Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion PG...incorrect nomenclature

Just thought I would share the experience...

Today I was having a discussion with an Education Professor who was expressing her strong support of Common Core as I was saying that i wasn't a big fan. The conversation progressed as such
Me: "Well, I wish we would move in the other direction with mastery-based education using technology to enable kids to kids at their own pace no matter how fast or slow that may be. I don't want my kids to have to sit in the class bored to death like I did."

Her: "I did and I survived."

Me: "Well, one of mine is Profoundly gifted"

Her: "Profoundly Gifted? Ha! That is incorrect nomenclature. (walks away)

Here's a recent enough document describing a 2007 paper on settling on the nomeclature. It has profoundly at 175+.

https://www.giftedchildren.dk/attachment.php?attachmentid=1853&d=1366750279

Survived is not exactly a glowing epitaph.

My browser didn't like that site's security certificate; is there another URL with the same information?

I've seen others, I guess. According to that article, she is on the upper end of HG. Not that this person knew her scores anyway. I just thought is was so odd that my statement was enough for her to decide that I was not worth talking to about the issue. So what that my kid already goes to a school with a curriculum more advanced than common core, has already skipped a grade and is bored to death. If she was in public school, she would not have even been able to skip and the curriculum is slower. I can always hope for that high goal of survival.

Thanks I was looking for that information the other day. BTW I had no problems downloading it.

Let me go out on a limb and say that professor may have been a great student, but not necessarily gifted.

Pretty rude, in any event.

I would suggest that the professor wasted your time. Don't give it a second thought. She obviously isn't a specialist in gifted issues, otherwise she would have a more nuanced understanding of the topic and would have seen the shades of gray as they exist. Or, if she is, she displayed sloppy thinking and a weak knowledge base.

It is frustrating that someone who ought to know better didn't, and acted like a total boor.

There seem to be 2 sets of figures for hg etc. The older ones commonly quoted are way above any score you can get on the new tests though and I don't think they are valid for kids tested today. It is tricky though - I looked at my son's 158 and thought "well it isn't 180 is it?". But maybe it would be if he was tested on a test that measured that high. I eventually decided if he meets the Davidson criteria he is PG.

Either way, whether one would consider it 'scientifically' accurate or just a colloquial term, it's not very polite or mature to end a conversation that way.
I mean, obviously you mean your child is very gifted, beyond what most people and even educators are used to dealing with. That's just a fact whether there's a good term for it or not. From my reading of the conversation, this person made it seem like she thinks if the term isn't used anymore, the folks for whom the term used to apply no longer exist. The subject can't even be broached.
That very high iq range was just all made up (?)
Sorry you had to be on the receiving end of that 5 year old level of behavior.

She was just displaying intellectual dominance over a civilian.