Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 269 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    ddregpharmask, Emerson Wong, Markas, HarryKevin91, Harry Kevin
    11,431 Registered Users
    May
    S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30 31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Originally Posted by Lina
    Austin: I was never talking about work ethic (I agree with you about that), but how Gladwell seems to say Asians are smart because they're hard working, but doesn't really provide an explanation for why other countries farm, too, and aren't as good as math.

    finally, i've gotten to the end of the book, and he does compare farming in many different countries to wet-rice farming, building the argument that this particular kind of farming is more 'human input driven' than other kinds of farming, which are more dependent on natural factors.

    I think his main point is that people will work harder if they see that the harder one works the more one is rewarded. This is a key reason that some parents here choose gradeskips or other ways to get their child into a situation where 'more work equals more reward' instead of leaving them in classrooms where 'no work = As' and 'hard work = As'

    Smiles,
    Grinity



    Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,299
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,299
    Still waiting to move up in the library queu to read Outliers, but I've enjoyed this discussion. I came across this article written by the author Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker:
    Most Likely to Succeed: How do we hire when we can�t tell who�s right for the job?
    It likens the search for good teachers to the search for good quarterbacks. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell
    Quote
    After years of worrying about issues like school funding levels, class size, and curriculum design, many reformers have come to the conclusion that nothing matters more than finding people with the potential to be great teachers. But there�s a hitch: no one knows what a person with the potential to be a great teacher looks like. The school system has a quarterback problem.

    Quote
    Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree�and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before. That means that the profession needs to start the equivalent of Ed Deutschlander�s training camp. It needs an apprenticeship system that allows candidates to be rigorously evaluated. Kane and Staiger have calculated that, given the enormous differences between the top and the bottom of the profession, you�d probably have to try out four candidates to find one good teacher. That means tenure can�t be routinely awarded, the way it is now. Currently, the salary structure of the teaching profession is highly rigid, and that would also have to change in a world where we want to rate teachers on their actual performance. An apprentice should get apprentice wages. But if we find eighty-fifth-percentile teachers who can teach a year and a half�s material in one year, we�re going to have to pay them a lot�both because we want them to stay and because the only way to get people to try out for what will suddenly be a high-risk profession is to offer those who survive the winnowing a healthy reward.

    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Dec 2005
    Posts: 7,207
    Nice snag Inky -

    2 counterarguments:
    A)I have heard (mabye from Wenda Sheard?) that the is plenty of research that says what will make a good teacher, and it comes down to -
    Strong Vocabulary and
    Strong knowldege of the material.
    (appologies in advance, I'm feeling a bit vauge here, can anyone clean this up for me?)

    But basically, the idea is that yes we do know what makes a good teacher!

    B) I've heard from friends who started in teaching that the social interactions between experienced and new teachers are very poor. One friend described the teacher's lounge as being like the cafeteria in Middle School, complete with gossip, exclusion, and cliques. I think that something like 50% of new teachers leave after the first (or maybe it was second) year!

    Grinity


    Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,299
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,299
    I thought this was interesting in light of the Malcolm Gladwell article on teachers. I'd read similar things to what you posted Grinity: 1) there's a link between good teachers, strong verbal skills and deep subject knowledge 2) 50% leave within 5 years. It'll be interesting to see how this works out for D.C. and implications for other school districts. Our district web site had an article today about teachers who achieved national board certification.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/AR2009010401534.html?wpisrc=newsletter

    Quote
    At the heart of Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's vision for transforming D.C. schools is a dramatic overhaul of its 4,000-member teacher corps that would remove a "significant share" of instructors and launch an ambitious plan to foster professional growth for those who remain.
    Quote
    Rhee's plan calls for introduction of the program, but not before trying to turn over a significant portion of the instructor corps. She had hoped to winnow out poorly performing teachers by weakening tenure protections in exchange for higher salaries. That proposal remains the subject of stalled contract talks.


    Joined: Nov 2008
    Posts: 309
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Nov 2008
    Posts: 309
    Austin, thank you for the inspiring story and the clear and well-articulated message. Even though I did not grow up on a farm, I completely agree with your points. Many people, whether or not they are tested as gifted, are "smart enough" for the tasks that they face, it's a matter of how hard they work. In my family, especially for my DS8 (who can get smug once in a while), use of words such as "talented", "gifted", "smart" are discouraged. We have tasks to do, we either do them well and be proud, or we don't do them well and need to try harder next time.

    Originally Posted by Austin
    I listened to the entire book on CD.

    I grew up on a Tobacco farm and picked fruit as a teenager.

    I agree with his thesis about the work ethic and independent streak that arises out of intensive agriculture. Dr Victor Hanson has argued the same thing in his book "Fields without Dreams" as has Wendell Berry in "The Unsettling of America."

    My wife's maternal Grandfather is a retired professional cowboy. His answer for any setback is, "You just gotta get tougher." or "From can to can't" which sums it all up.

    Most people who do not live on a production farm have absolutely no idea what it takes to be successful at it. The amount of sheer work with all the unavoidable issues such as equipment breakdown, dangerous situations, weather, crazy neighbors, uncontrollable costs and crop prices, have no peer in other types of ventures other than a technology startup.

    When kids grow up in this cultural outlook, they accept the long hours required to be successful at something with no complaining and parents expect hard work from their kids. Its nothing to get up at 5am and go until 10 pm and then do it all again the next day.

    One of my brothers took over the farm. He gets up at 5am, does his pushups and situps and goes for a run, then does his chores. Once, he broke his ankle very badly, got it set in a cast, then he went back to work, hoe-ing the tobacco.

