Child Prodigy in the UK

Valentine · November 13, 2007, 7:01am

It was interesting to learn of the higher standards of challenge that Harvard maintains. It is not as other Colleges are then.

In most countries that I know of, there is a kind of standardization of level across most universities, so that makes them easier to compare. In America, on the other hand, I gather that standards vary a lot: it really DOES make a difference where you study - in a major way.

The comparisons I have seen amongst qualifications in different countries compared an A level to a typical major in a typical Bachelor’s programme in a typical American College (of which I understand there are about 4,000). From what you say, Harvard is maintaining a rather higher bar than that.

In the matter of College, for Ainan, it is not particularly important which University he attends. What is important is that he is: safe, well-looked after (we will probably have to be there, or appoint someone to be in our place) and able to learn what he needs to learn. The prime need is access to labs and practical experience. Everything else that a University provides can actually be done with books at home, basically speaking.

I happen to be in a country that has never met this kind of challenge before. That is why we are having to look further afield. Other parents, in the same situation are, perhaps, more fortunate in having a local solution more readily available. With that perspective on the situation, perhaps it will be easier for people to understand what we are trying to achieve.

Take care all.

1of42 · November 13, 2007, 7:53am

In fact, the majority of the colleges with name recognition - which is to say the “elite” colleges in the US - have similar standards as Harvard. I would hazard to say that every college that I have looked at (which covers schools “ranked” [a crude measure I know, but hey] from 1-200) would not give much more than general chemistry credit for A level chemistry.

Realistically, A level chemistry is not at all equal to the graduation standard for a Bachelor’s degree at almost any American institution that I am aware of (and I would be perturbed if I found one where it were). At most, A level material corresponds to a first year general chemistry course, in my experience.

I also need to correct a misconception I saw posted on your blog:

“(Note that a British style Undergraduate degree covers American style Graduate material - sometimes even with a research component, depending on course.)”

This is not true. British undergraduate courses are more focused, true, but they are certainly not at the standard of a graduate school education in America as compared to American Bachelor’s degrees. They may cover somewhat more material because of their more focused nature (though I would be very hesitant to say this generally) but certainly not to the level of an advanced degree. Research components are also certainly not unheard of in American undergraduate education - at Princeton, all seniors (4th year students) are required to research and write a thesis in their major subject, and most students also complete a research paper in their junior (3rd) year.

I don’t mean to demean your son’s achievements in any way - they are spectacular - but he is not at the level of a chemistry graduate from an American university. He is (or rather, will be after completing his A level) at the level of a very well-prepared freshman coming in to the university. A good score on the A level examination would get him credit for first year general chemistry, but that’s it.

marite · November 13, 2007, 8:12am

I agree with 1of42. This is not just Harvard’s standard but the standard of most American universities. As well, most have some general education requirements, including the “techie” schools such as MIT.

If Ainan wants chemistry classes with labs, he could investigate community college classes or continuing education courses.

Here is the link for the Harvard Extension School offerings in chemistry:
[Chemistry</a> : Harvard Extension School](<a href=“http://www.extension.harvard.edu/2007-08/courses/chem.jsp]Chemistry”>http://www.extension.harvard.edu/2007-08/courses/chem.jsp)

I am not familiar with the curriculum of Canadian universities; it is possible they are closer to the UK and Singaporean model.

1of42 · November 13, 2007, 8:23am

Canadian universities are mostly large and public, and so in academic matters are most similar to larger public American universities.

The focus on liberal arts is not as strong in Canada as in America, but academics is certainly not as focused as in Britain. The largest difference with Canadian universities is that even at the most academically reputable Canadian universities, the average student is less talented and (though I hesitate to say this somewhat) academically capable than the average student at a top American school. For example, University of Toronto only requires something like an 1800 SAT from American students - a score that would be considered a liability for admission at top US schools.

While this changes the campus culture a lot, there are still many excellent students, and one can easily find rigorous academics if one goes looking.

calmom · November 13, 2007, 9:19am

To Valentine - I just want to echo the other parents here; you are very much mistaken about the requirements to enter an American University. Here is an example of what one university – George Washington University (GWU), would require for admission:

See: [The</a> George Washington University — Admissions](<a href=“http://gwired.gwu.edu/adm/apply/international.html]The”>http://gwired.gwu.edu/adm/apply/international.html)

I selected this because it was the only university I found that detailed the requirements for international students this way – most universities seem to want English-speaking students to take the SATs, no matter where they come from. I also selected this because GWU is not an elite college. It is a very good, large university where high-average students in the US might have reasonable chances of admission, but it is not a school that we would consider to be one of the “top” universities.

As you can see, they use O levels as evidence of required courses, and they want quite a few of them – a single O level would not be enough for admission, and even with 3 A levels, the student at best would earn a few units of credit.

