Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Active Threads This Week

Yeah. The funding environment is very different from past generations. Back in the day, you applied to a program, and if accepted, funding was taken care of by the department for your first year, while you had the time to sample and get to know PIs in the department (some programs have historically done rotations the first year). It wasn't critical to have studied up on the potential PIs (which DC actually did--read through each one's most recent half-dozen publications, and then specifically referenced their research interests in the admissions essays).

I agree that there are pros and cons either way with the name school vs just-respectable school path. In our case, I think DC benefited from being a big fish in a small pond, because every recommender had a lot of specific and in-depth knowledge as a result of the opportunities that were not just available, but for which DC was actively recruited. (One mentor kept tossing scholarship opportunities this way, to the point that DC felt embarrassed about having to somehow bring up that between living at home and a full scholarship, there really wasn't anything to use the scholarships on--and there were other kids who needed them a lot more.) This amount of personal attention and faculty investment would have been pretty hard to come by at a larger and more competitive school.

But for some students, the name school is the first time they have an environment that fits them intellectually, not so much because of the level of instruction, but because of the peer group. That alone can be invaluable. Different situation and level, but I can remember students at my work who came from significantly disadvantaged backgrounds (on multiple levels) for whom a big plus about coming to our school with its mixture of very diverse communities was meeting peers for whom college and financial responsibility (let alone many other aspects of life) were viewed not aspirationally, but as a given. Never having encountered any adults who had successfully traveled those paths, it was not only hard for them to imagine living that life themselves, it was hard to even voice these as goals when many of the peers from their home communities actually ridiculed or discouraged them from pursuing them.

Persevering in your goals and dreams is hard enough for young adults without having to do it alone, or even with opposition. I think the college environment is sometimes as critical in that respect as it is in the educational content and experiences conveyed.

Good to hear of your child's success in this environment. My daughter did her undergrad in 3 and then another year for your Masters. And she is writing a thesis paper. I think that is becoming more common. If you leave then your masters takes 2. If you stay, then 1 more year. Getting the opportunities is key. Big trade off, top school, very competitive to get those opportunities, sometimes being the bigger fish in a smaller pond is better.

But funding now for doctoral programs is really tight. One of her professors that wrote her a reference letter said that when she applied for a PhD, she did not bother to connect with potential PIs, she just applied and it was taken care of.

There have definitely been changes over the decades in institutional attitudes regarding early entry and grade skipping. Back in the 60s and early 70s, most districts had an established system for determining who could early enter K/1 or whole-grade skip, with no particular obstacles to using it. But then, most districts also routinely retained students who were learning disabled. So obviously social skills and developmental level were not highly prioritized in either direction at the time.

(And I also effectively skipped fourth on a school change, into a school that placed students by low-mid-high across two grade level clusters--so effectively four-plus possible placement levels for any student in the cluster.) One of the unintended consequences of mandated state-wide testing has been flattening these different options, as schools focus more on making sure as many students as possible meet expectations on the state test. Allowing double-promotion takes high scoring students out of that grade's pool, and potentially lowers their scores in the receiving grade from advanced to grade-level, which is disadvantageous to the building's accountability numbers.

So social skills are not the only factor even now.

Frameist, the data indicate you are not alone. Research on grade acceleration overwhelmingly finds that most who were accelerated would do it again, despite any negative sequelae, and that most matched peers who were not accelerated regret that they were not. (Of course, there are always exceptions, whose experiences are just as valid for them, but these are the group data.)

Wren, nice to hear an update, and especially that she is where she should be.

We have one in a very well-funded STEM PhD program as well, and even there the funding cuts impacted many students in the program. Fortunately, the PI in DC's case had wisely diversified funding, so they were able to maintain all of their students and post-docs by spreading the belt-tightening around a little.

I would agree that admissions is tough. DC had already presented twice at the top national conference in this field as an undergraduate, including an actual oral presentation (not just poster), in addition to presenting at smaller conferences, and had been mentored by a pretty well-connected professor in the undergraduate institution (which otherwise is basically an average regional state uni). TA'd as an undergrad and actually developed some curricula for those classes. Earned dual bachelor's. But out of the top 3 programs applied to, #2 and #3 said no, and #1 was an acceptance, which probably reflects both the competitiveness of applications and maybe some vibe that may have come across in DC's application essays (one of the programs had some question marks regarding cultural fit, based on conversations with current and past graduate students there, and the other was not as well-matched on research interests).

