identified as a &quot;high ability student&quot;

Original post by Euapp

PRSOM !!
People that say that all levels can be catered for have not in my opinion ever come across the truly gifted. Yes they can cope with the top of the year group child, but not the truly exceptional. For starters those children if nurtured at home have already researched most degree programs and more, but their thought processes and methods of approaching questions is nothing like what will be taught in schools. Being adamant that you can cope is exactly the kind of attitude that makes a truly gifted child's schooling so difficult.Forcing a child to sit through hours of lessons when he could be more productive and more stimulated in another environment is a waste of talent. I know what I'm talking about having experienced the system and its shortcomings first hand. 2 of my children followed the enrichment system and it was perfectly adapted for them, the third made himself sick to avoid going to school.( a highly selective state school) We were advised to see a neuro psychologist specialising in the detection of gifted children. It turned out that number three was that one in ten million child, so the chance that his teacher had covered enough in her pgce to cope with him were next to none and I can say in all honesty now that he's been through university and is completely integrated in a sector that valorises his difference, that the people that caused him the most problems during his education were those that point blank refused to accept their limits.

'their thought processes and methods of approaching questions is nothing like what will be taught in schools'
Average students (1 SD within the mean) tend to think step by step.
Bright and gifted students (1-3 SD +) tend to skip some steps, with gifted skipping more steps, or intuitive leaps.
Source: https://intergifted.com/high-exceptional-profound/

Highly gifted (top 0.1%) on the other hand work by 'meta-thinking', for instance finding straightforward pattern in complex information, perceiving relationships among various seemingly unrelated aspects, and detecting and creatively resolving logical discrepancies and practical problems in non-linear ways etc.

Usually the ways taught by schools is step by step so you are correct there.

'Being adamant that you can cope is exactly the kind of attitude that makes a truly gifted child's schooling so difficult.Forcing a child to sit through hours of lessons when he could be more productive and more stimulated in another environment is a waste of talent.'
Yes, especially when you consider that for a highly gifted student that person has already known most/all of the content for that year before starting that year, except in maybe a bad subject/two. At best, it's revision. At worst, it's boring them to death, coasting, infantilising etc.

'2 of my children followed the enrichment system and it was perfectly adapted for them, the third made himself sick to avoid going to school.'
School refusal isn't that uncommon in gifted students because it is possible that none of the stuff is new, so might as well not go.

'It turned out that number three was that one in ten million child, so the chance that his teacher had covered enough in her pgce to cope with him were next to none'
Even the gifted education specialists won't have enough coverage.

'I can say in all honesty now that he's been through university and is completely integrated in a sector that valorises his difference'
Which is also why various gifted students want to accelerate by grade skipping to enter university earlier.

They are also more mature socially, emotionally etc. and for accelerants by the end of the year their social-emotional capability is only slightly worse than the non-accelerated students, as I've shown in "A Nation Deceived".

'that the people that caused him the most problems during his education were those that point blank refused to accept their limits.'
Most teachers aren't geniuses so of course they can't identify potential geniuses, it's straightforward.
Quite a few of them are merely above average in intellect compared to the general population.

Reply 42

Original post by Mentor423235

I agree with muttley entirely; OP the enrichment work muttley is referring to is ukmt stuff, such as BMO1, BMO2 and SMC papers. They are a lot more interesting than the boring A level content, and the problems that appear in maths olympiads today focus on problem solving skills and using only content taught in high schools to solve incredibly hard problems.

https://www.ukmt.org.uk/competitions/solo/senior-mathematical-challenge/archive
https://bmos.ukmt.org.uk/home/bmo.shtml#bmo1

these are past papers for competitions that are used to select the IMO team. I recommend u check them out, they are a very good source of problems

There are various people who are accelerated in Olympiads, including Terence Tao. For moderately gifted students competitions can cover them, but for highly gifted students you might have to look at acceleration.

Additionally if a student can fast-track by skipping a year that person can enter the interesting university content 1 year earlier, network with world-renowned professors at prestigious universities (Loxbridge, Edinburgh, maybe Manchester, LSE) and potentially enter even more interesting research 1 year earlier.

Reply 43

marers

11

Original post by Muttley79

A young student cannot fully embrace university life - they are just not mature enough and this is, sadly, proved all too often.

