Child Prodigy in the UK

Parents Forum
121

<p>collegealum, I’m wondering if you have much experience with 7 year olds? I agree that the chance of a serious accident in elementary level science classes is low. This is because the labs have been designed with young adults in mind. Young children–in my admittedly limited experience–do not have the same manual dexterity or strength as young adults. I also think the term “maturity” is not completely appropriate here. My really smart son was always more mature than many of his classmates about many things, but he had extremely little common sense about what was safe when he performed his experiments. (I’d say that was still true even in high school when he and his friends built various “potato guns” and such on our patio.)</p>

<p>I’m a bit torn about this whole subject. Ten or fifteen years ago I could see parents worrying about finding the proper intellectual opportunities for a highly gifted child. It seems to be a very different world now, however, with so many great opportunities via internet and distance learning. If anyone were asking my opinion, I would vote with having him use those opportunities to learn more math, other sciences and how to write. I don’t see the imperative to relocate and isolate him from the rest of his family at such a young age.</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>Whether or not he’s more mature than the typical college freshman, he could still get something spilled on him by a “typical college freshman” working nearby.</p>

<p>We have bright-line laws that say kids below 16 can’t work in hazardous workplaces (e.g., with a deli-slicing machine or in a warehouse with forklifts.)</p>

<p>It’s conceivable that children working in factories in the 19th century were less likely to be injured than older workers (because of quicker reflexes perhaps), but even if that were true, I don’t think anyone wants to return to those days.</p>

<p>There are so many things a precocious child can learn without risk that I don’t see why he should be plunged into a typical college chem lab experience at this point.</p>

123

<p>Many 7-year-old kids have passions in life–I’ve known 7-year-olds who passionately wanted to be firefighters, Zambone-machine-drivers, priests, and nuns. Some were intellectually precocious, but nobody suggested rushing them into highly specialized training.</p>

<p>All of them got broad educations and wound up doing other things they found satisfying. Some have jobs that didn’t even exist when they were seven years old.</p>

124

<p>Well, if I was in his position, I would want to learn more mathematics, physics, and the theory of chemistry. However, this kid seems to be more of an explorer and wants to learn some real research.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t call this highly specialized training. Chemistry is necessary for most scientific disciplines, and I think it’s highly likely that this kid will become a scientist of some kind, even if it isn’t as a chemist. Sorry, I don’t think it’s quite the same as a kid wanting to be a fireman or a soccer player. Unless you are talking about someone like Freddy Adu. </p>

<p>I would at least offer him the opportunity to take the non-lab portion of organic chem and other chem subjects. At some places, the theory portion is completely separate from the lab portion. At MIT, there are like 3 required lab classes and they are completely separate from the other textbook-orientated chem classes.</p>

125

<p>I’ve known many who have taken the labs separately from the classes without any problem. In fact, the lab courses I took were very much separate from the textbook/theory classes. I was required to take a chem class but not the lab for my major. </p>

<p>I would have a whole different concern about a 7 year old in a lab versus a teenager/young adult. The equipment is not made for a child that age, and unless he has had lab experience, it could be dangerous. But I believe this child will be accompanied by the parent who could closely supervise. </p>

<p>Unless the parents want the actual college credit, not just the knowledge, auditing the classes or taking for non credit can be a possibility. When accompanied by a parent, he would not be on par with most students at a university. The only exceptions I have seen made for this is if the student has a handicap that needs to be addressed by a companion. I don’t think age/maturity is in that category, as a college student is expected to be able to handle a class on his own.</p>

126

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I would just like to say that though I haven’t had time to read the numerous posts on this increasingly interesting thread, it does look like many of you have put a great effort into providing really useful information for people in an early college situation. I, for one, appreciate it. (I just have to find the time to read it).</p>

