Image: CHAD BAKER/RYAN McVAY Getty Images
In Brief
- Abilities matter. They are malleable, however, and need to be cultivated.
- Society needs to provide opportunities for intellectual enrichment to all students to ferret out hidden talents.
- Psychological strengths such as persistence, social skills and strategic risk taking are determining factors in the successful development of talent.
In 1957, when Sputnik took the world by storm, the Ford Foundation was several years into a project for talented students based on early college entrance. An evaluation of that program from the Fund for the Advancement of Education read: “There are those who argue that it is psychologically unsound and politically undemocratic for one child to proceed faster or to have a richer academic diet than another…. But what is too often ignored is the greatest risk of all—the risk of adhering stubbornly to a clearly imperfect set of practices which are frustrating the development of young talent at a time in history when this nation urgently needs to develop its human resources to the full.”
The authors argued that focusing on the most able students is critical in a democracy for nurturing a cadre of capable leaders, among other advantages. The resulting infusion of attention and resources to talented youths through the National Defense Education Act led to a boom of innovation and scientific productivity in the U.S.
This article was originally published with the title Nurturing the Young Genius.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add Commentyes the child development is one of important strategy for our future generation's well being. We need to look at number of things child development. A study shown that the child will develop in the first 12 months and then it will continually develop until age of 3. So we need to take responsibility and make sure there is enough nutrients and enough educational facilities for our children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best and baddest of the conventional wisdom rolled into one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article ignores the fact that most of the traits these people are trying to cultivate—persistence, resilience, creativity, and of course, IQ itself—are innate, and cannot be "taught". These are in good measure the product of one's inheritance.
It of course is foolish gauge the quality of <i>education</i> by looking at international tests; the measure the quality of the <i>students</i>, where the U.S. in fact has an edge, <a href="http://www.vdare.com/articles/pisa-scores-show-demography-is-destiny-in-education-too-but-washington-doesnt-want-you-to-k">once you control for race</a>.
That said, the article is correct that it makes more sense to focus on high-ability students than their less intelligent peers. Indeed, it makes senses to adjust the pace of learning to the ability of the students, on all levels. Don't expect to see aggregate PISA scores change any time soon (since these are merely IQ tests).
See <a href="http://jaymans.wordpress.com/">my blog</a>.
I wholly disbelieve this article. I that the determination of 'genius' has been confused by wealth insisting their children are more intelligent than the other children and these schools cowtow to the wealth backing these 'uber' children who rarely provide any advancements to the world. I watched my resources as a Mechanical Engineering student greatly reduced by a new school for 'gifted' young students who obviously felt out of place on a college campus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn`t the jury still out on the innateness of IQ, creativity, persistence and resilience; what of Locke`s tabula rasa allegation?. Aren`t we borned with the same number of bones, muscle and... neurones. The programmation of this marvelous brain starts as early as in the womb and continues through our life time with more intensity in the early years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that the environment is key to producing geniuses. The Chicago education board study has established that black or white kids are equal if nurturred in the same environment.
That we should cull those having had a better environment and therefore better programmed makes sense if only because these kids would soon become bored in a ``normal`` setting. And education is the best mean to achieve a fair accessibility to equality.
From 1965-67, in 5th and 6th grades, I was in a gifted and talented class. In addition to our regular curriculum, we wrote and performed a musical, produced a newspaper, put on puppet shows, and variously pursued our special gifts while "normal" kids sat and listened to lectures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to me in those two years was that I discovered that learning is joy. Afterwards, I endured years of boring classes waiting for that joy to return. I confronted professors for talking down to students. I talked professors into co-creating classes with me. I had moments of joy, but not until the 80's did I discover the writings of Paul Tillich and a professor who allowed me to use independent courses to throw myself into joy-filled study of theology and philosophy.
Teachers are dealing with larger and larger classrooms, with greater numbers of discipline problems, with having to teach to standardized tests, and with the burden of having to deal with special-needs children--all with fewer resources. Schools need money and teachers need manageable classrooms. Everyone deserves a decent education.
A policy that educates an elite while providing substandard education to everyone else will only increase the chances that we'll get the old plantation-style "wealthy few/half-starved many" system the tea party seems to want to reinstate. Is this Plato's Republic or a representative democracy? Robber baron capitalism or managed capitalism? You only need the elite in the former cases.
My gifted children, main-streamed through school, did not catch the joy of learning at school. They were bored. Their minds were not engaged.
But this isn't just a problem for gifted kids. Average IQ's have been increasing .3%/yr for 30 years as computer technology makes children better at abstract thinking. This means that teachers are a generation behind the intellectual capacity of grade school kids. By putting money into finding ways to take advantage of this new potential in our children, getting away from standardized tests, and addressing the boredom of both normal and gifted kids, we can awaken joy in the majority of learners' hearts. Once that happens, there will be no holding any of them back.