I do not know where you got your information – but if your son were 17 years old and tried to apply to a US University with only 1 O level in 1 subject … well he would not be accepted. Whatever universities you have found with that low of an admission standard are simply not very good schools by US standards.

If you are willing to relocate to the US in order to educate your son, I would suggest that you look into schools for profoundly gifted children – such as the Davidson Academy - [Davidson</a> Academy of Nevada - Reno, Nevada](<a href=“http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/]Davidson”>http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/) – these are schools that will definitely accept your son and are able to meet the intellectual as well as emotional and social needs of children like him.

You will find other schools for gifted children listed here:
[Hoagies</a>’ Gifted: Schools for the Gifted](<a href=“http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/schools.htm]Hoagies”>Schools for the Gifted Child | Hoagies' Gifted)

I think that if you start looking you will find schools that offer a strong secondary-level education that will also admit children as young as your son, while also providing him a somewhat broader education. Your son’s accomplishments in chemistry are remarkable – but you would be selling your son short not to allow him to fully explore other subjects as well as chemistry. I think you have a very mistaken picture of the American educational system. The reason that American students often do not “specialize” until grad school is not for lack of intellect or readiness – it is simply the American philosophy to provide students with a broader foundation.

tetrisfan · November 13, 2007, 9:48am

Holy ****. That’s all I can say :)

Kelowna · November 13, 2007, 10:01am

I second the suggestion of Davidson Academy, but I bet that you are already familiar with it and for some reason are not interested ? What I like best about the Academy is the fact that each student gest totally individual plan of studies. I don’t think there are any students younger than ten, but it does not mean that there can’t be. While there , Ainan would have access to the Univeristy of Reno labs. And it is free
Regardless of what you think about the Academy, I believe that contacting the Institute for Talent Development is a good idea.

amb3r · November 13, 2007, 10:43am

I’ve already said this, but now that Aidan’s dad is here himself, I’ll repeat it.

Bluntly put, I am certain there are high school students who are far better at chemistry than your son. Consider the US IChO (International Chemistry Olympiad) team - Ken Brewer, Justin Koh, Sofia Izmailov, and Brian Lee, who garnered 3 Silvers and 1 Bronze at the 2007 IChO in Moscow, Russia. Olympiad participants are prodigies, to the true meaning of the word, yet even as emotionally mature high schoolers, they do not matriculate early from their schools to advance to college. Instead, they nurture their extraordinary love for chemistry by purchasing textbooks, taking college and distance learning courses, finding university professors to act as private tutors, and so on. What’s important is that they continue to take SIX OR SEVEN other courses in their high schools - English, Math, History, Biology, Physics, etc etc. Why does Aidan need to go to college as a mere 7 year old, at a point in his life where he needs to learn to grow and mature emotionally, when even high schoolers with a rather deeper understanding of chemistry than he can learn and grow to amazing heights without skipping a single grade?

I also echo the sentiments of the posters above me. Your understanding of American university admissions seems to be slightly off. Harvard is far from the only university which has those requirements.

marite · November 13, 2007, 11:46am

I was going to suggest the Davidson Academy but others beat me to it.
The main issue right now is that Ainan needs to be in a lab. The Davidson Academy would give him access to one, as well as to other academic resources, whether at the high school or college level, depending on his abilities in different fields.

Valentine · November 13, 2007, 11:46am

I should point out that O levels are NOT GCSEs. A GCSE is a much weaker exam than an O level.

O levels were designed for the top 20 % of students. GCSEs are designed for everyone.

In consequence, almost all GCSE passers would fail an O level.

I tried to post some remarks on comparative education - but the post got lost.

There is a link to a study which settles this matter of comparative education rather succinctly. It is a comparison by an Australian academic of the Australian system to the American system. The Australian system is less focussed than the UK one - but the study basically confirms what I have been trying to say.

I should point out that the comparison made is not mine - but that of academics who have tried to compare systems.

When I have found the link, I will post it. It should prove interesting reading for you all.

Best wishes

marite · November 13, 2007, 12:11pm

Valentine:

You still do not understand the difference between undergraduate and graduate level education. There is absolutely no way that A levels in anything quailfy a student for graduate level courses off the bat. There are quite a few Harvard undergraduates with stellar A-levels. Many of them, in fact, do not take advantage of the Advanced Standing option (and neither do students with tons of APs, IBs, French baccalaureat or German Arbitur). They stay in college for all four years to take advantage of the huge range of offerings available.
In chemistry, Harvard offers 19 semester courses to undergraduates above the AP/A-levels, not counting cross-listed courses (courses offered in other departments that are relevant to the study of chemistry). If a student took only chemistry courses and nothing else, that would fill up more than two years.

collegealum314 · November 13, 2007, 1:04pm

^^yes, grad school is pretty much just for doing research… You do take a semester or two of classes, but that’s not what it is about. Some people who are very advanced entering undergrad end up taking a lot of classes and graduate with a bachelor’s and a masters.

