文學城首頁博客首頁

登錄注冊

隴山隴西郡

寧靜純我心感得事物人寫樸實清新. 閑書閑話養閑心,閑筆閑寫記閑人;人生無虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。

首頁文章列表博文目錄

個人資料

TJKCB

給我悄悄話

博客訪問：

東方同調, 西方立異

(2016-09-07 16:35:34) 下一個

東方側重於接受已有的知識結論與別人趨同步調一致; 西方講究個性發展，兩級分化嚴重，有才能的會脫穎而出，開拓創新，標新立異

東西方教育理念不同，造就不同結果，西方講究個性發展，兩級分化嚴重，有才能的會脫穎而出，開拓創新，標新立異，而東方側重於接受已有的知識結論，喜歡與別人趨同步調一致，造就沒有個性的學生，因此沒有創新

天才引領世界－老師何用？- followership or leadership

“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” Genius to lead the world, what purpose to have teacher?

Western education theme is to guide, inspire, induce, and encourage - more with bi-directional/two-way education (teach/student co-habit or promote each other), while Eastern style is more dictating - more with directional from teacher to students. Either style has good and bad.

For genius, teacher may learn more from student than the other way around.

For non-genius, teacher can make huge difference in student's learning. When my Dean told me that, I asked how you can tear the apart - separate genius from non-genius. My Dean said, that's your job as teacher.

Can you come up with methods to find genius?

I didn't find any so far - that's why I still have a teaching job - 天才引領世界－老師何用？(see Reference below).

The following article tried to convince that the enduring misperception that gifted children are bright enough to succeed

on their own, without much help, is, indeed, misconception as the author argues "his Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which would transform how gifted children are identified and supported to high achieved scientists." I, however, from my own experience of college education, convicted that "gifted children are bright enough to succeed

on their own" - you better to move your axx away, not to hinder gifted children from going to their destiny beyond your

imagination - that's what effective teacher can do.

So true:

""Genius can shape the future. “When you look at the issues facing society now —

whether it's health care, climate change, terrorism, energy — these are the kids who have the most potential to solve these problems,” says Lubinski. “These are the kids we'd do well to bet on.”""

I've seen leadership program every where; however, I've seen only a few leaders - the vast majority of us are better off with "followership" - me, too. Leaders are born with, but followers can be trained to follow - that's how I position my teaching -

I wrote my teaching philosophy as acronym "ASK" - Ability, Skills and Knowledge. ASK. Always Seek Knowledge." - Some write as KSA, as in details:

Knowledge statements refer to an organized body of information usually of a factual or procedural nature which, if applied, makes adequate performance on the job possible. A body of information

applied directly to the performance of a function.

Skill statements refer to the proficient manual, verbal or mental manipulation of data or things.

Skills can be readily measured by a performance test where quantity and quality of performance are tested, usually within an established time limit. Examples of proficient manipulation of things are

skill in typing or skill in operating a vehicle. Examples of proficient manipulation of data are skill in computation using decimals; skill in editing for transposed numbers, etc.

Ability statements refer to the power to perform an observable activity at the present time. This

means that abilities have been evidenced through activities or behaviors that are similar to those

required on the job, e.g., ability to plan and organize work. Abilities are different from aptitudes.

Aptitudes are only the potential for performing the activity.

I'd think we need more "ASK" students than genius - one or two sufficient to lead - "too many cook, spoil the soup."

How to raise a genius: lessons from a 45-year study of super-smart children

A long-running investigation of exceptional children reveals what it takes to produce the scientists who will lead the twenty-first century.

Tom Clynes¹

07 September 2016

Article tools

Illustration by Vasava

On a summer day in 1968, professor Julian Stanley met a brilliant but bored 12-year-old named Joseph Bates. The Baltimore student was so far ahead of his classmates in mathematics that his parents had arranged for him to take a computer-science course at Johns Hopkins University, where Stanley taught. Even that wasn't enough. Having leapfrogged ahead of the adults in the class, the child kept himself busy by teaching the FORTRAN programming language to graduate students.