Well, gee. Yes, talented intelligent motivated kids should have more opportunity to match their potential. We would all benefit. However, to impose educational requirements based on bureaucratic measurements garnered from absurd misused and badly developed tests is not the solution. The solution is not the stick, but the carrot. We live in a capitalistic society and we need skilled and talented workers. Right? Then I'd say it's the obligation of the private sector to provide these opportunities based on demonstrated talent, intelligence, and motivation of the children above and beyond the basic education we provide through the public school system. Our government, via the public school system, is not capable of customizing curriculum in order to appropriately mine the capitalist potential of every child. Besides, who decides what kind of skills and talents our society needs? In a capitalist society, it must be the private sector. Again, the private sector must be a key player to make educational opportunities available for talented kids. If you think nurturing 'smart' kids in public school is suddenly going to create "a cadre of capable leaders" that will contribute to "a boom of innovation and scientific productivity" then you are sorely mistaken. Intelligence isn't focused that way. Neither is government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@spinoza:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Isn`t the jury still out on the innateness of IQ, creativity, persistence and resilience;"
That jury was in long ago. It's just that their verdict isn't repeated much:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/
"what of Locke`s tabula rasa allegation?"
What of it, other than it's a bunch of rubbish. See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and Greg Cochran's and Henry Harpending's The 10,000 Year Explosion.
"The programmation of this marvelous brain starts as early as in the womb and continues through our life time with more intensity in the early years."
Yet, the heritability of IQ *increases* with age.
"It seems that the environment is key to producing geniuses."
Yes, so long as development-stunting conditions, such as malnutrition or lead poisoning, are avoided.
"The Chicago education board study has established that black or white kids are equal if nurturred in the same environment."
False. See here:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
'so long as development-stunting conditions, such as malnutrition or lead poisoning, are avoided' ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...is a very good comment. And it leads me to wonder if instead of selecting the 'intelligent kids' -whom may have avoided development stunting conditions- the best thing we can do is to improve the environment and help protect all kids from these tragedies, thereby producing more readied pupils capable of higher learning. How the bright ones are singled out and who provides the higher learning is what is at question.
@rshoff:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"'so long as development-stunting conditions, such as malnutrition or lead poisoning, are avoided' ...
...is a very good comment. And it leads me to wonder if instead of selecting the 'intelligent kids' -whom may have avoided development stunting conditions- the best thing we can do is to improve the environment and help protect all kids from these tragedies, thereby producing more readied pupils capable of higher learning.
It matters a lot less than you think. In the developed world, most people who are intellectually "unprepared" are so because of their *genes*. In short, they're just "dumb". IQ is > 80% heritable, and is essentially a fixed trait of an individual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I guess I'll just have to stop blaming environment for my shortcomings and start blaming my genes. It surely cannot be my own fault! Or can it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rshoff:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, no, no one can control one's genes. Even the environment *were* as important as people commonly make it out to be, then *you* still wouldn't be much at "fault", because how much of your environment (particularly in childhood) could you control?
In any case, the whole idea of "fault" is a bit wrong anyway: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/what-if-its-not-their-fault-the-myth-of-free-will/
Three points about 'genius'(having a hi IQ) in use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen teaching about intelligence and its heritability I always remarked that, being a guy with short limbs, when I wanted to get something of the top shelf I got the steps... 'standing on the shoulders of giants' I am always looking for 'steps' in our culture, 'tools for thinking'
Being a genius is no use unless you have an accompanying trait of single mindedness and persistence. That's why I am sitting here scribbling this rather than following up my latest ideas piles up behind me. Maybe classes for the bright kids actually encourage my sort of dilettantism.
It is also not much fun either. It's best kept hidden from other people. Talk about 'music' football, fashion or celebs instead.
The last presentation I went to on intelligence, given by Manchester (England) Uni's neuroscience people, confirmed that IQ was was 50% inheritable, based on two massive longitudinal surveys. However there is no one 'gene' but about fifty involved. This suggests that 'development' has a lot to contribute to getting them turned on.
For the less well endowed, the availability of good 'tools for thinking' in the culture is be important to help everyone to make the best of what they have (if they want to.
And even geniuses need motivation.
@jayman - I was sort of trying tongue in cheek... But your blog on the myth of free will was very interesting. I enjoyed reading it. All in all, I agree with the premise. And who am I to disagree anyway. Although, something is nagging me about the 'influence' we have over the attributes control us. We do not have free will, but *we* do have some sort of influence perhaps. But I guess that is another topic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow elitist, channel the funding and put them smart kids into sports. So what if they grow up lonely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne observation: first jobs can be routine, repetitive, boring and rule bound. So college graduates must dumb down to fit in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA work environment may not encourage creativity or even intellectual thinking. Schools are only part of the problem