Someone upthread (sorry, can't face trawling back to see who) in the same breath suggested that for music the comparison was a reasonable piano teacher, and that for maths it was a reasonable maths professor. Well, OK, but why not a reasonable piano soloist, or why not a reasonable maths teacher?
It was my post. I was simply giving examples, not trying to be rigorous. Why not a piano soloist? Because there are very few of these in the world and it's almost a given none of the prodigies could compare to them when they were kids. Why not a reasonable math teacher? Because my experience tells me that the math competency of average K-12 math teachers doesn't need prodigious ability. Usually people think of prodigies as kids whose performance reaches the level of "pretty good" adults, not world-class adult achievers.
I too don't really like labels, be they prodigies, or HGs, PGs, or, "gifted". I think everyone should have the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest. I also believe that parents want the best for their kids and make sacrifices so that their kids can have a good life, regardless of whether their kids are classified as "gifted".