Unsure of what to do with Bates, his computer instructor introduced him to Stanley, a researcher well known for his work in psychometrics — the study of cognitive performance. To discover more about the young prodigy's talent, Stanley gave Bates a battery of tests that included the SAT college-admissions exam, normally taken by university-bound 16- to 18-year-olds in the United States.

Early child development: Body of knowledge

Bates's score was well above the threshold for admission to Johns Hopkins, and prompted Stanley to search for a local high school that would let the child take advanced mathematics and science classes. When that plan failed, Stanley convinced a dean at Johns Hopkins to let Bates, then 13, enrol as an undergraduate.

Stanley would affectionately refer to Bates as “student zero” of his Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which would transform how gifted children are identified and supported by the US education system. As the longest-running current longitudinal survey of intellectually talented children, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the careers and accomplishments of some 5,000 individuals, many of whom have gone on to become high-achieving scientists. The study's ever-growing data set has generated more than 400 papers and several books, and provided key insights into how to spot and develop talent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and beyond.

“What Julian wanted to know was, how do you find the kids with the highest potential for excellence in what we now call STEM, and how do you boost the chance that they'll reach that potential,” says Camilla Benbow, a protégé of Stanley's who is now dean of education and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. But Stanley wasn't interested in just studying bright children; he wanted to nurture their intellect and enhance the odds that they would change the world. His motto, he told his graduate students, was “no more dry bones methodology”.

Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right

With the first SMPY recruits now at the peak of their careers¹, what has become clear is how much the precociously gifted outweigh the rest of society in their influence. Many of the innovators who are advancing science, technology and culture are those whose unique cognitive abilities were identified and supported in their early years through enrichment programmes such as Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth — which Stanley began in the 1980s as an adjunct to SMPY. At the start, both the study and the centre were open to young adolescents who scored in the top 1% on university entrance exams. Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre.

“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program in Durham, North Carolina, which collaborates with the Hopkins centre. Wai combined data from 11 prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies², including SMPY, to demonstrate the correlation between early cognitive ability and adult achievement. “The kids who test in the top 1% tend to become our eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs and federal judges, senators and billionaires,” he says.

Source: K. Ferriman Robertson et al. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.19, 346–351 (2010).

Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice — that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status. The research emphasizes the importance of nurturing precocious children, at a time when the prevailing focus in the United States and other countries is on improving the performance of struggling students (see ‘Nurturing a talented child’). At the same time, the work to identify and support academically talented students has raised troubling questions about the risks of labelling children, and the shortfalls of talent searches and standardized tests as a means of identifying high-potential students, especially in poor and rural districts.

“With so much emphasis on predicting who will rise to the top, we run the risk of selling short the many kids who are missed by these tests,” says Dona Matthews, a developmental psychologist in Toronto, Canada, who co-founded the Center for Gifted Studies and Education at Hunter College in New York City. “For those children who are tested, it does them no favours to call them 'gifted' or 'ungifted'. Either way, it can really undermine a child's motivation to learn.”

Start of a study

On a muggy August day, Benbow and her husband, psychologist David Lubinski, describe the origins of SMPY as they walk across the quadrangle at Vanderbilt University. Benbow was a graduate student at Johns Hopkins when she met Stanley in a class he taught in 1976. Benbow and Lubinski, who have co-directed the study since Stanley's retirement, brought it to Vanderbilt in 1998.

“In a sense, that brought Julian's research full circle, since this is where he started his career as a professor,” Benbow says as she nears the university's psychology laboratory, the first US building dedicated to the study of the field. Built in 1915, it houses a small collection of antique calculators — the tools of quantitative psychology in the early 1950s, when Stanley began his academic work in psychometrics and statistics.

Brain stimulation in children spurs hope — and concern

His interest in developing scientific talent had been piqued by one of the most famous longitudinal studies in psychology, Lewis Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius^{3, 4}. Beginning in 1921, Terman selected teenage subjects on the basis of high IQ scores, then tracked and encouraged their careers. But to Terman's chagrin, his cohort produced only a few esteemed scientists. Among those rejected because their IQ of 129 was too low to make the cut was William Shockley, the Nobel-prizewinning co-inventor of the transistor. Physicist Luis Alvarez, another Nobel winner, was also rejected.

