<p>^^Terrence Tao, a recent Fields Medalist, was a child prodigy. Norbert Wiener, a mathematician who was one of the great minds of the 20th century, was also a child prodigy. Gauss is usually given as the example of precocity. He discovered the method of telescoping series when he was around 7 years old. A prof. in the bio department, Lodish, started doing biological research in a lab when he was around 7. </p>
<p>Many top math people go to college at the normal age but take college math classes from junior high onward. It depends on what your definition of a prodigy is. If it is that you can do the job at the level of an outstanding professional at the age of 10 or younger, then a lot of people don’t qualify. However, I would say that many very top people in math/science were at a level of critical thinking that they could take college-level classes in 1st or second grade. A lot of times you don’t hear about it.</p>
<p>They recently graduated a 15-yr old who went on to Stanford. I do not know if they’d be willing to work with a 7-yr old, but you can certainly inquire. BTW, I’m a chemist. I’ll post more later.</p>
<p>There are so many ways to raise and educate a child. Certainly if a child is so advanced that he is capable and WANTS to study at an advanced level, and if his parents are willing and able to give him this opportunity in a safe way, it is the logical way to go. Whether it is taking select courses at a university, doing home study, going to a local school, self study, getting a tutor; any of these options will do. I don’t really understand the brougha about all of this. If it doesn’t seem to work out, look for another option. The child has plenty of time. I know many families who have opted out of the traditional path and have done just fine. Many of them have children who were exceptionally talented,academically, musically, athletically. Many are “average” kids that the parents feel or the kids feel do not “fit” with the schools available. Many are kids with special needs, whose parents cannot find a good fit. I really don’t see the problem. </p>
<p>In adult life, I have met those who accelerated their education, who took a unique path, were home schooled, who delayed their education. There are successes in all of these areas, and I don’t see an overrepresentation of dysfunctional folks in the group. As long as the families were not out of line and the kids had a relatively smooth life, the kids are very much normal. </p>
<p>I can also tell you that the half dozen that I know who were very gifted and talented, going to some prestigious colleges at a young age --usually 13-15, are not particularly considered such geniuses now at age 50. One young lady I now who was considered a prodigy about 12 years ago–graduated with a double major from a top university at age 14, law school at age 17 AND a major conservatory to boot, is about par with my oldest son now who is her age, graduated from the same college, looking at law schools, plays an instrument part time professionally, and has a self supporting job. The gap seemed infinitismal 12 years ago, but now it has closed quite a bit. The young lady is still dependent on her parents financially, and still taking courses. I believe Dr Terman did studies on highly gifted kids some years ago, and though there are more successes than there are in the general population (and there should be, given the vast intellectual gifts these kids have), the true giants of that time were NOT the “Ter-mites”.</p>
<p>From what I gathered from the blog, Ainan is not allowed into a lab, and a lab component is necessary for A-levels in chemistry. He was taken out of high school after a few weeks after a student at the high school described him as a “not decent individual” and presumably, Ainan also endured some discomfort from other high schoolers (I’m not surprised at this). Singapore seems to seriously frown on homeschooling.</p>
<p>So this is the background for the family’s quest to nurture Ainan’s interest. I do not think that it should matter whether a child prodigy turns into a genius later on, wins the Nobel Prize, cures cancer, etc… What matters is the here and now of addressing the gifted child’s needs. </p>
<p>Inspired by Collegealum, I looked up the Harvard requirements for the Chemistry concentration (aka major). There are 12 semester courses for non-honors, 14 for honors.
General Chemistry (2 semesters, can be placed out of, but then students has to take two other Chemistry courses).
Inorganic Chem (1 semester)
Organic Chem 2 semesters)
Physical Chem (2 semesters)
Advanced Lab (1 semester)
Chemistry with a strong Biological orientation (1 semester)
Multivariable Calculus (1 semester)
Physics at the post-AP level (2 semesters)
For honors, the student must produce an honors thesis.</p>
<p>This kind of curriculum could guide the family in addressing Ainan’s needs. For most of the courses listed, access to a lab is not required. And Ainan presumably would need to raise his knowledge of math, physics and biology to be able to meet the requirements of the chemistry concentration.
