The ones you're calling random kids were not random; they were matched for SE level and school class with children who were parentally identified as highly-gifted.
(Note: the kids were ID'ed as
gifted rather than
highly gifted.)
Okay, here are a couple things I see:
1. She never provides a definition of what constituted
gifted in her study subjects. What kind of study doesn't define the central point, especially when all you need is a test score?
2. See quote:
The Second Control was taken at random from the class, culling a wide range of abilities from gifted to below average depending on the school class make-up. Some of the schools in the sample selected by ability so that in the triad matching, the random Second Control group child would more likely to be gifted, others were for all-comers so that the Second Control group child might be below average.
(By triad, she means the three kids in each individual comparison group.) So a major problem I have here is that she says that the control subjects weren't labelled as gifted. But, umm, if some were attending a school that selected for high ability kids, how could her controls possibly have avoided being labelled as, at a minimum, really smart?
Also, this is irrespective of socio-economic class. The paper says that subjects were
matched by socio-economic class, not that they were all members of a
single s-e class. So I stand by my assertion that the IQs of the second control group shouldn't have been so hugely skewed to the right. Remember, this was 1974 as well, and she herself admits that social mobility when the parents were growing up wouldn't have been the same as now (so, more high IQ people in the working classes).
Factor in that IQ is not (and was not) nearly as socially acceptable a topic in the UK as in the US - and "giftedness" as a phenomenon is identified much less - it wouldn't be surprising if the children whose parents identified them as gifted, against this social pressure, tended to be quite extreme.
See, for me this highlights another weakness of the paper. Namely, she's making you guess stuff that should have been spelled out.
One more thing:
Most subjects with an exceptionally high IQ, whether labelled or unlabelled as gifted, did much better in life then those with an average score...
Is it me, or does this statement undermine her anecdotes about some gifties becoming janitors or not using their PhDs?
