very bad thing. We must hide cognitive giftedness because it's innate. Rather, we must celebrate achievement. But mentioning other innate things like athletic giftedness and beauty is okay.
Respectfully, the first point won't happen in a systemwide way until people are comfortable with the idea that some people are smarter than almost everyone else and that this is okay. Everyone knows it. No one wants to admit it.
I remember how the special ed. movement got rolling in the 80s. The parents of these children got angry and started pushing the schools to meet their kids' needs. The ADA didn't happen just because politicians thought it was a good idea.
A huge part of that movement was the destigmatization of being a slower learner. It's the same exact thing with gifties.