Other institutions may be less demanding than Harvard or MIT but at Ainan’s age, why settle for the inferior option?</p>
<p>I emphatically agree with that statement–and I did qualify my own claim that there were other mathematicians her age who had “caught up” by stating that she is “certainly very distinguished.”</p>
<p>I was simply reacting to Valentine’s dogmatic statement that children who do not appear precociously gifted when young “never, ever catch up.” I think there are some examples of people who were apparently unremarkable as young children who do indeed catch up, and I don’t know why anyone would feel the need to insist that apparently average children “never, ever” catch up, when in fact some do.</p>
<p>Clearly, someone of Ruth Lawrence’s calibre has very few peers, but she does have peers, and it’s likely that at least some of her current peers (few as they may be) were not visibly precocious at a very young age. If you read the biographies of distinguished mathematicians (e.g., in a book like Mathematical People), you find that there are some who were extremely precocious mathematically when they were young, and others who were not.</p>
<p>marite, I suspect that most of the introductory level science courses you listed include a significant laboratory component even it is not listed as a separate course. As an undergraduate biochemistry major, with a chemistry minor, a lab was required for general chem, inorganic chem, two semesters of organic chem, analytical chem, two semesters of physics, two semesters of biology, general biochemistry, intro microbiology, etc. No labs were required for advanced organic or physical chemistry or other advanced theory classes.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as a graduate student I was a T.A. for general inorganic chemistry (for engineers) and that required a lab as well, even though it was not listed as a separate course.</p>
<p>One cannot do undergraduate bench science without labs.</p>
<p>Now that I think of it, my geology class had a lab. Rocks. Lots of rocks.</p>
<p>I think you are right. I was really thinking of the non-chemistry classes Ainan could take to satisfy the requirements of a school such as Harvard or MIT. For example, he could take Multivariable Calc, Physics and Biology. Some of those classes have lab kits. It is possible that the difficulty Ainan is encountering has to do with safety concerns rather than labs as such. The same concerns, by the way, led to my high school chemistry class experiments to be performed by the teacher only while the 40 or so of us tried to watch. So Ainan might be allowed into a Physics lab.</p>
<p>^^^I think physics lab would be no problem at all. Biology labs (introductory) would not present a safety problem, either, as long as he could handle a scalpel. However, chemistry and biochemistry are another matter. I don’t think it is so much the size of the container, as was mentioned in the original article, as the inherent danger of the chemicals being handled. (Not to mention the flames. When I was 8 1/2 months pregnant I set my sweater on fire because I failed to adjust for how far over the lab bench I extended!)</p>
<p>I don’t want to sound like I am comparing any other child with Ainan, because I haven’t known any who studied at such an advanced level at such a young age, but I have known some very smart, curious kids who were a grave danger to themselves and others when they came to visit scientist parents in the lab. Physical dexterity, common sense, maturity, concentration–all are very important aspects of laboratory work.</p>
<p>Thanks, wisteria and others, for addressing my question regarding child prodigies as adults. To clarify, I don’t think this question has much bearing on decision-making for Ainan’s parents, who obviously need to make sure their son is challenged and able to continue learning.</p>
<h2>Clearly, someone of Ruth Lawrence’s calibre has very few peers, but she does have peers, and it’s likely that at least some of her current peers (few as they may be) were not visibly precocious at a very young age. If you read the biographies of distinguished mathematicians (e.g., in a book like Mathematical People), you find that there are some who were extremely precocious mathematically when they were young, and others who were not.</h2>
<p>Well, it depends on what you consider a prodigy. My guess is that even though they were not prodigies per se in terms of being advanced enough to go to college at 7, they did do some unusual stuff when they were kids that showed they were operating on a high level (e.g., reading Bertrand Russel or the “Origin of the Species” at 7 and understanding it.) Frankly, going to college at 13 doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or even more precocious than people who graduated at 18. A lot of people are in a position to skip many grades but don’t. Or some of them only skip 1 or 2. Many top math guys have seen all of college mathematics by the time they graduate from high school–in the old days they would have had to go to college to do this but not anymore.</p>
<p>I guess the issue I have is with your term “reasonably intelligent.” I think most often if you looked at Rugh Laurence’s non-prodigy peers, many would show some similar signs of operating at a high level–much higher than that exhibited by your average valedictorian at that age or even later.</p>
<p>Incidentally, when you read Nobel Prize bios in chemistry it’s not uncommon to find that they almost blew up the house when they were a kid while trying to do chemistry experiments!! </p>
<p>So maybe Ainan’s parents would be safer if we let Ainan into a college lab!</p>
<p>Quote: "UW chemistry professor Bill Reinhardt was intrigued with Andrew, who’d already been doing some research at the UW School of Medicine. </p>
<p>Reinhardt had done some investigating and found out Andrew was taking the bus to swim meets in Issaquah with other students and was able to give back as much teasing as he received. </p>
<p>“I went out to bat for him with a real uncertainty,” Reinhardt said. “What I needed to know was not only that he could do college work, but also that he was a regular kid with a sense of humor, who could fit in and get along.” </p>
<p>Reinhardt found a makeshift way to allow Andrew to take a chemistry honors course. Andrew was 12 years old"</p>
<hr>
<p>I think the kid’s parents took the right course. He was not isolated from his peers, he participated in sports and was not afraid to venture far from home, just like any normal 12-yr old would do.</p>
<hr>
<p>Quote: "Reinhardt said things don’t always work out so well. </p>
<p>“A couple of other 12-year-olds have come in since him, and they have bombed,” he said. “They were so socially maladjusted, they were dangerous to have in the lab.” </p>
<p>Often parents are to blame, the professor said. </p>
<p>“There have been intellectually qualified students, but in every case, there’s been a very aggressively pushy parent,” he said. “The trick for the faculty is to unscramble that and figure out if the child is ready, rather than the parent.”</p>
<p>Chemistry is not a theoretical science, therefore most chemical courses (inorganic, organic, analytical, biochemistry) have lab sections.
