<p>"And to make it worse, think about the impossibility for any of us to artificially create the perfect 17 years old for all four of HYPS and MIT. If each one of us were given a really, really smart 13 years old with athletic and artistic talent to match, what … would we advise him or her to do if the sole objective was an admission at HYPSM? "</p>
<p>xiggi - i have a 14 year old for you to mentor!</p>
<p>Beliavsky–</p>
<p>I don’t actually believe gifted programs even work. I was in one as a kid, and I’ve had a kid in one, as well. The only real benefit of gifted programs is that the kids can get instruction without distraction. Frankly, this should be available to all kids, regardless of ability, in order to get the best out of everyone. But… it is not. The system is a system, designed during the era of the factory and farm worker, honestly, and I’m not sure how effective it currently is for mostly anyone at all. </p>
<p>However, looked at correctly, every kid is gifted in one way or another, just not always ways we choose to value in the subjects we chose to teach to factory workers and farmers long ago.</p>
<p>There are plenty of students who don’t second-guess themselves who do fine, though, TheGFG (assuming, as I do, that “fine” can encompass admission to one’s second choice or even, gasp, one’s safety). It makes me sad that anyone believes his or her only route to academic success is admission to a hyper-selective, lottery school and therefore concludes that he or she has to engage in an extracurricular arms race. It is absolutely possible to opt out. Perhaps many kids don’t have the maturity to see this, but their parents should.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think that blessed child could do any better than what is currently available at home. In twenty years or so, I will be calling you! Or read the CCRP forum. You know the CC forum for retiring posters will flock for their last keystrokes. Admission restricted to six digits posters! Somebody from Alabama is getting closer by the minute!</p>
<p>
They could read “How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get into College by Standing Out (Without Burning Out)” by Cal Newport. I liked the book, but of course there is no formula to follow in getting into school X.</p>
<p>^^2699 - of course;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:eek:</p>
<p>About 50 years ago I dropped out of the so-called gifted program because they made me do craft projects that had to represent reality. Experimenting with color and texture was definitely not allowed. If I stayed in the regular classroom I was allowed to read whatever book I chose when my work sheets were complete. But only because I had been able to politely (enough) explain to the teacher that I really felt I had done enough bulletin boards and would be happy to share that opportunity with some of the other students. I have never been a particularly crafty sort of person. I do wonder if I might have become some sort of artist in a different environment. Probably not. No stick-to-it-ness.</p>
<p>I am definitely not any sort of “gifted” or “super-bright” but the class limited my opportunities to educate myself which was pretty much the best I could hope for at that point in my life.</p>
<p>poetgrl: probably you know this already - a book the homeschool community loves:</p>
<p>[Dumbing</a> Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, 10th Anniversary Edition: John Taylor Gatto, Thomas Moore: 9780865714489: Amazon.com: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Anniversary/dp/0865714487]Dumbing”>http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Anniversary/dp/0865714487)
…</p>
<p>I hope QM hasn’t given up on this thread because I’m still waiting on that number that we could perhaps assume to be auto-admits at MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the book reference, Beliavsky. With regard to that formula, we’re all counting on you! ;)</p>
<p>I have followed your discussion for some weeks now. </p>
<p>I agree with many of the things that have been said here. But from my own experience, I can tell that in many cases especially highly gifted girls (so well above average IQ range) have extreme difficulty in exhibiting those skills that you are talking about. </p>
<p>Girls generally tend to be more insecure about themselves than boys, in my opinion. They are very scared of failure, of not being loved and accepted. Therefore, they often prefer “hiding” over participating in any kind of activity that would require them to go out of their shell.
Often being rejected my peers because of their “weirdness” they have learned that their interests and passions are not always accepted and may lead to exclusion. Some can handle that quite well, but others struggle.
From a psychological point of view, gifted girls often cannot choose between all the different activities they could suceed in. So they often dissipate their energies and participate in too many activities to ever really excel in one.
Those girls (and there are boys who have a similar disposition) are probably not colleges’ favourite applicants. They don’t “stand out”, although they would, if IQ and personality would be measurable parts of an application. </p>
<p>A different topic, but nonetheless relevant: In my opinion, there is a limit to where you can still function being highly intelligent. If you have a certain amount of brilliance in one area, you can hardly show above average abilities in every other area of life.