Also, unlike some universities in Europe or Asia, it is expected that you will join a lab while you are an undergrad and do research. This is true even if it’s not part of the formal program.

The undergrad chemistry curriculum typically looks something like this:

1 semester of general chemistry (what people typically pass out of)
1 year of physics with calculus (some people pass out of this)
single-variable calc and multi-variable calc (1.5 years, though most people pass out of the first year who are advanced)
1 semester of bio (people also pass out of this)

1 year of organic chemistry
1 semester of inorganic chemistry (organometallic and some solid state)
1 semester of thermodynamics
1 semester of Quantum Mechanics for Chemists
probably a couple of semesters of lab classes, maybe an advanced organic chemistry one and an organometallic chemistry one
1 semester biochem, although this one sometimes left out

After that, universities often have a breadth of other course offerings (though small liberal arts colleges often do not.) Often there isn’t an important difference between grad courses and undergrad courses. At MIT, for instance, they have a ton of other undergrad courses in chem that you could take; they are “undergrad” courses only in name and at another university they would be grad courses or just not offered.

wisteria · November 13, 2007, 1:54pm

The mention of the IChO gave me a few ideas for possibly helpful resources for your son.

1) There are lively Internet discussions with responsible moderators, some of them extremely knowledgeable, available for free on the Art of Problem Solving website. Most of those discussions relate to math, but there are also specialized forums for other subjects, including a chemistry discussion forum. Some of the students on that forum aspire to the International Chemistry Olympiad, or at least to do well in the competitions that lead up to selection of their national team for the IChO. Your son might enjoy participating in the discussions there:
[Art</a> of Problem Solving Forum](<a href=“http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/index.php?sid=718a50cfe5f13bcaf75b82e0a91f3589]Art”>http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/index.php?sid=718a50cfe5f13bcaf75b82e0a91f3589)

(The chemistry forum is under the “Arts & Sciences” section.)

2) The Singapore Chemistry Olympiad has a website in which they list the names of students who have won medals in the International Chemistry Olympiad. Perhaps you could make contact with some of the former participants and ask them about supplementary chemistry resources that would inspire and challenge your son. Perhaps one of them might even be willing to be a mentor/tutor.

[Medals</a> won at IChO by SINGAPORE](<a href=“http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/events/olympiad/scho-inter.htm]Medals”>http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/events/olympiad/scho-inter.htm)

I realize that neither of these ideas addresses the question of lab access, but I also don’t exactly see the urgency of accessing a lab at this point. I understand why it is an important part of a chemistry degree program, but it’s not entirely obvious to me why it’s necessary for him to do a lab right away if he will not be a matriculated student.

Personally, I loved the theoretical aspects of chemistry and figuring things out analytically, but I was all thumbs in the lab. I would have loved to major in chemistry, except that I was just too much of a klutz to deal with the labs. I understand that there are some very good colleges, including MIT and Caltech, where you can study several years worth of pretty advanced chemistry, in theory, before you actually have to set foot in a lab.

Also, you might try contacting the organizers of the Singapore Chemistry Olympiad. They might be excited to learn about such a promising young student–with proper support, he might eventually become a very strong member of Singapore’s IChO team. Part of the IChO is laboratory based, so if the organizers take an interest in your son, they might find a way for him to access lab resources.

[SINGAPORE</a> CHEMISTRY OLYMPIAD](<a href=“http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/events/olympiad/scho.htm]SINGAPORE”>http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/events/olympiad/scho.htm)

EDIT: There are also virtual on-line simulated chemistry labs, which might be useful until he can get access to the real thing. See for example: modelscience.com

pafather · November 13, 2007, 2:09pm

First of all, this child seems to be bright but is obviously not a Gauss or Newton. Secondly, for an unusually bright child, mastering chemistry without understanding physics (e.g. WHY, based on mechanics and quantum theory, etc., molecules form certain-shaped bonds) seems to me to be a waste of time. Even if you assume that this child is a once in a generation genius, it makes sense for such a child to rigorously understand the fundamentals. The chemistry to which he has previously been exposed requires little if any math beyond algebra. Understanding at least multivariable calculus and the associated applications in physics, plus differential equations, etc., is required to understand chemistry thoroughly, or at least should be encouraged for a child who has time to understand the chemistry from the most fundamental level. Finally, this child is apparently interested in laboratory experiments. Unfortunately, he is only 7 years old. If he is a singular genius and is sufficiently interested in chemistry, then he can read about or watch lab experiments and get a lot out of it. A 7-year-old child does not need to be personally doing chemistry lab experiments. He can wait for a few years until he has mastered chemistry from an analytical perspective, and then perform experiments. For example, even if he desires to pursue chemistry as much as possible at the expense of other subjects, why not just have him work through some of the undergrad and grad chemistry courses offered through MIT’s Open Courseware (<a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Chemistry/index.htm)?%5B/url%5D”>http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Chemistry/index.htm)?</a> Some of these courses are even lab courses that include video. Sending this child off to university at age 7 is completely inappropriate and highly unlikely to produce as great of benefit as if he just massively reads and studies through sources available on the internet and occasionally interacts with others through e-mail, snail-mail, telephone conversations, etc.