It would be next to impossible to have a 7-yr old child working in the lab doing real chemistry experiments. First, there are the dangers that the others already mentioned: toxic chemicals, fumes, tall benches, glassware under vacuum, pressurized vessels, etc. Second, you have to have the strength of an adult body to be able to perform certain tasks. I can tell you that a kid would have a hard time lifting a gallon bottle of dichloromethane onto a benchtop in a synthetic chemistry lab or assembling an apparatus to perform air-free experiments in inorganic chemistry lab. Third, many chemistry classes have math and physics prerequsites, and we are talking about college-level math and physics. Some universities might be able to make accomodations when it comes to lab work, but I’m not sure that they would be willing to allow someone to skip prerequisites.</p>
<p>It was mentioned in the article provided by OP that Ainan learned chemistry from the Internet on his own. In this case, online courses may be a good option for this child, since he already knows how to operate computers and navigate the web. I would suggest looking into courses that would complement and help broaden his already acquired knowledge in chemistry: physics, math, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, microbiology, biochemistry. I know that Stanford has an online program for gifted kids (a friends daughter took a few physics courses there):</p>
<p>Reading yesterday’s news story about a lab accident in a “routine experiment” in an organic chem lab at RPI reminds me why administrators will always be wary of young students in chemistry labs. </p>
<p>Accidents and injuries do happen, even with traditional-age students using proper precautions and safety equipment. I’m sure that RPI is very conscientious about lab supervision and safety standards, but still accidents do happen. If such an accident had happened in a lab with a young child involved, the negative publicity and criticism of administrators for allowing a young child in the lab would have been huge.</p>
<p>This reminds me that I know an adult professional chemist who functions very well despite losing two missing fingers early in his career as a chemist. </p>
<p>I really think there is a lot to be said for not rushing precocious children into college chemistry labs. Virtual on-line labs mixed in with some age appropriate extremely safe kitchen chemistry sounds like a better idea to me.</p>
<p>I’ve taken/taught gen. chem and organic chem labs, and I think the danger is quite overblown. The labs are typically designed to be as safe as possible. </p>
<p>I don’t see how you could lose a couple of fingers in a classroom lab. Maybe in inorganic chem where you use airtight containers that could explode when warmed up.</p>
<p>I mean, I guess you could spill sulfuric acid on yourself and other people, but frankly I’m going to guess that Ainan is probably more mature than the typical college freshman.</p>
<p>When I flip through all those glossy college brochures D gets in the mail and see pictures of students without goggles doing experiments in chemistry labs, I want to scream. I’m glad the RPI kids were OK, and they were wearing eye protection. Eyesight is precious!</p>
<p>Even an unloaded rifle fires once a year, right (or something like that)? I taught advanced synthetic labs, and I can tell that a 7-yr old would not belong in that environment. That said, lower level inorganic and organic labs (which I also taught) could be OK, but constant supervision would still be needed for a child of that age. My 19 yr olds were spilling stuff all the time! </p>
<p>See the story of the UW kid - he started with molecular biology resesrch (tiny plastic tubes and lots of micropipetting), and then moved on to chemistry.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that without any chemistry professor championing for the kid a university would embrace the idea of having such a young person in the labs.</p>
<p>On a side note, in all of the biotech companies I’ve worked, we were prohibited from having visitors under 18 in the labs - it is a liability issue.</p>
<p>Re: loss of couple of fingers in a classroom lab - it is possible, all the ingredients are there. Nothing extraordinary is required.</p>
<p>Hopefully, those are posed pictures with fake experiments, although I do remember that is was a constant pain to keep people from taking their goggles off. </p>
<p>What’s kind of funny is that in real chem labs, people use safety glasses and not goggles. I sometimes wonder if the goggles are safer in practice than safety glasses considering the non-compliance issue (people taking them off or rubbing their eyes.) I wonder if there has ever been a study done on that.</p>