Stanley suspected that Terman wouldn't have missed Shockley and Alvarez if he'd had a reliable way to test them specifically on quantitative reasoning ability. So Stanley decided to try the Scholastic Aptitude Test (now simply the SAT). Although the test is intended for older students, Stanley hypothesized that it would be well suited to measuring the analytical reasoning abilities of elite younger students.

Nurturing a talented child

“Setting out to raise a genius is the last thing we'd advise any parent to do,” says Camilla Benbow, dean of education and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. That goal, she says, “can lead to all sorts of social and emotional problems”.

Benbow and other talent-development researchers offer the following tips to encourage both achievement and happiness for smart children.

Expose children to diverse experiences.
When a child exhibits strong interests or talents, provide opportunities to develop them.
Support both intellectual and emotional needs.
Help children to develop a 'growth mindset' by praising effort, not ability.
Encourage children to take intellectual risks and to be open to failures that help them learn.
Beware of labels: being identified as gifted can be an emotional burden.
Work with teachers to meet your child's needs. Smart students often need more-challenging material, extra support or the freedom to learn at their own pace.
Have your child's abilities tested. This can support a parent's arguments for more-advanced work, and can reveal issues such as dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or social and emotional challenges.

In March 1972, Stanley rounded up 450 bright 12- to 14-year-olds from the Baltimore area and gave them the mathematics portion of the SAT. It was the first standardized academic 'talent search'. (Later, researchers included the verbal portion and other assessments.)

“The first big surprise was how many adolescents could figure out math problems that they hadn't encountered in their course work,” says developmental psychologist Daniel Keating, then a PhD student at Johns Hopkins University. “The second surprise was how many of these young kids scored well above the admissions cut-off for many elite universities.”

Wanted: 80,000 British babies for massive study

Stanley hadn't envisioned SMPY as a multi-decade longitudinal study. But after the first follow-up survey, five years later, Benbow proposed extending the study to track subjects through their lives, adding cohorts and including assessments of interests, preferences, and occupational and other life accomplishments. The study's first four cohorts range from the top 3% to the top 0.01% in their SAT scores. The SMPY team added a fifth cohort of the leading mathematics and science graduate students in 1992 to test the generalizability of the talent-search model for identifying scientific potential.

“I don't know of any other study in the world that has given us such a comprehensive look at exactly how and why STEM talent develops,” says Christoph Perleth, a psychologist at the University of Rostock in Germany who studies intelligence and talent development.

Spatial skills

As the data flowed in, it quickly became apparent that a one-size-fits-all approach to gifted education, and education in general, was inadequate.

“SMPY gave us the first large-sample basis for the field to move away from general intelligence toward assessments of specific cognitive abilities, interests and other factors,” says Rena Subotnik, who directs the Center for Gifted Education Policy at the American Psychological Association in Washington DC.

JHU/Gado/Getty

Julian Stanley established the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth in the 1970s.

In 1976, Stanley started to test his second cohort (a sample of 563 13-year-olds who scored in the top 0.5% on the SAT) on spatial ability — the capacity to understand and remember spatial relationships between objects⁵. Tests for spatial ability might include matching objects that are seen from different perspectives, determining which cross-section will result when an object is cut in certain ways, or estimating water levels on tilted bottles of various shapes. Stanley was curious about whether spatial ability might better predict educational and occupational outcomes than could measures of quantitative and verbal reasoning on their own.

Follow-up surveys — at ages 18, 23, 33 and 48 — backed up his hunch. A 2013 analysis⁵ found a correlation between the number of patents and peer-refereed publications that people had produced and their earlier scores on SATs and spatial-ability tests. The SAT tests jointly accounted for about 11% of the variance; spatial ability accounted for an additional 7.6%.

The findings, which dovetail with those of other recent studies, suggest that spatial ability plays a major part in creativity and technical innovation. “I think it may be the largest known untapped source of human potential,” says Lubinski, who adds that students who are only marginally impressive in mathematics or verbal ability but high in spatial ability often make exceptional engineers, architects and surgeons. “And yet, no admissions directors I know of are looking at this, and it's generally overlooked in school-based assessments.”

