Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Parenting arms race article

I agree, and I think it's unfortunate because a lot of kids are bright enough to handle the material, but are being missed because of the selection process. I think it's a good idea to let high achievers in as long as they have a certain minimum cognitive ability score (either CogAT or IQ or some other ability test), but they put too much weight on achievement. My DD's WISC GAI is 150 and I was worried they would not let her in because she has already been accelerated and her math score is above the 99th percentile but her reading score is 97th percentile instead of 98th for her grade. I did actually have to argue with the g/t coordinator about it. Ultimately she got in not based on achievement but because of the WISC GAI being above the 139 composite they want, so she meets criteria per district written policy (the g/t coordinator doesn't like the policy and has been trying to change it). She told me that DD is "weak" in reading. Well, yeah, she's weak in reading because they do not teach reading above grade level! So how is she supposed to test several grade levels ahead on achievement tests if they are not teaching her at the correct level? It's infuriating. The only reason her math score is what they are looking for is because she likes working on sites like Khan Academy. A lot of kids don't have access to that.

I am talking about a class/program my son took several years ago in 6th grade. The first two years it was good, but the last year of the program the teacher wasn't as differentiated. Yes the teacher did mostly give the same work to all the kids. But a large amount of the work was small group projects or open ended assignments. I am not the only one with this complaint about this particular class.

I am sure you understand it. But if not, it means it does not take a 140 IQ to get a bachelor degree from Harvard.

Interesting-- and, I think, highly related:

Our Crazy College Crossroads

I don't. I value talent a lot. I also value hard work. It's not like they're mutually exclusive or that people with very high IQs sit around talking about strategies for succeeding without working.

Honestly, I get tired of PC dismissal of talent. Talent matters. Talent is huge. When we dismiss it, we risk ending up with crazed tiger parents who make their kids miserable and distort...oh, wait.


There are really a lot of holes in this statement.

By this logic, we should toss aside kids with IQs past the 99th percentile because they haven't achieved according to a cookie-cutter definition created by someone who may not have been as smart as they kids being tossed aside (by a wide margin). And what about low and low-ish SES kids whose parents don't how to work the system? Should we ignore them too because they haven't "achieved?"


Yes, 119 is effectively the same as 121, but both are very different from the 99th percentile and above. People with very high cognitive ability think differently from pretty much everyone else, and the rarer your talents get, the more you need a different kind of learning environment in order to develop properly (more depth, move more quickly). I agree that IQ tests aren't perfect, but they're reasonable and are pretty good predictors of different thought patterns.

Maybe not, but it should.

I didn't know if if you were talking about "top of the college class" or "top colleges", both of which are true.

Oh? Why is that? Anyone that can complete the courses required and make passing grads deserves the diploma regardless of whether it was easy or hard for them, whether their blessing came from IQ or simply a killer work ethic. In the end, the work done is what counts, not how that work was achieved so long as it was done honestly and with integrity.

I actually do think it probably takes both talent and hard work to be tops in class in a good college. I know a couple of people who ranked 1st or 2nd in two different Ivy League Universities, and they are really really smart.

Agree completely.