Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Rich-Poor Divide Starts With Kindergarten

My brother-in-law psychiatrist characterizes a lot of what he sees in his rural-ish poverity-ish as "piss-poor coping skills".

I've met people with IQs below 70 who were able to hold down jobs quite well (with very nice earnings records). It depends on the level of skills training. I've met illiterates with significantly higher IQs.

And it's not "poverty" per-se in the United States, which tends to have relatively wealthy poor. It's more social-emotional environment. For example, abused children don't do well as adults.

Yup. This.

I am currently reading the book "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray, who was mentioned by another posting in this thread.

In the part of the book I am currently reading, he is outlining the reasons for the increasing economic gap among whites from the 1960s to the present.

One of the reasons listed is that the elite schools have become more selective over time (in 1960, the average IQ of students in the Ivy League wasn't much different from other schools, but just 10 years later it was much different).

He calls this the "college sorting machine" and per his statistics, the top tier (~50 colleges) absorb almost 80% of the top students (numbers are approximate, as I don't have the book in front of me).

He couples this statement with three others: (1) There has been an increasing reward for high IQ, and (2) Many college students find their mates among other college students at the same college (or at least same academic tier), and (3) IQ is significantly inheritable. The last reason is particularly important, as it suggests that the advantage can last across many generations.

To summarize what I have read so far, the rich-poor divide starts with talent. I have heard that later parts of the book are more controversial, and I will provide an update as I read further.

Sing it, sister. I agree 100%.

DeeDee

It seems to me that it has so much more to do with how the "adults" in the home value education. If getting your children the best education possible is not a priority, the children learn education has no value.

In working with a title 1 school, I have witnessed teachers actually going out and meeting parents at ballgames, bowling alleys, etc, in order to give parents progress reports and to discuss ways they can help their child be successful. I have also listened to teachers lamenting that parents didn't show up or didn't follow through or seemed in some way disinterested.

I don't know what the answer to parent apathy is...

This thread has talked a lot about the correlation of high IQs and wealth without pointing out something we're all too aware of in this community... that the HG-PG community is extremely vulnerable to downward mobility due to poor social outcomes. EQ plays an even bigger role in the acquisition of wealth than IQ does, so the person who is brighter than normal and extremely charming will generally acquire wealth far more successfully than the emotionally-intense PG adult whom people regard as rather odd.

The median IQ of the wealthy may be 125, but it's also tightly clustered there.

The statistics on IQ and wealth will never accurately capture the outliers... those HG who as children are misdiagnosed with learning disabilities or attitude problems, never offered an appropriate education, who drop out and turn to drugs and alcohol, and can never maintain a career because they're too frustrated at the stupidity of their bosses.

Mamabear, I also have taught in a Title I middle school. Parents are concerned only when their childrens' grades don't allow them to play sports. I can hardly get the parents off of sports when (and if) they show up for a conference. Yet, they attend every game.

Isn't med school a solution to the problem of downward mobility?

Right. So a rich-poor divide exists. The author of the article states: "even more discouraging: The differences start early in a child's life, then linger." But why is that "discouraging" in the first place? Should it be otherwise? If the rich are illegally victimizing the poor, they should be brought to justice. If the rich are legally victimizing the poor, then our laws need updating. If the poor are not victims at all, (or only victims in their own minds) then why focus on divides? Why not focus instead on helping all students?

If the most cost effective way to improve academic performance for the next generation is to develop web-based teaching tools, then we shouldn't allow our fetish for helping those at the greatest risk to cloud our judgment. People on this forum have plenty of experience with the difficulty of advocating for those (gifted children) who others don't consider to be in need of help.

Those who focus on divides tend to want to reduce them. There are those that see any divide as evidence of systemic wrong-doing. I have often heard "solutions" proposed that effectively create systemic wrongdoing against those previously advantaged groups, bringing us toward a Harrison Bergeron level of "fairness".

I lament every missed opportunity that results in a child falling short of their potential.

For a handful of profoundly gifted kids who want to be doctors, it probably is.

My sister, by the way, is a successful MD and director of the medical residency program in her specialty at a teaching hospital. She did not make the cut for the gifted class in middle school, but she did learn how to work hard in school and enjoyed dissecting things.

She also says that you just don't get the same quality of people going into medicine now that you can't make medical residents work more than 100 hours a week.