So what? What's so good about being able fully to embrace institutional life, as presumably you think students who aren't so young can and want to? What's wrong with treating university as if it were, say, an evening class in martial arts that you attend every weekday? If you're going to say you wouldn't get so much out of it as if you were "normal" and consumed the median amount of alcohol, etc. etc., then that would really depend on how you weigh the relative value of this against that (losing the alcohol and gaining the difference between learning lots of maths and sitting around being made to "learn" the same thing two or three or four times or perhaps with a bit of "enrichment"). Part of the foundation of your argument would seem to be "It's good to be normal". Fine, then go and be normal - the bar is open - but don't try to encourage anyone else to.

The thing here is that when you typed the line about fully embracing university life, you assumed that that was better than not doing so, and you didn't show any care to realise that some people might not agree with you.

"Cut down the tall poppies" ... and of course there's always a "reason".

Nor do I know what you mean about Ruth Lawrence and mental health. I've read a lot about her, met a number of people who know her, and wasn't aware she ever suffered from mental health problems. Her CV is online and her career doesn't show any obvious gaps that might allow for a spell in the nuthouse. And who are the students "like" her who you seem to think typically have mental health problems?

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 44

marers

11

Original post by justlearning1469

Most teachers aren't geniuses so of course they can't identify potential geniuses, it's straightforward.

The idea that some human beings are born "gifted", some "extremely gifted", some "not gifted at all", is a crock.

Do you think Bobby Fischer was born more "gifted" than everyone else, for example? Because that's not what he thought. His explanation for his worldbeating achievements was different: "I worked harder". But you think he didn't know what he was talking about - is that right?

All healthy human babies are "potential geniuses" and they will be actual instances of what you call "geniuses" if they are given the opportunity.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 45

Original post by marers

So

Where did I mention alcohol; what relevance is that? You lose an argument when you descend to personal abuse ...

Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/21/highereducation.accesstouniversity

Google Ruth Lawrence and what she's said about her time at Oxford. For example, 'Ruth ... has publicly said that she does not want her children experiencing the same childhood she did, adding that she wanted them to be “normal” and grow up “naturally.” '

Reply 46

Original post by marers

The idea that some human beings are born "gifted", some "extremely gifted", some "not gifted at all", is a crock.

Do you think Bobby Fischer was born more "gifted" than everyone else, for example? Because that's not what he thought. His explanation for his worldbeating achievements was different: "I worked harder". But you think he didn't know what he was talking about - is that right?

All healthy human babies are "potential geniuses" and they will be actual instances of what you call "geniuses" if they are given the opportunity.

'The idea that some human beings are born "gifted", some "extremely gifted", some "not gifted at all", is a crock.'
From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood.
So there are a few born gifted, very few 'extremely gifted', the vast majority not gifted.

Plus, from the abstract:
Ronald Wilson presented the first clear and compelling evidence that the heritability of IQ increases with age. We propose to call the phenomenon 'The Wilson Effect' and we document the effect diagrammatically with key twin and adoption studies, including twins reared apart, that have been carried out at various ages and in a large number of different settings. The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood. In the aggregate, the studies also confirm that shared environmental influence decreases across age, approximating about 0.10 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level into adulthood. These conclusions apply to the Westernized industrial democracies in which most of the studies have been carried out.
(Bouchard 2013)
Shared environmental influence like socio-economic status has almost zero role.

'Do you think Bobby Fischer was born more "gifted" than everyone else, for example? Because that's not what he thought. His explanation for his worldbeating achievements was different: "I worked harder".'
First of all, giftedness is a real construct, so remove the quotation marks from "gifted".
Second, imposter syndrome can make others attribute achievements to 'working harder' rather than being superior to the rest.
Third, Dunning-Kruger effect causes talented people to underestimate their talent.

'But you think he didn't know what he was talking about - is that right?'
More like cognitive biases impacting his judgement.

'All healthy human babies are "potential geniuses" and they will be actual instances of what you call "geniuses" if they are given the opportunity.'

A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new discoveries or advances in a domain of knowledge. (Wikipedia)
At least this is one definition.
I would say at least with the potential of a PhD that doesn't need revision.
1.4% of UK aged 25-64 have a doctorate (https://www.findaphd.com/advice/blog/5403/how-rare-or-common-is-it-to-have-a-phd).
Let's say 0.4% of doctorates are like the non-research doctorates.
1% potential geniuses means that you need to multiply by 100 to obtaining '100%' potential geniuses. It's far from what you say.

Reply 47

Original post by Muttley79

Where did I mention alcohol; what relevance is that? You lose an argument when you descend to personal abuse ...

Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/21/highereducation.accesstouniversity

Google Ruth Lawrence and what she's said about her time at Oxford. For example, 'Ruth ... has publicly said that she does not want her children experiencing the same childhood she did, adding that she wanted them to be “normal” and grow up “naturally.” '

The source below shows the academic and social outcomes of early entrance to university.
Source: https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/thinking-through-early-entrance-to-college/

Academic outcomes: "The evidence on the academic performance of early entrants is overwhelmingly positive. Early entrants have higher grade point averages than regular freshman (Eisenberg & George, 1979), typically in the range of B+ to A- (Stanley & Mcaill, 1986: Swiatek & Benbow, under review), and equal to those of a group of National Merit Scholars at the same university (Janos & Robinson, 1985). Compared to typical college students, they are more likely to complete college (Pressey, 1967), to complete college on time (Brody, et al, 1990: Stanley & McGill, 1986), to earn general and departmental honors (Stanley & McGill, 1986: Brody, Assouline & Stanley, 1990), and to complete concurrent master’s degrees (Brody, Assouline & Stanley, 1990). These studies were carried out at private, academically selective universities and state schools. Some had special programs of support for early entrants: others did not. Most of the students in these studies had entered college after tenth or eleventh grade."
"However, gifted students who enter college early select schools that are as academically rigorous as those chosen by gifted students who enter at the usual time (Swiatek& Benbow, under review)."

So somewhat young entrants (1 to 2 years younger) are more likely to complete university on time, with higher grades, and pick academically selective schools. That's pretty beneficial.

Well, if we have that Year 12 student who already has 4 A-levels, might as well allow him/her to enter university early. It'll pay off. And there are Year 11s who already have enough A-levels to go to university, with the right grades.

Albert Einstein took physics and maths in the Matura 2 years early, and obtained exceptional grades. Considering that Einstein didn't have the Internet, we probably have some Year 11s with A* in physics and math A-levels, or even further Math.

Social and emotional outcomes: "Janos and Robinson (1985) studied the friendships of 77 students who had skipped all of high school and entered college after the eighth grade. Almost all (92%)of the students had at least a best friend, and 68% reported having at least five good friends. During their first year, they spent most of their time with their age peers, but by their junior year, most of their companions were students in the same year in college. Girls acquired older friends more quickly than boys. Students may have acquired older friends sooner had they not spent most of their first year in classes with only other early entrants. Also, the early entrants felt accepted by typical college students, especially by their sophomore year when their physical maturity allowed them to blend in better (Noble & Drummond, 1992)."
"Some early entrants experience a small decrease in self-esteem during the first semester of college (Lupkowski, Whitmore & Ramsay, 1992). This kind of change has been noted in gifted students who have just begun a gifted program and is probably just a temporary reaction to the first experience of more challenging academics (Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke & Krasney, 1988)."

For those who skipped by 4 years (equivalent of skipping from Year 9 to University in England), their friendships are decent, and they adapt quickly to the university environment. Plus, they are accepted by typical university students.
There is a small decrease in self-esteem but it's merely temporary.
Overall, the outcomes are surprisingly beneficial.

Regret from leaving high school: "One reason for this lack of regret is that students usually don’t consider early entrance until they have exhausted the opportunities in their high school and community, and college clearly appears to be the only place for them (early entrants) to continue their education. lf they feel “out of place” at college for the first year or so, it’s better than feeling “out of place” and being academically stifled in high school. Indeed, some early entrants think college will offer a more congenial and accepting environment than high school (Noble & Drummond, 1992)."

There are various Year 11 and 12 students who find GCSE and A-level pretty boring, as the English equivalent. If those students are out of place in university, it's at least better than also being bored to death in secondary school/sixth form. Plus, university students are more open-minded than secondary school students, helping things out.

Outcomes after university: "For almost 20 years, Julian Stanley, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, has been studying and working with students who possess exceptional mathematical reasoning abilities. He founded the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which serves students who score above 700 on SAT-M before the age of 13. Many SMPY students enter college early. Stanley (1985) and Stanley and Benbow (1983) reported on these students as they entered graduate school and began careers. Most of them enthusiastically continued their studies, going on to graduate school to pursue doctorates. Despite being unusually young when they finished college, the early entrants did not stop or even pause in their education. Many are preparing for academic research careers. Many also studied abroad, accepted fellowships, or pursued other special educational opportunities during some of the “extra time” they gained from entering college early."

"However, one study (Janos, Robinson & Lunnenborg, 1989) found that students who entered college four years early felt frustrated at having to make career decisions so young. Despite this, they would not have wanted to have stayed in high school."