Chinese project probes the genetics of genius

Although studies such as SMPY have given educators the ability to identify and support gifted youngsters, worldwide interest in this population is uneven. In the Middle East and east Asia, high-performing STEM students have received significant attention over the past decade. South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore screen children for giftedness and steer high performers into innovative programmes. In 2010, China launched a ten-year National Talent Development Plan to support and guide top students into science, technology and other high-demand fields.

In Europe, support for research and educational programmes for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more towards inclusion. England decided in 2010 to scrap the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, and redirected funds towards an effort to get more poor students into leading universities.

On the fast track

When Stanley began his work, the choices for bright children in the United States were limited, so he sought out environments in which early talent could blossom. “It was clear to Julian that it's not enough to identify potential; it has to be developed in appropriate ways if you're going to keep that flame well lit,” says Linda Brody, who studied with Stanley and now runs a programme at Johns Hopkins focused on counselling profoundly gifted children.

At first, the efforts were on a case-by-case basis. Parents of other bright children began to approach Stanley after hearing about his work with Bates, who thrived after entering university. By 17, he had earned bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science and was pursuing a doctorate at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Later, as a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he would become a pioneer in artificial intelligence.

“I was shy and the social pressures of high school wouldn't have made it a good fit for me,” says Bates, now 60. “But at college, with the other science and math nerds, I fit right in, even though I was much younger. I could grow up on the social side at my own rate and also on the intellectual side, because the faster pace kept me interested in the content.”

“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society.”

The SMPY data supported the idea of accelerating fast learners by allowing them to skip school grades. In a comparison of children who bypassed a grade with a control group of similarly smart children who didn't, the grade-skippers were 60% more likely to earn doctorates or patents and more than twice as likely to get a PhD in a STEM field⁶. Acceleration is common in SMPY's elite 1-in-10,000 cohort, whose intellectual diversity and rapid pace of learning make them among the most challenging to educate. Advancing these students costs little or nothing, and in some cases may save schools money, says Lubinski. “These kids often don't need anything innovative or novel,” he says, “they just need earlier access to what's already available to older kids.”

Gene variants linked to success at school prove divisive

Many educators and parents continue to believe that acceleration is bad for children — that it will hurt them socially, push them out of childhood or create knowledge gaps. But education researchers generally agree that acceleration benefits the vast majority of gifted children socially and emotionally, as well as academically and professionally⁷.

Skipping grades is not the only option. SMPY researchers say that even modest interventions — for example, access to challenging material such as college-level Advanced Placement courses — have a demonstrable effect. Among students with high ability, those who were given a richer density of advanced precollegiate educational opportunities in STEM went on to publish more academic papers, earn more patents and pursue higher-level careers than their equally smart peers who didn't have these opportunities⁸.

Despite SMPY's many insights, researchers still have an incomplete picture of giftedness and achievement. “We don't know why, even at the high end, some people will do well and others won't,” says Douglas Detterman, a psychologist who studies cognitive ability at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “Intelligence won't account for all the differences between people; motivation, personality factors, how hard you work and other things are important.”

Some insights have come from German studies^{9, 10, 11} that have a methodology similar to SMPY's. The Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness, which started tracking 26,000 gifted students in the mid-1980s, found that cognitive factors were the most predictive, but that some personal traits — such as motivation, curiosity and ability to cope with stress — had a limited influence on performance. Environmental factors, such as family, school and peers, also had an impact.

History: Einstein was no lone genius

The data from such intellectual-talent searches also contribute to knowledge of how people develop expertise in subjects. Some researchers and writers, notably psychologist Anders Ericsson at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author Malcolm Gladwell, have popularized the idea of an ability threshold. This holds that for individuals beyond a certain IQ barrier (120 is often cited), concentrated practice time is much more important than additional intellectual abilities in acquiring expertise. But data from SMPY and the Duke talent programme dispute that hypothesis (see 'Top of the charts'). A study published this year¹² compared the outcomes of students in the top 1% of childhood intellectual ability with those in the top 0.01%. Whereas the first group gain advanced degrees at about 25 times the rate of the general population, the more elite students earn PhDs at about 50 times the base rate.

