I really like how you put that, Shari.
Had to highlight this from another poster, though-- it made me chuckle:
taking an algebra class and passing it guarantees no great achievement in algebra...
Exactly.
These were students that
theoretically had the proficiency by virtue of having completed the prereq... but the reality was quite another matter. A matter that I was, as a professor, somehow supposed to 'work around.' So if I had to teach beginning algebra
instead of, say... quantitative analysis the way the ACS envisioned it... that was apparently what I should do. In other words, I was
not to require mastery of the prerequisite. (This still boggles my mind.)
In the college environment, "testing out" of prerequisites has a long history. The prerequisites are much less about "do A and then B because that is how it's done" than they are pragmatic needs for particular skills. "You need to be able to use integral calculus to understand this physics course." Credit for a course is sometimes even given via exam.
At least it used to be so; there has definitely been pressure on higher ed to propogate the philosophy that has taken hold in K through 12. Even worse is the attitude that students are "customers" and that the institution should be run as a business to please them. I don't think that's sound at all, FWIW.
Not everyone
can be a particle physicist, a great jazz pianist, a charismatic talk show host, or a poet laureate. I think that it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That's not to say that most people couldn't develop
some skill in physics, piano, public speaking, or creative writing with sufficient practice, or that luminaries in those endeavors don't work hard.
They do; they MUST or they wouldn't have that level of accomplishment. But enough of the one ingredient doesn't substitute for the other. The Mozarts of the world are not "made" but neither are they "born." They're BOTH. The reason that they are so seemingly rare has to do with right-place-right-time-right-child-right-parents-right-passion.
I think that is the essential meaning behind Gladwell's premise, and perhaps also the subtext of Chua's. Both err in overestimating the contribution of time/practice/sweat equity to true genius, however. Einstein, Picasso, Oprah, Robert Frost and Jellyroll Morton
are special above and beyond hard work and opportunity. History is filled with examples of children who were given VERY special opportunities by virtue of birth-- but most become 'proficient' and not more, and we never know their names the way we do their more talented relatives. Most of JS Bach's many children, all but one of the Barrymores' many great-grandchildren-- there are a few who stand out as "talented" but most weren't
able to make use of those opportunities to the fullest. If environment were everything, then family dynasties
should be much more common in areas of performance-based prestige, and most fail after a couple of generations.
It bemuses me that while most fully concede that not everyone can become, say, a professional athlete, there is
still the durable belief that environment is 100% of intellectual performance, and that with the right environment, neural plasticity is infinite. It's just not so. There's "neurotypical" and then there is "other." Functional MRI and PET scanning studies have shown for nearly two decades that there
are real differences.
There are fields where neurotypical people are the minority; is that solely due to lack of interest? Can everyone who WANTS to be a brain surgeon or test pilot do so? Most high school quarterbacks will never become Peyton Manning. Is it lack of nurturing?
Is 'everyone' college material? If so, then is 'everyone' (everyone with the desire) Medical School material, too? Is it really just a matter of effort?
____________________________________
I think I've already answered the nature v. nurture question. Probably several times over.
In my DD's case in particular, I'd guess 80/20. Like Shari's child, mine would need to be in a sensory deprivation chamber to prevent learning. Actually, that's not even true. At this point, she'd probably do thought experiments even there. LOL. But she has been given the opportunity to exist "unmasked" for much of her school day since she is educated at home.
In my own case, I think that the answer is more like 90-10. I did
not have a nurturing upbringing, nor a well-to-do one. On the other hand, that does make for greater tenacity and resilience when the mixture is just right, so who knows.
This has got to be something like ten cents at this point. I guess I just find this topic to be compelling.