    I know some home schooled kids who work on hay farms in the summer and work at night picking up hay from sunset to dawn for 25 cents a bale, sleep, then study in the afternoon. Some will earn $20,000 in a summer. These kids go right to Law School from the farm.

    When I was in college, there were some very bright kids from Eastern Europe who were brilliant. But, I buried them with my work ethic. I studied 12 hours a day six days a week and did every single problem in the book - staying up every night past midnight. Then I went back and redid every problem before the final. I owned the finals.

    My DW kept track of her hours when she was in college. If she put in 10 hours of studying a week per class, then she got an A.

    I work with Chinese immigrants. They put a lot of pressure on their kids. They go to school during the day, then study 4 hours every night, then go to school on the weekends, too. That works out to about 80 hours of school/studying per week. They just bury the smarter kids by being totally prepared.

    Bottom line - sure, you are smart, and can figure it out, but by being prepared, you KNOW it when you see it, saving you time when the test or issue arises.

    The Germans have a word for it - Fingerspitzengefuhl - but this applies in all areas of knowledge - you are so totally prepared that you can instantly assess something new. I think the Zen term is Satori.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerspitzengef%C3%BChl

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 6,145
    Well...

    We use terms like "GT" and "smart," since not using them always seems to me like it makes those words taboo, bad to be, forbidden. I don't like that any better.

    We have talked a lot with the kids about the fact that how smart you are is like what color your eyes are or how long your legs are: it's just the equipment you came into the world with. It's nothing to brag about. It's not really all that worthy of note, frankly. It certainly doesn't make you a better (or worse) person. It's just a boring old fact. The kids don't brag about how smart they are since to do so would be nonsensical to them.

    (Though I will note that kids in that 5-8yo age range do tend to rank themselves according to those around them, as in "I am the smartest person in my class, Jenny is second, and Joey is third." That's developmentally appropriate for that age, and they do it with EVERYTHING: how tall they are, how old they are, who has the most Pokemon cards, etc. That isn't necessarily the same as bragging. We still discourage it when they do it with intelligence, but it IS normal and it is NOT bragging in the normal sense of the word.)

    We don't compliment people for being smart because "smart" or "GT" doesn't mean anything unless you do something with it, and *that* requires work. Effort is what we compliment. Kindness is encouraged. Complimenting someone for being smart doesn't even make any sense in our house. My mom's old saw (worth sharing again!) is "It's nice to be smart, but it's smart to be nice." I think that's so true, and I use it with my kids.

    But I don't like the idea that intelligence should not be named. It's a fact. Not calling it what it is doesn't do anything but make a kid feel like something is wrong with him, since whether you call it GT or not, he knows he's different.


    Kriston
    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,690
    Likes: 1
    W
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    W
    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,690
    Likes: 1
    I just requested it because I read the posts. And I wonder about where the person scores on risk taking.

    Because a risk taker will find himself in unusual circumstances and if you are smart, you can figure things out and find opportunity. It seems that outliers were risk takers.

    Ren

    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,897
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,897
    Yes, I would say that risk taking is touched on - I don't recall it being teased out from the overall idea of situational or practical intelligence in particular.
    However lots of the stories of individuals definitely have interesting parts about making a leap of faith. Hope you find it a good read.


    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,690
    Likes: 1
    W
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    W
    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,690
    Likes: 1
    I am reading Point Counterpoint and in it there is a discussion about a poor, bright fellow that chanced upon a scholarship because of unusual circumstances. And the discussion is whether chance, or do bright fellows create those chances.

    You can't create some rich sick kid moving to the country where you will have a chance to study because of him. How many outliers were just lucky and so many not?

    Ren

    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,840
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,840
    Originally Posted by chris1234
    "Gladwell looks at many ethnic groups - not just Rice Paddy farming - for examples - and it not ethnicity - but the culture that occupation brings."

    True, but also Gladwell got very very specific about how very fussy rice farming is - the work ethic is one part of the equation but he was also talking about the very difficult task of getting the slope of the bed just right, maintaining the water level, spacing the plants, fertilizing, etc. It almost sounds like a bit of engineering, agriculture, chemistry, and biology rolled into one - maybe other areas of farming require these levels of precise manipulation, but he makes it sound pretty unusual. I have never been a farmer, so I wouldn't know for sure.

    It depends on the culture around that farming community and the level of competition for resources and inputs. Death by famine is surely a motivator!! So is social pressure to have good looking fields and farms.

    Borlaug changed how grain is farmed. Its hard for people to conceive of a time when the ground was plowed and drilled without thinking. Not that it ever was, but the level of thought that is used today is very high.

    Here is a pretty typical article on what is required to get good wheat yields.

    If you relabelled the graphs, you might be thinking about finance or physics.

    http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/B1135.htm

    Dr Kee has also done some work on Ryegrass.

    www7.tamu-commerce.edu/agscience/ppt/tfgc-2.ppt

    However, dryland farming - where you plant and then wait/worry, is not anywhere as intensive as manual tobacco or rice farming.




    Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    2e & long MAP testing
    by aeh - 05/16/24 04:30 PM
    psat questions and some griping :)
    by aeh - 05/16/24 04:21 PM
    Employers less likely to hire from IVYs
    by mithawk - 05/13/24 06:50 PM
    For those interested in science...
    by indigo - 05/11/24 05:00 PM
    Beyond IQ: The consequences of ignoring talent
    by Eagle Mum - 05/03/24 07:21 PM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5