|
0 members (),
178
guests, and
12
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 69
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 69 |
I am a hard worker, do well in school etc person. I was in "gifted" programs in school and even a self-contained gt program for a while. My husband is PG, no questions and it is pretty obvious when you meet him. My daughter is HG and she has great math and verbal skills. However, my husband and DD are qualitatively very very different than I am. I think this is where this argument comes from. They just think differently than most people and you can tell right away, they could not hide it if they tried. I think all IQ scores do is try to quantitatively get at something that is very qualitative, if that makes sense. But the thing about both of them is that their ceiling is significantly higher than most and they are both capable of understanding (and conversing) about things that most people cannot. I don't care how hard a worker you are, you can't be that unless you just are. So not investing in these children as a society is a shame. There IS a difference, tiger mom or not!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206 |
Only the law school and business school smarts translate to money. And by "smarts", you mean "lack of ethics to hold you back." I don't know about that. But a precocious love of money surely helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Only the law school and business school smarts translate to money. And by "smarts", you mean "lack of ethics to hold you back." I don't know about that. But a precocious love of money surely helps. The entire point of the "Let's Race to the Ivies" is about money and/or status.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I am a hard worker, do well in school etc person. I was in "gifted" programs in school and even a self-contained gt program for a while. My husband is PG, no questions and it is pretty obvious when you meet him. My daughter is HG and she has great math and verbal skills. However, my husband and DD are qualitatively very very different than I am. I think this is where this argument comes from. They just think differently than most people and you can tell right away, they could not hide it if they tried. I think all IQ scores do is try to quantitatively get at something that is very qualitative, if that makes sense. But the thing about both of them is that their ceiling is significantly higher than most and they are both capable of understanding (and conversing) about things that most people cannot. I don't care how hard a worker you are, you can't be that unless you just are. So not investing in these children as a society is a shame. There IS a difference, tiger mom or not! YES. Setting a 'ceiling' as a result of pretending that working hard enough can make you one of those people is a national tragedy, IMO. Every parent who presses to get exceptions made in entrance requirements, coaches for identification assessments that are theoreticaly to be taken "naive," lies or obfuscates about a child's accomplishments on a resume, does a project FOR a child (or worse, hires a pro to do it), angles for a more-glowing-than-warranted recommendation, etc. is probably somewhat guilty of contributing to this problem. It's not that there's anything wrong with those kids with IQ down in the 110-120 range. But they cannot keep up with kids like my DD, and placing them in the same class with her forces the teacher to hold my DD back so that the rest of them can manage to keep up. 
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
I disagree. We need a few institutions of learning where student capabilities are universally very, very high, and the course material is geared to them. If this would mean reducing the number of institutions where dullish tiger cubs get admitted and ask, "Will this be on the test?" then so be it.
Oh, how wonderful it would be if gifties were allowed to have an environment where they would be challenged at a level that reflects their abilities. Like it or not, most people --- even the high achievers --- simply aren't up to that, any more than most of us can work hard and make it to the nationals in the 200m dash. It appears you missed my question, WHY? What is the logic behind separate classes if both are doing the same work? If one person is blessed with many fast twitch muscle fibers and doesn't have to work at their training as hard, and another person isn't blessed with as many fast twitch muscle fibers but is amazingly determined and has a great work ethic....and qualifying time is 10.08 which both athletes achieve....did they both not qualify? The goal was to qualify, it was achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Everything in psychland's post The entire point of the "Let's Race to the Ivies" is about money and/or status. Which brings us back to my point that it be really nice if there were a few colleges for HG+ types could go to dig deep into geometrical methods for solving algebra problems as practiced by the greats of early mathematics. Or to get a deeper understanding of the roots of the 20th century European totalitarians. Etc. And what is really amazing is how this stuff can translate into modern work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I disagree. We need a few institutions of learning where student capabilities are universally very, very high, and the course material is geared to them. If this would mean reducing the number of institutions where dullish tiger cubs get admitted and ask, "Will this be on the test?" then so be it.
Oh, how wonderful it would be if gifties were allowed to have an environment where they would be challenged at a level that reflects their abilities. Like it or not, most people --- even the high achievers --- simply aren't up to that, any more than most of us can work hard and make it to the nationals in the 200m dash. It appears you missed my question, WHY? What is the logic behind separate classes if both are doing the same work? If one person is blessed with many fast twitch muscle fibers and doesn't have to work at their training as hard, and another person isn't blessed with as many fast twitch muscle fibers but is amazingly determined and has a great work ethic....and qualifying time is 10.08 which both athletes achieve....did they both not qualify? The goal was to qualify, it was achieved. Because that 10,08 is a personal best for the one-- and unlikely to reflect a routine level of performance? Whereas the other individual may be capable of 10,00 or even 9.96, and could use the performance pressure of equally capable peers in order to get there?Training at the elite level presumes that your peers in training are also better than just "good and hard-working." They aren't helpful to you in terms of your own improvement otherwise.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
It's not that there's anything wrong with those kids with IQ down in the 110-120 range. But they cannot keep up with kids like my DD, and placing them in the same class with her forces the teacher to hold my DD back so that the rest of them can manage to keep up. Wait April Fool's Day... in college, compounding things I know from personal experience and descriptions you've given of your daughter... I am going to have to call shenanigans on this. Wouldn't the actual effect be that your daughter would amazingly get a professor to follow along with her at her pace, answer her questions, delve into the topics as she'd like? And if the other students happen to keep up, they'll learn far more than they were going to starting out?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
It's not that there's anything wrong with those kids with IQ down in the 110-120 range. But they cannot keep up with kids like my DD, and placing them in the same class with her forces the teacher to hold my DD back so that the rest of them can manage to keep up. I'd only agree to the statement above if it read, "....and placing them in the same class with her forces an inexperienced and untrained teacher to hold my DD back so that the rest of them can manage to keep up." An teacher who is trained in GT education and has some experience with it can easily differentiate and not hold back students of varying skill levels. This seems to be a recurring theme, that too many here thing that just like the regular classroom, a GT classroom has to be once size fits all.
Last edited by Old Dad; 04/01/14 01:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