An incredible increase in outcomes, for instance research. Going to university early allows students to pursue opportunities using the extra year(s) they gained, which further develops their career and potential.
The only potential issue for radical accelerants is deciding your career early. Though with the 3+ years of extra time they can spend a year retraining.

Overall, going to university early is pretty beneficial, though there are a couple of cons.

'she wanted them to be “normal” and grow up “naturally.”'
Gifted people will never be 'normal'. Period. They are wired differently. Plus, what even is 'normal'?

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 48

Original post by justlearning1469

The source below shows the academic and social outcomes of early entrance to university.
Source: https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/thinking-through-early-entrance-to-college/

'she wanted them to be “normal” and grow up “naturally.”'
Gifted people will never be 'normal'. Period. They are wired differently. Plus, what even is 'normal'?

I'm not talking about American colleges but UK universities!

Why have Oxford stopped it? Did you read what I linked ...

Reply 49

Original post by Muttley79

I'm not talking about American colleges but UK universities!

Why have Oxford stopped it? Did you read what I linked ...

'I'm not talking about American colleges but UK universities!'
A lot of the stuff still applies. For instance exceptional Year 11 students not fitting into secondary school because it's quite boring.

'Why have Oxford stopped it? Did you read what I linked ...'
Apparently it was because of a child protection law being proposed at that time. They explicitly stated it wasn't because of concerns about the psychological healthiness.

Whether or not this law is draconian, the young teenagers were doing well enough before that law.
And for this case it's more like teenagers than children.
Maybe there should be a 'transition period' coded within law for 12-17 year olds.

Reply 50

Original post by justlearning1469

'I'm not talking about American colleges but UK universities!'
A lot of the stuff still applies. For instance exceptional Year 11 students not fitting into secondary school because it's quite boring.

'Why have Oxford stopped it? Did you read what I linked ...'

NO - go on ANY uni website and there are rules for under 18s - you can't enter into a contract for example. Let people grow up and go at 18 ...

I'm not going to discuss this further as its pointless - I've taught thousands of students and many exceptionally able ones. None would have benefited from going to uni early - a good school can enrich everyones learning.

Reply 51

Original post by Muttley79

NO - go on ANY uni website and there are rules for under 18s - you can't enter into a contract for example. Let people grow up and go at 18 ...

I'm not going to discuss this further as its pointless - I've taught thousands of students and many exceptionally able ones. None would have benefited from going to uni early - a good school can enrich everyones learning.

'NO - go on ANY uni website and there are rules for under 18s - you can't enter into a contract for example.'
They have to follow the law lest the government shuts them down. I can't blame them for trying to survive.

'Let people grow up and go at 18 ...'
If they are capable of it, like numerous students, as shown in research by my link of Davidson Gifted, they should.
The secondary school environment sucks for the exceptional because they really stick out like a sore thumb. If year 12s early entry into university, and they're capable, why not?

'I'm not going to discuss this further as its pointless'
All you say to combat the wealth of research, not just by Davidson Gifted is that it's 'not talking about American colleges'.
Entering university from 10th/11th grade is pretty doable, then why not for Year 11/12 for us in England?
There are a good few Year 11/12s with more courage than me, trying to fight this anti-acceleration dogma. I respect them for it.

And getting into research, networking with world-class professors, getting away from secondary school/sixth form drama, extra time, supercharging careers, at least as shown in the Davidson research, is very far from 'pointless'.

'None would have benefited from going to uni early - a good school can enrich everyones learning.'
Yeah, even Albert Einstein and the exceptionally gifted, like Prof Stephen Wolfram! And let's forget those who really are almost as ahead as Albert Einstein!
Considering Stephen Wolfram dropped out of Oxford bachelor to pursue a PhD in Caltech, obtaining it at 20, it does pose a huge dent to this idea.

Reply 52

Original post by justlearning1469

'NO - go on ANY uni website and there are rules for under 18s - you can't enter into a contract for example.'
They have to follow the law lest the government shuts them down. I can't blame them for trying to survive.

'Let people grow up and go at 18 ...'
If they are capable of it, like numerous students, as shown in research by my link of Davidson Gifted, they should.
?

'I'm not going to discuss this further as its pointless'

It is pointless because you use strawman arguments - there is a FAR more research highlight the damage that acceleration does. If you chose to ignore it then so be it.

NOT ONE of my ex-students now doing post doc cutting edge research was bored at school. Perhaps you should change school if yours is boring you?

Reply 53