<p>Well, after hunting around for a bit, I finally found the article I once read on the internet long ago, comparing US education with the Australian system. In interpreting it regards the old British model, which is followed in places like Singapore and Hong Kong one should bear in mind that, at any given age, the old British model is even more specialized (and therefore of a higher standard) than the Australian model. For instance, at 18 Australians are doing twice as many subjects as the British model types (who will therefore cover twice as much material in half as many subjects).</p>

<p>So, given this, the disparity in level, at a given age will be greater for the old British model than for the Australian system.</p>

<p>You will note that one conclusion is that, by the end of a Bachelor’s degree in the Australian system, compared to a Bachelor’s degree in the States, that the Australian is up to 5 years ahead in their subject. This might surprise you - but the conclusion is explained well, numerically, by direct comparison of time spent on any given study.</p>

<p>The link is here:</p>

<p>[A</a> COMPARISON BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN EDUCATION IN PSYCHOLOGY](<a href=“http://www.neurognostics.com.au/AcademicEquivs/OzziePsychoCringe.htm]A”>http://www.neurognostics.com.au/AcademicEquivs/OzziePsychoCringe.htm)</p>

<p>Americans win on breadth, over other systems. However the US system is overshadowed on depth at any given age. This is the result of differential specialization.</p>

<p>I hope the article gives people perspective.</p>

<p>By the way, for those who have remarked that Ainan’s greatest need is for a lab…you couldn’t be more right. He is well able to learn the rest of it from a book - but the labwork must be done, to be understood - and there is only one way to do that: in a lab.</p>

<p>He has really enjoyed the rare lab time he has managed to get. I just have to try to get consistent access. Thanks for your suggestions.</p>

<p>Kind regards</p>

127

<p>Good luck, Valentine and best wishes to Ainan. It looks like he has caring parents who want to give him the opportunity to pursue his interests. I truly hope you find something for him.</p>

128

<p>Thanks Cptofthehouse for your kind words.</p>

<p>Others too have been supportive, and it is appreciated. </p>

<p>Best wishes to you all.</p>

129

<p>Valentine:</p>

<p>A lot of that article is nonsense. In vocational (non-liberal arts) fields, students at non-American universities are probably well ahead of Americans because they start specializing right after high school, be it in law, medicine or architecture whereas Americans do not start specializing until after the B.A., except for engineering. At the age of 21, for example, my niece has a degree in architecture from her French university, whereas an American student would have just completed a B.A. and begun his/her architectural studies.
But this does not mean that in non-vocational fields, Americans are behind. It is a matter of choice that they delay a career decision and use their time in college to sample a variety of options. </p>

<p>The rationale that Americans start college with a deficit in math and science of up to two years is based on the erroneous assumption that all high schoolers (the population tested for TIMSS) go on to college. The College Board did a study that showed that students who took AP classes performed as well as or better than 12th graders in the countries that outclassed the US. In these countries, 12th graders as a group are more likely to attend college than American 12th graders since the school-leaving age is the 10th grade. Granted, not all American 12th graders take AP classes, but TIMSS was comparing apples and oranges when not factoring in the different populations of 12th graders.</p>

<p>American university students are able to take a huge variety of courses, many of which are deemed to be at the graduate level. I estimate that by the time my own S graduates, he will have taken 10 graduate courses. Some of these are specifically designated to prepare students for the Ph.D. qualifying exam in his field He is not an exception. The classes he is taking are 2/3 undergraduates and 1/3 graduate students (admitted from other schools where presumably graduate courses are not available). Despite this, he will have a B.A. not an M.A.</p>

130

<p>Marite, I know what you are saying. I went to a rigorous university, and European kids generally started out in second year level courses. They did tend to be more advanced than most of their American peers, though I believe they were also a year older for the most part. But the “cream” of the US crop matched the top of the European kids. Your son is really an exception as were the those top Us kids at a top US college. The reason there are graduate student in these undergraduate courses from other schools is that they are not as well prepared. I, too, had grad student in advanced math courses. These kids were very good students from schools that were not the tops in their fields, and they simply did not have the courses our undergrad had. This shows up in math theory quite often. I pause to think if the majority of our college grads ( and most do come from non selective universities) would compare well with the college grads from other countries. I guess the issue would be that we have many college grads who would not have been tracked for college in those countries.</p>