But some of the work is controversial. In North America and Europe, some child-development experts lament that much of the research on talent development is driven by the urge to predict who will rise to the top, and educators have expressed considerable unease about the concept of identifying and labelling a group of pupils as gifted or talented¹³.

“A high test score tells you only that a person has high ability and is a good match for that particular test at that point in time,” says Matthews. “A low test score tells you practically nothing,” she says, because many factors can depress students' performance, including their cultural backgrounds and how comfortable they are with taking high-stakes tests. Matthews contends that when children who are near the high and low extremes of early achievement feel assessed in terms of future success, it can damage their motivation to learn and can contribute to what Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck calls a fixed mindset. It's far better, Dweck says, to encourage a growth mindset, in which children believe that brains and talent are merely a starting point, and that abilities can be developed through hard work and continued intellectual risk-taking.

“Students focus on improvement instead of worrying about how smart they are and hungering for approval,” says Dweck. “They work hard to learn more and get smarter.” Research by Dweck and her colleagues shows that students who learn with this mindset show greater motivation at school, get better marks and have higher test scores¹⁴.

Sweden's enormous education experiment improved longevity

Benbow agrees that standardized tests should not be used to limit students' options, but rather to develop learning and teaching strategies appropriate to children's abilities, which allow students at every level to reach their potential.

Next year, Benbow and Lubinski plan to launch a mid-life survey of the profoundly gifted cohort (the 1 in 10,000), with an emphasis on career achievements and life satisfaction, and to re-survey their 1992 sample of graduate students at leading US universities. The forthcoming studies may further erode the enduring misperception that gifted children are bright enough to succeed on their own, without much help.

“The education community is still resistant to this message,” says David Geary, a cognitive developmental psychologist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, who specializes in mathematical learning. “There's a general belief that kids who have advantages, cognitive or otherwise, shouldn't be given extra encouragement; that we should focus more on lower-performing kids.”

Although gifted-education specialists herald the expansion of talent-development options in the United States, the benefits have mostly been limited so far to students who are at the top of both the talent and socio-economic curves.

“We know how to identify these kids, and we know how to help them,” says Lubinski. “And yet we're missing a lot of the smartest kids in the country.”

Sign up - it's free!

As Lubinski and Benbow walk through the quadrangle, the clock strikes noon, releasing packs of enthusiastic adolescents racing towards the dining hall. Many are participants in the Vanderbilt Programs for Talented Youth, summer enrichment courses in which gifted students spend three weeks gorging themselves on a year's worth of mathematics, science or literature. Others are participants in Vanderbilt's sports camps.

“They're just developing different talents,” says Lubinski, a former high-school and college wrestler. “But our society has been much more encouraging of athletic talents than we are of intellectual talents.”

And yet these gifted students, the 'mathletes' of the world, can shape the future. “When you look at the issues facing society now — whether it's health care, climate change, terrorism, energy — these are the kids who have the most potential to solve these problems,” says Lubinski. “These are the kids we'd do well to bet on.”

Journal name:NatureVolume:537,Pages:152–155Date published:(08 September 2016)DOI:doi:10.1038/537152a

