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 (), 285 guests, and 16 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    A WA parent, RickF, Mick Costigan, beGalileo, oliviaerin
    11,402 Registered Users
    February
    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
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 3 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 27 28
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    I wonder why a tiger-mom can send their kid to one hour of Sylvan tutoring a day and they get ahead, yet half of the town here sends their kid to school tutoring an hour after school every day and they can barely keep up? Is it because the tiger moms tutor their brightest kids and oour school only tutors the struggling students? I'm not even sure tracking is enough. I read here that the best educational fit would be to give the kids MAP testing (out of level achievement test) and group kids with a similar score in the same class for each subject, disregarding the ages:grade levels completely.
    My homespun opinion agrees 100% with yours made in uk, if they would quit priotising socialization skills in school and start prioritizing education, plement tracking so that all students can learn enough during the eight hours a day they're already there, it would do more to "level the playing field".


    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Originally Posted by ultramarina
    If the top 10% of earners aren't "rich," what is rich? Top 5%? Top 1%? I'm curious.

    Would people prefer "upper-middle class"? I'd grant that might be a better descriptor. But 165K is not middle class. Don't kid yourself.

    Cognitive dissonance.

    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 312
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 312
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    Bostonian, I think that probably there is some truth to the notion that children born after 1975 in this country have been born in an era, at least, when such a thing is plausible.

    The problem with that assumption, however, is that it relies heavily on one very flawed series of assumptions to begin with:

    a) Ivy/Elite colleges have always admitted students upon purely meritocratic standards, and were certainly doing so from 1970 onwards in a way that perfectly captured the "brightest" students and sorted them out into elite schools in order of prestige.

    This supposed assumption on the part of Bostonian has approximately nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is certainly not a requirement for his line of reasoning.

    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    b) that there is a perfect correlation between IQ (as measured by...? Oh, nevermind) and income. That's not really so, though the trend is certainly true that the highest paying 30% of occupations as a whole tend to draw from, perhaps the highest 40% of population IQ's. But that effect largely dissipates significantly when you look at individual occupations, or even at "what does the average person with IQ 140-145 have as an occupation?" Does that make sense?

    It's curious to me that you can appreciate the trend, and thus understand that there is significant correlation, but in your mind anything less than a correlation of 1.0 makes the explanation unsatisfactory. Personally, I'm not bothered by the fact that statistics allows for variance and outliers.

    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,639
    Originally Posted by La Texican
    I wonder why a tiger-mom can send their kid to one hour of Sylvan tutoring a day and they get ahead, yet half of the town here sends their kid to school tutoring an hour after school every day and they can barely keep up? Is it because the tiger moms tutor their brightest kids and oour school only tutors the struggling students?

    Not a direct answer to your question, but here is a new article finding that the effectiveness of math tutoring may depend on the biology of the child. The article phrased things more strongly than even I would:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/us-science-brain-math-idUSBRE93S0XI20130429

    Your child's brain on math: Don't bother?
    By Sharon Begley
    NEW YORK | Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:02pm EDT
    (Reuters) - Parents whose children are struggling with math often view intense tutoring as the best way to help them master crucial skills, but a new study released on Monday suggests that for some kids even that is a lost cause.

    According to the research, the size of one key brain structure and the connections between it and other regions can help identify the 8- and 9-year olds who will hardly benefit from one-on-one math instruction.

    "We could predict how much a child learned from the tutoring based on measures of brain structure and connectivity," said Vinod Menon, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, who led the research.

    ***************************************

    I think the paper is

    http://stanford.edu/group/scsnl/cgi-bin/drupal_scsnl/content/publications
    Supekar, K., Swigart, A., Tenison, C., Jolles, D., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Fuchs, L., & Menon, V. (2013). Neural predictors of individual differences in response to math tutoring in primary-grade school children. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (In press)

    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    I found the term "rich" when applied to a two-income household making 165K fairly inflammatory, myself. In many urban parts of the country, that income is solidly middle-class, and only in a few places would it be "wealthy" as far as I can tell.

    If a person chooses to live in a place where $165k/year can barely pay for housing, that's the choice they've made. We all know that those choices come with significant other advantages that don't exist in places where such a person could pay cash for a nice home in a peaceful neighborhood, particularly in the quality of government services (police, fire, education, transport, etc.). But to call that "middle class" is just insulting.

    Joined: Jan 2010
    Posts: 757
    J
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    J
    Joined: Jan 2010
    Posts: 757
    Where we live, in a Tiger mom rich area, lots of highly educated parents, it is very common for parents to hire private tutors for their kids in high school and junior high. My friend hired a math tutor for his 5th grader, who is "good at math," but they want him to be better.
    When it comes to the SAT, these kids will outperform the poorer kids who may be just as smart, since they will have access to better study prep resources.
    My son got accepted to our local community college's summer gifted program. He will take 5 weeks of classes there in math, science and literature. The classes are pricey ($300 a week for a half-day class, ouch), but we think it is worth it. His best friend also got accepted but the dad is a truck driver and they just don't have the money for it, so he will stay at home this summer and read, etc.
    Having financial resources can obviously help your gifted child, if used wisely. That isn't to say that poorer gifted children also can't do well.

    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    I think $50,000 year is middle class an wiki agrees
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

    and we can just assume both parents usually work because that's normal.
    So 100,000 is on the border between "upper middle class" and above.

    so says wiki.

    It's certainaly not "independantly wealthy", like the upthread definition of "rich" described, saying "not dependant on income from work".
    just my semantical 2c hth

    I also think $100,000 yr is for a doctor which has always been called "rich" as a profession by most towns, although they have to work for a living too... in case we're talking about 100,000 as one income, not the family income.

    eta I remember one town the richest lady in town was the one who owned three daycares.

    Last edited by La Texican; 04/30/13 07:07 AM. Reason: i cant quit talking about rich people

    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    eEta: 'ing too much because I'm speculating too much. I just googled & family doctors average $180,000/ yr now.


    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Re: defining "rich"

    I live in a large Canadian city with one of the world's highest costs of living on a PPP basis. Even here, $165k/year will buy you a top-10% lifestyle. Housing might not be palatial, but thats a feature of urban geography.

    I don't think we should misconstrue what "rich" looks like. I would say being "rich" is about virtually all of life's decisions containing an element of personal choice. If a household can choose which city it lives in, have control over the school the children attend, participate in regular leisure activities, pay for post-secondary studies, and still have money to spare for a comfortable retirement, then that's rich in my books. And, even in the most expensive geographies, a $165k+ household can achieve at least several items on that list.

    Maybe a simpler litmus test of SES is whether, on a given day, the bulk of a household's concerns could be lumped under #firstworldproblems. wink


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    In what world is the problem not being able to retire until you're 90 yrs. old?


    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Page 3 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 27 28

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    529 savings for private high school?
    by greenthumbs - 02/25/24 12:32 PM
    Book: Gifted and Distractible (Oct 2023)
    by indigo - 02/23/24 12:15 PM
    I sent aeh a reply to an old message
    by 13umm - 02/21/24 04:11 PM
    Finding 2e informed medical providers?
    by aeh - 02/21/24 02:00 PM
    Detracking
    by indigo - 02/18/24 04:04 PM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5