Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion NYT opinion: No (rich) child left behind

How does the "higher SES families talk more to their 0-4yr children gel with 75% of the HG+ are introverts? I know I do talk to my kids a lot, once they start talking to me at 9-10 months old, I do this despite my introversion (I'm not HG+, just introverted), but I know many friends that I would hazard are bright but not gifted talk far more directly to their children, and in their presence, than I do to my kids, at least 1 of whom is HG+... My kids are more likely to hear me beg them to please stop talking for a just 5 seconds. I'm also painfully aware of not talking to them much until they start talking back at 9-10 months old. I do however have this hard wired thing of being completely incapable of not responding to developing communication. I cannot ignore (and gently correct) attempts at communication, making 9months to 2yrs old an exhausting stage... And it boggles my mind when adults ignore children's attempts to talk to them (during language acquisition). So I guess I answered my question to some extent...

In NYC, just higher, not just ridiculously higher income families have nannies. And usually nannies are not the greatest at developing language or anything else in their charges. A good friend, part of a dual physician couple, told me that she found out her former nanny was giving the toddlers Benadryl just to put their to sleep.

But parents are generally aggressive about developing skills, so kids do get tutors, extracurriculars that make them push in something.

And it costs a lot to buy a seat in the IVYs. I know someone, the husband gave millions and the wife also gave a separate million to Harvard endowment, they were both alumni and their son did not get in. Someone else gave 10 mil and was told to get another year of high school and AP courses (and this was a top private school) before the kid could go to Harvard -- about 5 years ago. DH was involved in fundraising for his class at Harvard and was getting all these stories when he called his classmates.

Just heard of a girl getting into Harvard -- a piano student of DD's teacher. She is at Hunter, so has to be HG, is on the National ping pong team and is the model for Abercrombie and Fitch. And there is that piano on the side.

So it will be interesting to see the next generation of leaders we produce. It won't just be about getting into a good school and making money. They will have to show they can apply themselves to something and work for it.

I grew up in a low income, abusive single parent household (this is by way of illustration - no sympathy required!) I have a PG (tested) father and a >99.9% daughter.I have no idea of my own IQ, but I hold my own with my PG family members and the parents of other >99.9% kids I know, I have a successful career in an intellectually demanding area, so I assume I fit somewhere on the gifted scale.

I guess I wanted to perhaps provide a personal account of difference in quality of communication between house holds (I know I am not the only person on this board who has experienced these things, but through extended family and my husband's social connections, I have a somewhat unique opportunity to compare and contrast). In my house my mother worked long days. From 8yo I looked after myself before and after school. She was exhausted, would leave me in front of the TV or to play endlessly on my own. When she did talk to me it revolved around her problems. She took no interest in my education, I was never expected to do homework, She drank and took various illicit drugs, I assume to self medicate. She suffered PTSD and a personality disorder and all I really remember from school is spending the day in a state of complete turmoil - I can't remember a single lesson or a favourite (or even a hated) topic. (All of which has ultimately shaped who I am in quite positive ways, I should add - though I wouldn't necessarily recommend such an approach as a means of building resilience!)

I left school with a very poor understanding of the basics; I had to relearn even basic elementary school maths concepts with my daughter. I have had to re-teach myself the basics of grammar. I have picked up much of my current knowledge from returning to study. My knowledge of history, politics etc is entirely self taught as an adult.

Obviously not all low income families will have abuse or mental illness as a factor (and many middle and upper income families will), but the stress and exhaustion of trying to keep a head above water means things like checking home work, finding time to even get to the library, knowing what is going on at school, having the emotional energy to listen to a child's problems and dreams and time and energy to advocate, all go by the way side (especially for single parent households, where the whole load is borne by one, often with no one to bounce problems off). It is not necessarily that middle or upper income families work less, it is that (as others have touched on), the day to day stressors may be less and that means that even just the time people do spend together may be more enriching (plus there is access to the already touched on capacity to provide more experiences, more books, access to user pays information, having access to networks of interesting/useful people etc).

I contrast this with my daughter. We had enough money that I could work part time or not at all. I had time to read to her endlessly when she was very little. Time and energy to help her with those topics that piqued her interest. We explored (and continue to explore) how the world works together. I have advocated for her to a point where I know she is in the best possible place she could be school wise (it's not perfect, but I'm realistic about just how much can be done for her unless we home school - which is not an option, because I don't have enough of the basics myself). We are a team. Even without her mental health issues, my mum would never have had the time or head space to do these things.

