Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Rapid Acceleration

I wish there was newer research on SET members. Does anyone know if there is? One thing I'd keep in mind is that taking the SAT before 13 and participating in SET already hits a population more likely to go to highly selective, east coast colleges. There may be many equally smart kids in the midwest or south who would not be inclined twenty years ago (or perhaps even now) to take the SAT before age 13. If all kids tested on the SAT before 13, I suspect in the top scorers we'd find a higher percentage of kids who go to state universities. Some for financial reasons but many for other reasons. Now that would likely include some kids who are entering college quite early and these students are more likely to go to college locally.

My question would be why does that matter. I would assume the population going to the DA are students who are all intellectually capable of going to highly selective colleges if they wished. Is there an unstated assumption that going to U of Nevada Reno means the school is not producing top students? People choose their colleges with a wide variety of considerations in mind. Some students may decide they'd prefer to wrap up college quickly at less cost and then move on to a more prestigious and expensive school for graduate school.

Unfortunately, it does matter.
Many/most prestigious or competitive graduate programs take people from their undergrad programs. You would think it is purely a meritocracy but it's not.
As an example- I graduated from Harvard Medical School, having gone to Northwestern undergrad (currently ranked #12). I was the first person to go to HMS from NU in 20 years; NU hasn't been a feeder school for HMS. I would estimate that only 10% of my HMS class came from non-IVY league, non-top 20 schools. At least half came from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. undergrad.
It's easier to get into a prestigious undergrad from high school than into a prestigious grad program not coming from a prestigious undergrad.
Obviously, it can be done. People do it all the time.
And there is a separate discussion about if you need to go to an expensive, prestigious school for grad or undergrad school at all.
My point is simply that- you may (or may not) still be able to get into a more prestigious, expensive grad school coming from a no-name undergrad. It is very hard to do.

I disagree. That is why people pay so much money to get into prestigious undergrads since they believe it will lead to access into prestigious grad programs, which in turn could lead to better-paying jobs.
It used to be recommended that you move to a different program for your PhD- if you have ever read Richard Feynman's various bios, they told him to leave MIT and go to Princeton (I think that is where he was, LOL). That isn't necessarily true today.
As I mentioned, obviously you CAN get into prestigious grad schools coming from lesser known undergrads. It's much harder. How much harder is difficult to say.
Law and medical schools go on lots of factors for acceptance- where you went to college is a big one; GPA, MCAT/LSAT scores, personal essay, resume/activities, etc. Many people at Harvard Law also came from the Ivies for undergrad. Not all of them, but there were not alot of people from no-name schools either.

My question wasn't so much about where they went for college but when -- and then where.

And the article was very interesting for insignt into the fact that most -- since they cited the few that did early college entrance -- opted for regular high school but with acceleration in math and related (physics? since they didn't say) subjects.

In high school you get to participate in physical education with peers, which is something you should do for your body and mental health, in my opinion. Even languages you can move at your own level, do a year in a foreign country. There are options.

So I thought it was very interesting.

And I think Jack'smom has a point. The IV's have highly competitive entrance and will cover financial costs if necessary. That is what those multi-billion dollar funds are for. And if you are so able to make into the prestigious college in the first place, wouldn't you have a good shot at their grad schools?

Ren

IMO by the time you've educated them well enough to consider college they should be developed enough to have some of their own ideas in mind. �There goes all your careful plans, or there should go all your careful plans. �I'm obviously �over-involved while they're really young. �I think they'll be making most of their own choices when they're ready. �I don't know if I'll be ready. �Now the below highschool level acceleration is a different question, one I honestly can't answer yet even for my own kids. �I'm open to anything from going to school as a social event to advocating for a k skip straight to wherever the DAS or MAP puts him by that time. �From sending him a year early to holding him back until he turns almost 7 (late birthday and kindergartens not mandatory). �I'm open to homeschool or virtual school, I'm not sure about boarding school; I would like to hope I would be, but I'm not certain. How I can be this open to the possibilities and this aware of the options and still be uncertain of the plan, we'll see how that works out. �I think it's great that there's archives of what worked for other GPG kids and even better that we have a live chat forum here to ask real people about their experiences and get instant feedback on our ideas and our lives, but I don't think it will make a "best practices" formula for raising a PG kid, maybe for running a school or community, but not for guiding an individual kid. �I honor your life Wren of giving your daughter the best of everything you can find and making your world revolve around your baby and her childhood and her progression at her own pace. �Ain't it beautiful.
Happy Mothers Day.
And Happy Mothers Day everybody.

There is a survey of early college students summarized here: early college survey

It seems to me that subject acceleration works great for kids who do not need radical acceleration in all subjects. If a child is well-served with most subjects and needs extra challenge in math, it makes sense to just accelerate the math. If the child needs to skip several grades in every subject including writing, literacy, social studies, science, and math, then subject acceleration has serious limitations and cannot hope to meet the needs of the child.

I suspect there are few parents who look at their 5 or 6 yo and plan for early college at 10. I think most parents who end up with children in early college or doing very radical acceleration in all subjects make that choice when their children are 10, ready for college, and miserable doing anything else.

That seems like a good suspicion.

I think that is a very interesting document. The one case that was mentioned on local TV in NY a number of years ago, was a girl who graduated from Stoneybrook U at 13. She commuted and her parents kept her same age friends through activities such as Karate. She was not allowed to live on campus.

But it seems that many just do dual enrollment, which I am totally in favor.

Ren

I would second La Texican's motion. DD17 and DD18 called my wife this morning even though the calls only lasted a couple of minutes. If you are reading this forum in a nice Sunday afternoon or evening, you certainly deserve a medal for being a good mother.

For all mothers on this forum (and a few fathers):

Happy Mother's Day!