katliamom · November 13, 2007, 3:23pm

pafather
“First of all, this child seems to be bright but is obviously not a Gauss or Newton”

– how can you tell? Was Newton NEWTON at 7?

Irene · November 13, 2007, 3:26pm

This thread raises an interesting question for me, which is not directly related to Ainan’s situation at this time: do child prodigies usually remain “exceptional” throughout life, or do others catch up? I don’t mean that people of average intelligence catch up, but rather other very intelligent people who were not prodigies. wisteria mentioned Ruth Laurence, and implied that, at 36, she is not particularly distinguishable from her peers. (Her peers, of course, are mathematicians; a group of extraodinarily intelligent people.) Does anyone have other examples?

I wonder about this because I feel that some of my own gifts have become less pronounced over time. For example, when I was a child, I had an extraordinary attention span and was able to concentrate very well. I am still probably better at concentrating for long periods than most adults, but I know plenty of people whose abilities match mine in that area. What was amazing at 4 or 7 or 10 is not so amazing in an adult; in a sense, many people “caught up” to me.

collegealum314 · November 13, 2007, 3:42pm

Well, Ruth Laurence got tenure at U. of Michigan, which has a top 5 math program. So I would say she is still distinguished from the vast majority of her peers.

Especially with math faculty at the top schools, I’m guessing they really stuck out in school. Even though they may not be as advanced as Ainan, I’ll venture to guess that you could v. easily tell that they were highly unusual. And as Ainan’s dad writes on his blog, many people like Ainan are frustrated by a school system that tries to slow them down.

So they may still arrive at the same destination (faculty at a top institution) and they will look like they were just “reasonably intelligent” instead of the brilliant prodigy that they could have been.

1of42 · November 13, 2007, 3:52pm

Valentine: If that Australian academic compared the two systems of education in such a way, he was very much incorrect.

Allow me to put this in a more personal light:

I received a score of 7 on IB HL Chemistry. That is at the least equivalent to (many consider it more rigorous than) A level chemistry.

With that grounding, I passed out of first year chemistry at Princeton. I will also have a grounding in the basics of organic chemistry (the IB syllabus delves into organic chemistry, and as one of our optional units my school chose further organic chemistry). But that is all. I do not have the preparation to pass out of organic chemistry courses, and I certainly am nowhere, nowhere near prepared for any kind of advanced degree in chemistry.

Those are the facts of the matter. I hate to sound so confrontational, but any information that says otherwise is incorrect. A levels are equivalent to advanced high school or first year general university chemistry, that is all.

collegealum314 · November 13, 2007, 4:05pm

well, it’s nearly impossible to pass out of undergrad courses, but Valentine can look at the content of these textbooks and judge for himself whether Ainan knows it:

Off the top of my head, these are the main college chemistry textbooks and their authors:

Physical Chemistry: Atkins (typically used for thermodynamics and kinetics)
Organic Chemistry: many different versions but Wade is popular
Inorganic Chemistry: Miessler is the best one IMO (some freshman chemistry books call themselves inorganic chemistry, but this is totally different)

Quantum Mechanics: this is included in the P-chem book, but the mathematics is kind of watered down so there is typically a separate textbook for this. McQuarrie is the best and most popular–the title of the book is “Physical Chemistry”, but it is much more math-intensive than Atkins’ version.

Biochemistry is it’s own separate subject. It’s not always a requirement for chem majors though.

There are more advanced undergrad classes at some universities, but they could almost be considered graduate level even though they might not be called that. (For example, MIT has a 3rd term and 4th semester of undergraduate organic chmistry.) The ones I listed are the core of the undergraduate curriculum. Incidentally, they sell these books on Amazon.com with the solution manuals so at worst you could just buy them on-line and self-study (even though this is not as enjoyable as taking a class.)

mathmom · November 13, 2007, 4:17pm

It’s interesting - lots of child geniuses grow up to be productive, but not necessarily outstanding. The only definite exception I can think of is John Stewart Mill, who started learning Greek at three. Newton was a good student, but went to Oxford at the normal age of 19.

Child Prodigy in the UK

CONNECT WITH US