As an example, my dad has a very high IQ and is incredibly intelligent. However, he struggle with understanding emotions. Many of my behaviors and feelings he is unable to understand because they are not logical to him. I think it would be an advantage for him to maybe forfeit some of his IQ points, but instead be a more social human being.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with gifted programs is that you’re either gifted or you’re not; in the real world, you may be gifted in one subject area but not in another. Now given the cachet of getting into the gifted program and the humiliation of being considered ordinary, many parents (especially in well-to-do areas) will push the definition of gifted until it includes their kid, qualified or not.</p>
<p>An alternative solution, with less labeling attached, would be to offer the same high school class as either a one-semester course or a one-year course. If you oft for the quick course, you had better be able to learn the material at double-speed; otherwise take your time to get it right. When the class is over, you get a full-unit credit toward graduation, whether it took you 6 months or a year to complete – yet everyone learns the same material upon graduation and no one is penalized by weighted grades or not taking rigorous courses. Students could mix-and-match short classes and long classes, based on their strengths and their interests.</p>
<p>High school might become a variable 3-5 year affair, but at least a high school degree would be worth something again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with believing you have a shot at these schools and tailoring in a couple extra ECs or community service projects to flesh out an attractive portfolio. The problem lies in letting these schools define you as either a success or a failure, based on their decisions.</p>
<p>My son had already committed himself to a 3-year graduation path before we realized that he might be a viable candidate for top-20 schools. At that point, we had some serious discussions of whether he should go back to a 4-year schedule in order to have time to effectively build the EC/community service “extras” needed to be an attractive candidate. He opted for the high-risk 3-year option with extras fit in wherever possible, because he would have been just fine at our state flagship – his acceptance or lack of it by the elite schools was not going to define him as a person.</p>
<p>LIpsum, I like your variable class idea a lot, actually. I like a lot of out of the box ideas for schools, at this point. The more I like the idea, the less likely I think it will be adopted. Unfortunately, I think your idea is really great. ;)</p>
<p>Ahl, I’ve never heard of that book. I should check it out. I wish I’d homeschooled my oldest, though she was very social and the few times I suggested it was horriffied by the concept. My youngest is perfectly matched to the public system: bright but not gifted, athletic, extrovert. I can say with great certainty that the system serves some really worthwhile kids very well, and she is one of them. </p>
<p>She is also the perfect candidate for the state flagship route. She will do well in that environment, as well. She’s a natural for big schools and lots of sports teams and whatnot. So, I’ve seen that this whole education system, in the upper middle class areas of the country, can really work very, very well for very many.</p>
<p>Just as an aside.</p>
<p>SophieIsabel, are you in the US?</p>
<p>LI, sounds like drive-thru. The point usn’t always to learn the same material but for the more able to plumb deeper depths. I’m not sure a 17yo can blitz learn, absorb, integrate and build upon knowledge as well as some adults. There are benefits to the length of time.</p>
<p>I am not saying bright kids should be bored. They should have an opp to learn at ther level, with the depth/breadth that implies.</p>
<p>**maybe what I’m thinking applies more to humanities.</p>
<p>“I think Caltech has the best selection process in the nation. Their applicants are reviewed by adcoms, FACULTY and STUDENTS to see if the student will fit in.”</p>
<p>Agree and think especially students would be in good position to cut through some of the packaging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The deeper depths you write about could well be covered in more advanced follow-up courses that not everyone would take, just like everyone doesn’t take most AP classes. </p>
<p>There are few benefits to teaching class to the 35%tile so that even the slow students can follow, while the majority daydreams away the hours. I think doubling the teaching speed is actually rather modest; one could probably triple it and still keep the learning reasonable for the top quarter of today’s class. Note, however, that the amount of repetitive homework would need to drop by two-thirds, otherwise the workload would be ridiculous (and largely unnecessary).</p>
<p>Of course this whole argument is moot, since it’s too radical an idea to implement.</p>
<p>I was thinking your meant a hopscotch: USH- check, enviro- check. I get it now. In this somewhat like many schools do when they have an honors prereq before AP? (not that I am impressed by all APs.)</p>
<p>I do think we have some obligation to gifted, but don’t like the term. In my day, we said “accelerated,” rather than make it seem like a miracle of nature that a kid could handle more.</p>
<p>In my hs, a tippy-top at the time, they experimented with classroom heterogeneity- a tremendous drag for the brightest of the lot. The pace of discussions killed them-- even though the rest of the kids were still in the darned bright category.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Julian Stanley, pioneer of gifted education, used the SAT to identify young teenagers who are able to learn much faster.</p>
<p>[High-school</a> biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks](<a href=“http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986JRScT..23..237S]High-school”>High-school biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks - NASA/ADS)</p>
<p>Stanley, Julian C.; Stanley, Barbara S. K.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 23, Issue 3, pp.237-250
At ages 11-15, 25 intellectually highly able youths studied high-school biology and 13 studied chemistry intensively for three summer weeks, after which their median score on the College Board’s achievement test was 727 (biology) and 743 (chemistry). […] For youths this able, the usual high-school science course is much too slowly paced. </p>
<p>The CTY continues to offer such “Intensive Studies” courses. Students could also EPGY online courses.</p>
<p>
I don’t have access to the article, but the blurb actually seems to indicate that those intellectually gifted kids who crammed and did well on the SAT II were later able to do well on the AP exam. Not very surprising. That doesn’t necessarily equate to being superior science students. It’s one measure I suppose, but I did very well on a few science AP exams and my results in college were mixed (some 40 years ago).</p>
<p>Re: USAMO auto-admit suggestion for MIT</p>
<p>Multi-step process to obtain the relevant USAMO numbers + multiple deadlines today = not done yet</p>
<p>But I have started working on it and hope to post a number later today (for the two or so posters who are interested!)</p>
<p>Auto- admit would clearly advantage kids (and parents) who have access to or care about these kinds of tests . Many able kids don’t even take these tests?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However well-intentioned, USAMO auto-admit to MIT is rather like varsity water polo admit to Princeton. For all the talk of “unfairness,” making an auto-admit of something that is largely a function of where you went to high school (which is a reflection of your parents’ money) is quite unfair. MIT’s more than aware that only a handful of high school teachers even know that USAMO exists / prep students for it.</p>