131

<p>I agree wholeheartedly with wisteria. What if the kid wanted to become an astronaut: would you even consider adapting a spaceship to his dimensions? As many posters have pointed out, there are many fields in which a bright kid can find stimulation: even Leopold, the quintessential pushy father who was right in thinking he had produced a genius, exposed his 7 year old Wolfgang to far more than just music. Sorry, valentine, but you seem more interested in Aidan beating precocity records than in his development as a human being. If you had time to read other posts on this forum, you would see that going to college as an autonomous young adult is at least as important as the intellectual skills you acquire there.</p>

132

<p>I don’t agree, Lost. The child clearly is advanced in academics to do as well as he did on the tests. He is very interested and self motivated. It’s a natural next step to find him materials and education which are available that are most appropriate for his level. That does not mean burying him in the material. With two other children in the family, I would not assume that the child is not participating in many lifestyle activites that fit with his family life. As I said in my post, it may not of best interest for him to go for a specific degree, but certainly getting the best fit in classes is the right thing to do. Not all kids are best off in the masses, and it can be downright harmful to some kids. Many kids here do not go to college as an autonomus young adult, and the growing up process does not kick in at high gear till several years later. Parking them in college helps ensure that they get or keep up their intellectual skills.</p>

133

<p>This is a complex situation that I will probably feel compelled to comment on again later.</p>

<p>As a person who, in elementary school, felt so incredibly bored by the easy work that I would sometimes just answer enough questions to pass (say, if 8 out of 15 were required to pass, I would do 9 or 10 and leave the rest blank), I would feel horrible if this boy wasn’t challenged and ended up wasting his talent. Obviously most of us cannot relate to being so advanced, but I think that anyone who has felt exasperated by a lack of meaningful work can understand that it can lead to a negative attitude. This boy should be permitted to explore and cultivate his passion for chemistry. Whether it would be better to home school him for a few years before sending him off, I don’t know. That might be what I would do if he were my child. And, also, I disagree with comments that he may not get interactions with appropriate peers if he goes away to school. NOBODY is his peer. In class, the older students could be his intellectual peers, but perhaps not more than that. Outside of class, I don’t think anyone would mind if he watched some cartoons with other children. Keeping him out of the university won’t necessarily make it easier for him to make friends his age.</p>

<p>PS: I find the comments about his size ridiculous. What if an adult dwarf or midget wanted to study chemistry? Would that be an excuse to discourage him/her from pursuing his/her passions? No.</p>

134

<p>cpt:</p>

<p>At his college, my S is not an exception. But it is true that American higher education includes a much wider variety of institutions than in most countries. </p>

<p>At highly selective colleges, a very significant proportion of students have enough APs or IB HLs to qualify for Advanced Standing (the same as holders of French Baccalaureat, German Arbitur or British A-levels) but choose not to do so in order to spend four years in college, taking courses outside of their major or exploring different options. We know someone who had 20 APs, 16 with scores of 5. Enough for two years’ worth of college. He is staying all four years; and, having come in as a science major, he is drifting towards law. He will graduate as a science major, however, with enough courses to qualify for a graduate program should he choose to stick to science.</p>

135

<p>I feel sorry for this child. At age 6, everything is wonderful. As kids hit their teens, they are constantly looking where they fit in. I agree with Frazzledmaybe…nobody is his peer. While he does not realize this now, I am sure he will in a few years down the road. I just truly feel sorry for him. That being said, there are many opportunities, but the biggest one would be to try to socialize him with kids closer to his own age, while also stimulating his intellectual curiosity/gift.</p>

