<p>I think there are two categories of really bright young people - those that COULD skip quite a few grades (there are probably quite a few of those), and those that are such quick learners and so advanced that spending a dozen years in primary and secondary schools would be a completely frustrating waste of time.</p>
<p>Most of the former are probably best served by a conventional approach. By staying with a similar-age peer group, they can have a normal social life, participate in competitive sports, and earn the academic accolades that will help them get into the college of their choice. While they might survive in a peer group that’s, say, three years older, they might not do as well academically, they won’t have the same social life, and they aren’t likely to be competitive with their peers in sports.</p>
<p>For the small group of kids that are so far at the right end of the bell curve that even the most challenging tracks would be insanely boring, I think you have to throw the rulebook out the window and try to do what will keep the kid engaged in learning. No, it’s not going to be a typical or “normal” experience, but it’s probably better than forcing the kid to sit through what would seem like an extended kindergarten with his peers. Obviously, it will take effort to maintain a social life - that, too, won’t be typical, but it should be possible to socialize the kid well enough to allow him to develop a healthy social life in the long run.</p>
<p>One thing about prodigies - as they age, they get more “normal.” A kid getting a PhD at 19 seems quite exceptional, but a 29-year old computer designer, prof, etc. will be measured on his merits, not on when he got his degree.</p>
<p>I’d note that the world of classical music has many superstars who did the musical equivalent of the academic accomplishments described in this thread. Do all musical prodigies turn into sought-after soloists? Probably not, but I’d guess a greater percentage do compared to musicians with less accelerated training.</p>