Through a quirk of fate, my husband has introduced me to some of my home country's (including some of the world's) wealthiest families, and through my work and my extended family I have come to know a number of senior politicians, senior public servants and senior members of the judiciary quite well. There are a lot of people in those cirlces who are acknowledged to be in high powered roles simply because their networks (through family, friends, the reciprocal networks of elite private schools etc) have ensured that is so. That's a pretty cushy starting place. But I have also met through those connections some of the loneliest, saddest, most terrified people I have ever come across. That to me is not success - for their positions have not been earned and it has not resulted in anything that could be described as human flourishing. In these examples there is an expected progression and life is set up to achieve it - through the best educational opportunities (including tutoring), through prearranged jobs, through guaranteed financial support if things turn pear shaped. Don't get me wrong, most work extremely hard - but often no more so than my friends from public housing who have dragged themselves out of poverty and into middle level or senior roles on a smaller scale.

The assumption that success = high status is flawed (as many have said above). High quality of life is much more complex, is very personal and involves factors well beyond poverty or wealth.

(Edited to add - I don't mean that all the wealthy or powerful people I know are unhappy and/or don't deserve their success - only that high levels of apparent career success are not necessarily indicators of particularly hard work or happiness, and that structural factors absolutely influence access to education, support and opportunities. They just don't in themselves equate to happiness either).

I think I'm starting to hate this guy already.

Now I really hate him.

That number is clearly over-stated.

I wonder what his schmoozing up the corporate ladder involved?

Wowsers. Sounds like that CFO fella is definitely failing to help the world with all that money-making and whatnot.

A gifted student will likely take many classes in English, history, science, and math in high school, but he may have little exposure to business, especially if he does not work (and the teenage employment rate has fallen). An economics course could help but is still abstract. My high school offered an accounting course, but the best students did not take it. When I was a teenager I knew little about the business world or what executives did.

Here are some things I would like them to understand about business. There are probably books that explain the business world to teenagers.

Executives are paid to make informed decisions about what products to produce and sell, how to market them, where to open offices, whom to hire and how to set pay, how to fund operations, and countless other things. Successful executives tend to be smart because intelligence helps them make good decisions. Increasing profits is what they are paid by their shareholders (including many retirees, pension funds, and college endowments who need returns) to do. Bad management can be bad for workers as well. If executives make bad decisions about product lines, their companies are forced to shrink, and workers are laid off. Business is about serving people.

I am a little uncomfortable with the business bashing. Keep in mind where the Davidsons' money came from, where money that funds universities and the arts largely comes from, and what gets groceries to our table.

A particular businessman can be an arrogant bore, of course, but it turns out that's true of other callings too.

Universities are currently funded by massive federal debt origination.

Groceries arrive at my table because of cheap energy. (Absent these groceries, I would be eating a ton of shrimp, fish, and crabs.)

Me too, which is what motivated my last post.

[quote=BostonianExecutives are paid to make informed decisions about what products to produce and sell, how to market them, where to open offices, whom to hire and how to set pay, how to fund operations, and countless other things. Successful executives tend to be smart because intelligence helps them make good decisions. Increasing profits is what they are paid by their shareholders (including many retirees, pension funds, and college endowments who need returns) to do. Bad management can be bad for workers as well. If executives make bad decisions about product lines, their companies are forced to shrink, and workers are laid off. Business is about serving people.[/quote]

Look, capitalism in it's current form is completely insane.

And I mean completely, absolutely, beyond a doubt, insane. Crazy. Way off it's rocker.

It's incoherent, abstract, and mindless.

I totally would not be eating those things. Well-- maybe the fish. But I'm also not most people, even in my region. And they most certainly WOULD be eating those things. And sea lion. And deer.

Which makes me wonder what sea lion would taste like--

Chicken of the Sea?


(Sorry. Someone had to do it. )

Seriously Bostonian, I have to agree with Jon here that executives are mostly serving ANALYSTS these days... and while I agree with your list in theory-- it sure doesn't tally with what I've actually observed over the past 14 years any more than the Keynesian econ that I learned in high school (and which my DD also learned, ironically, during the 2009-10 year) tallies with what transpired in the "deregulated" "smart" market in 2008.

There are some things wrong with both models/theories. Clearly.

I'd also (respectfully and seriously) submit that being IDEALLY intelligent is probably even more critically important for an executive/CEO/COO than it is for most of the people working in technical positions for that person. Why? Because so much of that job is about understanding other people and being able to successfully communicate with them. The higher your LOG, the more difficult a proposition that becomes. I do think that those people probably have very particular areas of giftedness, and that they are highly gifted in those areas.