136

<p>I don’t understand why anyone would feel sorry for this child unless you are making assumptions about his life that are not supported by fact. There are many very happy children with very rich lives who are homeschooled. This one happens to be more advanced in subject matter. I see nowhere that he is pounding salt with someone beating on him to do the work. Nor do I see that he is not socializing anywhere. If I had a child who finished chem on his own and knows it well, and want to go to the next step, you had better believe I would try to find the opportunity. I do not equate that with finding a spaceship for him. And if there is a class at college nearby that can provide this, I would be interested in letting him sit in it. I’m certainly not going to tell him that he cannot move on until he hits the right age.</p>

<p>However, there are some activities and situations that are not appropriate for a seven year old that have nothing to do with his size or intellectual level. Sticking him into the dorms or on campus alone, for instance. Or permitting him to handle dangerous chemicals or machinery. That’s a whole different story.</p>

137

<p>A story I heard locally is about a girl who studied in the University of Minnesota program for advanced secondary math students (which results in a U of MN transcript with math credits in the upper years of the program) who also participated in Minnesota’s PSEO dual-enrollment program and took a lot of AP tests. The year she was a “senior” in high school (I’m not sure at what age) she had 162 quarter credits on her U of MN transcript (at a time when 180 quarter credits was enough to graduate with a bachelor’s degree). She decided to apply as a freshman to Caltech, and that is where she attended. She loved her undergraduate years at Caltech. She graduated from Caltech in three years–that has to be very unusual–and has thrived in her career since, according to the local story I heard. There is no rush to go to college at the earliest possible age, as long as what the learner learns next year is the next logical step in a learning progression that builds understanding and competence.</p>

138

<p>Of course, the difference between a dwarf chemist and Ainan is that one has the requisite maturity to handle burning things, boiling liquids, and volatile reactions without getting hurt, as long as physical accomodations are made, and the other is a 7 year old… I cannot believe that a kid this many years before puberty will be safe around 400 degree substances, no matter his intelligence. And furthermore, lab protocols can be learned with relative ease, but it is the scientific approach to labwork that takes time to develop, and I agree with midmo that regular access to a lab is not critical to the development of scientific approach.</p>

139

<p>Valentine, the article you cite refers only to the training of clinical psychologists. What does this have to do with the study of chemistry? Even within most U.S. university psychology departments, there is pronounced difference in the course of study required for those interested in clinical work vs those interested in experimental psychology.</p>

<p>Some of the posters on this thread who have extensive experience studying chemistry at undergraduate and graduate level, and have taught undergraduate chemistry, have listed the course requirements necessary for an undergraduate degree in the field. Take the time to read them. Has Ainan mastered calculus through multivariate? Has he studied physics? Has he studied organic chemistry in addition to the inorganic chemistry common to high school curriculum? If you cannot answer yes to all of those questions, he most certainly is not in a position to claim equivalence to an undergraduate course of study in chemistry–even without reference to laboratory work.</p>

<p>At the risk of sounding rude, I must question your choice of an article like the one you have referenced as evidence for your position. The paper is not scholarly and the subject matter is wholly irrelevant for any discussion of Ainan’s standing as a chemistry student.</p>

<p>Another comment on the role of undergraduate laboratory experiences, and this is actually relevant for any experimental science, not only chemistry. The most important aspect of the “lab” component of undergraduate classes is not the development of skills like pipetting, successfully carrying out a chromatographic separation, etc; it is learning about what constitutes a scientific approach, analyzing one’s results with reference to controls, and learning how to explain your unexpected experimental results. (That is, explaining to the prof what you did wrong.) A lot of writing and graphical analysis, data plotting, etc is required. It is my opinion that there is much Ainan could be doing at this time to prepare those kinds of skills before he attempts to work in a laboratory setting.</p>

140

<p>I don’t see why he can’t move along in chem until he starts hitting the material that needs other advanced subjects and then work on those if he so desires. If he passed those exams, he can’ t be way behind in other disciplines. And he can certainly start in a laboratory setting with proper supervision, just not freely in a college setting. I know a number of chemistry sorts that would not mind working with such an interested child. And perhaps the child can learn to do the analysis too.</p>