Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Too Many Geniuses or Not Enough?

Nearly everybody is less smart than someone else. A high IQ is not a ticket to paradise and I don't expect it to be. But why should it sentence you to years of boredom, misery and bullying. We don't expect people to treat people with very low IQ this way -We don't hung people with IQs 4sd below average in a general classroom and tell them to stop whining and not antagonise the other kids by acting "dumb". We don't tell the fast runners that they must run in teams with the slowest runners to ensure equality and that they will be judged on how well the slowest runner does. We don't say sorry we can't stream sports teams - all teams will be allocated randomly - in this country at least doing well in sports does open a lot of doors and does affect your future.

And i don't think leadership is an indication of giftedness given that a lot of gifted people are introverted and others don't want to get involved in silly games.

Agreed 100%

People, including children, exert more effort at what they think they are good at and form an identity around that. In late elementary school I pruned my hobbies to spend time on the one I was best at. Suppose there were three ability groups in an elementary school for all subjects. By 5th grade, some children in the lowest ability group would infer that they have below-average academic ability and reduce their academic ambitions and effort accordingly. To a lesser extent this would apply to the middle group, too. Therefore parents may want their children to be in the top group, but obviously not everyone can be. Many school administrators are philosophically opposed to ability grouping, but heterogeneous grouping also avoids the thorny process of sorting students.

This is true of some people.

I don't recall exerting effort in elementary school.

Leadership and introversion are not exclusive.

Some experts have suggested sky high iq can exist in someone who isn't gifted??

That really toys with my understanding of the gifted mind.

I wonder if they're confusing underachieving and twice exceptional with non-gifted. The way I see it, it's increasingly more important to have a set of concrete, consistent standards with which to define giftedness, standards that perhaps don't include personality traits such as leadership qualities or extrovert tendencies.

My thoughts are this, as a way to reconcile the disparity in views.

Why can't standards augment everywhere? For instance, why endure math 1, 2, and 3 and finally calculus--if you could be learning differential equations and multi. calc. instead? Any average-to-above average kid--with enough confidence and a good support group of peers and teachers--can perform well in these courses. Anyone with trouble can get tutoring lessons as well (which could also be provided on the side).

In terms of literature, for instance, why not read Donne and Chaucer? As long as the concepts are readily determined/described by a "facilitator" I despise the word teacher--any student with average-to-above intelligence can appreciate the challenge and the work ethic instilled at a young age.

As a PG 23 year old (my IQ ranges from 170-180), I briefly attended a lycée in France from 16 to 17. There is no ability grouping, yet I learned a vast amount of material. I also went out of my way to become an autodidactic, which is how many kids should learn (and certainly can, with sufficient commitment). We should be encouraging children (at younger ages) to take a self-teaching approach. Self-confidence and a love of learning can lead to vast changes. In this manner, the confidence and self-worth refrain from any mitigation due to "gifted" and "non-gifted" labeling.

The essence of my post is this:

schools are under-challenging our students--regardless of IQ. An average child might still be miserable and unmotivated in classes where you can get an A simply for pleasing the teacher, showing leadership, doing vapid worksheets, and demonstrating motivation. It's time to raise the academic standards, encourage our children to question and become autodidactic, and instill them with the ambition to do (and question) more.

All good points. But then higher expectations for the level of learning also brings to light the uncomfortable, painful fact that too many of our youth are insufficiently nourished and cared for to keep up with an extraordinarily rigorous curriculum.

to elucidate more from the perspective of the gifted, I'll describe my own experience.

I never needed a teacher/professor, only a mentor or facilitator. I taught myself Differential equations, calculus, modern physics, and quantum mechanics. In the process, I also learned the diligence to set aside a few hours a day, along with a support group of professors who can take a look at my work.

Learning does NOT take place in a class room. Did Einstein get far because his teacher "told" him to work on relativity? Did Edison and Tesla work on light-bulbs and electrical currents because their professor "made" them do it for a grade? Did Richard Feynman and Erwin Schrodinger come up with their diagrams and equations in a "classroom" or within the constructs of their own minds?

Kids don't "need" a gifted classroom, they just need to be instilled with the motivation and ambition to do more and self-teach. This is what leads to great projects and early entrance into college.

Hi Kadmom, I just saw what you wrote when I posted. You make a good point. This is a very saddening truth that I wish was not the case.