0 members (),
86
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: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
It appears you missed my question, WHY? What is the logic behind separate classes if both are doing the same work? Because they shouldn't be doing the same work. THAT'S the point. If you enroll in Physics III for engineers, the course work is set. It doesn't matter if you're HG or simply a really hard worker, so long as you can do the work and pass the test, you've completed the course, that's the objective, the WORK. If you want to be purely with those of like IQ, then don't enroll in classes that aren't defined by completing the required work but by having a certain IQ.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206 |
Some may say that the physics for engineers is already diluted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
It appears you missed my question, WHY? What is the logic behind separate classes if both are doing the same work? Because they shouldn't be doing the same work. THAT'S the point. If you enroll in Physics III for engineers, the course work is set. It doesn't matter if you're HG or simply a really hard worker, so long as you can do the work and pass the test, you've completed the course, that's the objective, the WORK. If you want to be purely with those of like IQ, then don't enroll in classes that aren't defined by completing the required work but by having a certain IQ. Yes, but you don't even need to actually learn anything that way. I should know, since I got a degree in chemical engineering with basically learning nothing about chemical engineering. I just threw what I needed into short term memory and then stopped caring about it once I passed the classes. So something is wrong with the course model being used.
Last edited by JonLaw; 04/01/14 02:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309 |
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. Yes. If a studend with high IQ and a student with moderate IQ work equally hard, you would think that the one with high IQ would be the high achiever anyways. Of course high achievement usually takes both talent and hard work, but the advantage of having the talent really shouldn't be held higher than the advantage of being willing to work extremely hard. Take piano as an example. Kid A reaches advanced level within a short period of time, because she is extremely talented. Kid B reaches advanced level also within a short period of time, because she loves piano so much that she practices four hours a day. Now to the audience, both young pianists will bring them the joy of music. In the long run, if kid A is willing to practice four hours a day as well, she will most likely surpass kid B. But this is something we don't know until we know. Plus, who is more artistically creative will be hard to measure until they grow up. So for now, both kids should deserve the best learning environment. However, they are most likely taught in different ways--to bring out the strengths and make up the weaknesses in each.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 336
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 336 |
I do think that there is a significant backlash that we as parents of HG+ kids wind up getting caught in. EXACTLY. This is exactly why our district TAG office will barely give you the time of day until you've passed THEIR tests. There are too many pushy parents who drive their reasonably bright-but-not-gifted kids day and night with tutors and after-school classes and weekend classes and on and on because they feel like their kid needs to be #1 for some reason. Reportedly they have even had problems with parents faking IQ tests, so our perfectly valid IQ test did not even warrant a second glance. And the district has implemented a blanket policy against single-subject acceleration. It's maddening. DD who turns out to be PG is getting the short end of the stick in so many ways because of helicoptor parents who can't just let their kids be who they are.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Good point, Thomas Percy. Old Dad, I agree with that logic insofar as set curriculum goes-- but when it comes to coursework with a design or discussion component, it's more important to have similarly able classmates that one can effectively learn from. Depending on how the course is constructed (and yes, this is more common in graduate coursework than undergrad) it may even be helpful to learn the most you can from assigned work by working collaboratively and discussing problems, ideas, etc. outside of class time in study groups or in lab settings. Jon, your post above really makes me laugh. I won't say exactly why.... just.... that it does. Makes me laugh and think of my poor DH, teaching the p-chem lab to the Chem E students. Oh my.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
So something is wrong with the course model being used. Then don't take the course. We have the option, it's a service we're paying for. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309 |
Fundamentally, this is about too many students not having a good learning environment. People who are in the gifted program don't want it to be watered down; people who are outside see this program as something way better than the regular classroom.
The K-12 system is very much cookie-cutter style and the qualify is far from satisfactory for too many students. That is the real problem.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
Good point, Thomas Percy. Old Dad, I agree with that logic insofar as set curriculum goes-- but when it comes to coursework with a design or discussion component, it's more important to have similarly able classmates that one can effectively learn from. Depending on how the course is constructed (and yes, this is more common in graduate coursework than undergrad) it may even be helpful to learn the most you can from assigned work by working collaboratively and discussing problems, ideas, etc. outside of class time in study groups or in lab settings. Agreed, eldest DS's Honors and Presidential classes have a heavy discussion component and it's refreshing for him to be in a class with those who he can converse with on his level. That's why they have THOSE classes! The few general education classes he has left he doesn't expect that level of conversation in because that's not the goal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
So something is wrong with the course model being used. Then don't take the course. We have the option, it's a service we're paying for. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. I wasn't paying for anything. In fact, I was making money my first year, so I was essentially getting paid to take classes I didn't really want to take. No engineering, no money for college. You know, now that I think about it, it's kind of like work in general. You are getting paid to do things you have zero interest in actually doing.
Last edited by JonLaw; 04/01/14 02:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|