I do think the undergraduate research projects were key, as were the recommendations from faculty with reputations and relationships in their niche fields. Sadly, not everyone has access to these kinds of undergraduate research opportunities, for various reasons, but I think that your DC's pathway has some generailizability, in terms of gaining that research cred through a master's program first. A fair number of unis have plus-one 5th-year master's programs, which I think is likely going to become a more frequent pathway to doctoral programs. It's also a good way to test the waters before committing to a lengthy and intense graduate research experience.

As it happens, I agree that trading off GPA for appropriate instructional challenge is quite reasonable and even preferable. Learning that natural giftings plus effort equals growth is a pretty critical lesson that many GT learners do not experience until much later in life, if at all.

And my point regarding child responsibility is simply that one need not take ownership of decisions that were taken out of one's hands. In my opinion, decisions that involve minors are ultimately the responsibility of the adults, both by statute and morally.

My own experience with acceleration was much as you propose, although not so much for the purpose of getting out earlier, but simply to be in the zone of proximal development with regard to academic placement and rate of learning. I did not actually reach the point where instructional challenge required learning EF skills until graduate school, and did not actually learn to exercise those EF skills until my third round of graduate studies, with assistance from motivation and frontal lobe development (which continues well into one's 20s).

I went through grades 3 through 5 with a skip of 4, with a group of 8. It was standard back in the 60s. Then it stopped. I also was able to do a skip through high school, because you can. I don't think social skills were an issue, it was probably more the times. Drinking age was 18, so there was a lot of drinking in high schools then. So the exposure wasn't good.

I just put my kid in private school for gifted kids, 7 through 12

Haven't been on the board for a while, but now my daughter, 21, is graduating with her masters and going on for a PhD, I thought I would make a post about the current environment for graduate studies with all the funding cuts.

First, I thought my daughter would go to Harvard, since her father was class of 80. But he died when she turned 8, stopped donating and that counts when you are not donating. She ended up at USC and it was the best thing. She is into ocean stuff. So right off the bat, she gets a job at the Museum of Natural History, across the street from USC, doing marine classification. And she gets a work study job in a chemical oceanography, working for a top oceanographer. She does both for 2 years. She dives so then dives and does research for a professor at Wrigley. Publishes a first author paper on kelp bass in her 3rd year. She actually graduates in 3. But stays another year for her masters. She attends COP30 virtually, she publishes more papers. She has a TA job and was a guest lecturer. It takes all of that to be competitive for a PhD. And she wouldn't have had that without USC. Which was great for her program. And I think particurlarly great for aerospace engineering. These kinds of opportunities were specific to USC and when choosing a college, it is important to align what your kid wants to do with a school and extracurricular options that enhance the educational CV.

Had a soft admit for PhD from MIT last year, then the DOGE cuts. The professor that had funding for a PhD student, suddenly did not. So USC allows her to stay another year and gets her masters -- which she finds out is critical for overseas PhD applications. She is also a dual citizen, Canada and US. She applied to China, Australia, Taiwan, Europe, here and Canada. Professors here said that they did not know if they had funding for themselves, let alone a PhD student. Australia funding was difficult. I made her take Mandarin since she was 5, so China and Taiwan were options, but not first choices. She got into UBC, which is tops for her ocean stuff.


But it was really difficult. Funding is tight everywhere. Europe is tightening. And because of increased military spending in Europe, they have tightened up. Getting into a PhD program now is like winning the lottery. You have to build a connection with a professor who can get funding.

In addition, she got a summer internship with WWF in DC. Highly competitive. So Harvard was not her best option. And if her father had not died, she might have gone there. But it wasn't the right place.

And I am glad she has a field that is not business (i worked on Wall St for over 25 years) and in school while the world is going crazy. She is using Claude for her masters thesis, saying it saves her over 100 man hours in statistical and economic research. Her PhD will use AI in the same way, building a system for fisheries data. I think of all the business jobs that will disappear within a few years. She integrated AI into her thesis since I said that is the only way to get a job when she finishes in 4 years.

Anyway, I just wanted to post her experience with college and PhD applications in the current environment.