Facebook LinkedIn Weibo Wechat

References

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. & Kell, H. J.Psychol. Sci.25, 2217–2232 (2014).
- Article
- PubMed
Show context
Wai, J.Intelligence45, 74–80 (2014).
- Article
Show context
Oden, M. H.Genet. Psychol. Monogr.77, 3–93 (1968).
- PubMed
- ChemPort
Show context
Terman, L. M.Am. Psychol.9, 221–230 (1954).
- Article
Show context
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. & Steiger, J. H.Psychol. Sci.24, 1831–1836 (2013).
- Article
- PubMed
Show context
Park, G., Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P.J. Educ. Psychol.105, 176–198 (2013).
- Article
Show context
Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Moon, S. M.Gift. Child Q.55, 39–53 (2011).
- Article
Show context
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. & Steiger, J. H.J. Educ. Psychol.102, 860–871 (2010).
- Article
Show context
Heller, K. A., von Bistram, A. & Collier, A. in Munich Studies of Giftedness (ed. Heller, K. A.) 433–454 (LIT, 2010).
Show context
Heller, K. A.Talent Dev. Excell.5, 51–64 (2013); available at http://go.nature.com/2cpr0ji
Show context
Heller, K. A. in Munich Studies of Giftedness (ed. Heller, K. A.) 3–12 (LIT, 2010).
Show context
Makel, M. C.et al. Psychol. Sci.27, 1004–1018 (2016).
- Article
- PubMed
Show context
Koshy, V. & Pinheiro-Torres, C.Br. Educ. Res. J.39, 953–978 (2013).
- Article
Show context
Dweck, C.Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House, 2006).
Show context

Author information

Affiliations

Tom Clynes is a journalist and the author of The Boy Who Played With Fusion: Extreme Science, Extreme Parenting and How to Make a Star.

Author details

Tom Clynes
Search for this author in

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments2 commentsSubscribe to comments

Stephanie Dunn•2016-09-07 05:06 PMI see no contradiction here to the ideas about expert performance being based on practice. There is nothing in this article that leads to any conclusion about how these children came into their talents. Why are we to assume the talents being tested arose spontaneously, rather than being planted and nurtured in some way - even if the planting and nurturing isn't clearly visible. The comment, "Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society" is as much about the limitations inherent in our society as it is about the inevitable power of people whose academic talents were recognized and nurtured. The chances for success in our system are greatly enhanced by academic credentials, but this doesn't necessarily mean the specific academic skills that leads to those credentials caused the success. It may simply mean that we've limited the chances of success for people who haven't gained entry into those academic channels. In other words, doors open for people who meet the prerequisites of entry, and close for those who don't. It makes no sense to then to assume that those prerequisites caused the success. They may have simply allowed its possibility, just as their absence removes that possibility. Look at it this way: An elite education increases the odds of success for many reasons, one of the biggest being that doors are opened by that education and support is given to people who gain entry into that education (another being the internalized identity these people acquire). If elite education was limited, for example, to blue eyed people, then blue eyed people would be more successful that any others. The conclusion that their blue eyes caused their success, however, would be flawed. The correct conclusion would be that the admission of blue eyed people into elite education caused their success. (It is also likely that the internalized identity brown eyed people would develop would be a powerful hindrance to their success.) Likewise, The children who found their way into this study, at least from the information I can glean from this article, were likely already being nurtured for academic success. This is certainly true in my town, where the "gifted" kids are mostly from families who value academics very highly and who nurture specific academic skills from the day their children are born. These families have the lifestyles and values that are likely to land their children in an SAT test at age 13. I've lived this. It is very clear. So it seems to me that the mere fact that a child ended up in this study indicates that that child's academic success was already being nurtured, and that that child was already being ushered into programs that would lead them into the elite educational tracks that lead to recognition and success. Stanley was clear about his intent to "enhance the odds that they would change the world". How any of this indicates that the eventual success was due to some inherent or genetic ability rather than nurturing escapes me. Rather than seeing narrow, testable, ability as the root of success, we might do better to start looking at how we've made narrow, testable ability a prerequisite for success by giving so much weight and influence to a few institutions that use narrow, testable ability as their condition for entry. We might want to recognize the damaging message that is given to all the very capable people who don't hit that 1% mark. We might want to admit that it's almost impossible for people outside this rarefied subset to get similar resources and opportunities.
- Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share link to this comment
Anand Ramanathan•2016-09-07 04:44 PMThe article is titled "How to raise a genius" but does not discuss the role of nurturing. Does labeling students as gifted make them succeed or were they bound to succeed anyway? Also, the tone of the article, with quotes like "Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society" seems to imply that talent is all that matters, but the implications are not black and white. Talent improves ones odds, but does not guarantee success. Else, 100% of the top of the "gifted" students would have patents, doctorates and be in the 95% income percentile (in reality 10-35% of the "gifted" achieve these things).