We know a few of these kids. In addition, they have parents who push them - really, really push them. I sometimes wonder how they are going to handle things when they are in college making their own decisions without parents constantly micromanaging their entire lives.
If you check out the National Science Foundation’s website, you will find that tons of research is being done on campuses throughout the country - in state schools as well as Ivies - by regular, ordinary people who were not presenting groundbreaking research papers in middle school.
I think this somewhat misses the point. The thread was not about getting into college or about prestige. This kid knows she is going to college. Jobs and Wozniak may very well have been the kind of gifted prodigies that this girl is comparing herself to.
But, I think this thread has give a lot of great examples of how people can make a difference from many different starting points.
“Basically, she felt that a normal, hard working kid has no hope of ever making a real contribution in science when there are so many true geniuses out there. I would love to point her to a thread that dispels this idea.”
When I was first starting out in my career, I wondered when I was going to have my Anne Sullivan/Helen Keller moment. I think we’re conditioned that only newsworthy contributions are meaningful. I found this quote that changed my perspective.
“We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot forsee.” Marian Wright Edelman
“Can you guys throw out some examples of people making contributions in science who didn’t start out as child prodigies?”
Your best bet may be to see what kind of colleges your local doctors or professors (if you’re close to some) attended. Knowing someone that went down a “regular” path, and there should be many of them, could be more impactful than a famous rags to riches story.
Definitely check professors—some of the most inspirational and generally lovely professors I’ve ever met started out very average or faced incredible hardship. Most people I know aren’t in the top 10%, top 50%, but they do so much good and are doing great things with their lives anyway.
Your accomplishments aren’t lesser because of what other people do, really.
My brother. Average, bright kid. Played lacrosse in HS, not too much else for ECs. He did win a scholar-athlete award, but just at the school level. He was in a play, but just a small part. Got a BS from JHU (back when it wasn’t nearly as tough to get into) and then an MS in fisheries biology at Humboldt State. Worked for an Indian tribe in northern CA for a while, then for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for most of his career. Did lots of research on shrimp, trying to reduce the “bi-catch” (stuff you’re not fishing for but get anyway) in shrimping, to protect endangered and protected species.
About a year before his planned retirement, he and his research partner actually (after much trial-and-error) discovered a method of using certain kinds of lights on the nets that reduced the bi-catch by about 95% or so (apparently let the unwanted fish find the exits that they could get out of, but the shrimp couldn’t). Truly amazing results. They published, and the fishermen started buying the lights so rapidly that the sellers wondered what the heck was going on! In about a year they totally changed the way things were done in the industry, and maybe even saved a species or two.
He just kept at it. To most folks it would probably have looked as though he had kind of a plodding, government bureaucracy kind of job for 35 years or so, but he was slowly advancing things that mostly mattered to a small group of people. Then one day, a true “eureka” discovery!
Didn’t read the whole thread, scanned most of it. A dose of reality for everyone. I own / operate a small business providing financial services (planning, insurance, investments) to individuals & small companies, and I coach hundreds of others how to improve their businesses.
I’m happy to report there are TONS of successful people out there (defined by many things, including ,but not limited to financial) with very ordinary backgrounds. State U, no college, CCs, etc. Lots of small business owners who provide regular services to the community, but do it really well, have a following, etc. Many make WAY more than you think, out earning lawyers and doctors. The income isn’t the point. The point is: regardless of background; ingenuity, passion, grit, hard work, and timing (and luck) have a lot to do with one’s success. This is a great country. Just about anyone can do amazing things. I feel it all starts with:
Say please and thank you.
Show up on time (which means early!)
DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING TO DO (NO MATTER WHAT!!!)
I want to offer a different perspective. First, not all the kids who appear to be geniuses based on their resumes are. In fact, few of them are. Second, the few actual geniuses I have known in my life have honestly not had the best lives. I often equate being a “genius” with being a celebrity. It seems awesome from the outside, but once you’re living it, the downsides become readily apparent. I have known a couple of old friends who I could say are truly geniuses, and they haven’t succeeded the most from our cohort, nor have they been the happiest. So perhaps talking with the teen about what makes a happy life, and seeing the “geniuses” as humans who have their own unique set of problems, would help her see things from a different angle.
Tell her to stay off CC and especially the chance threads. If the school is high pressure and high expectation, dealing with that environment is tricky but it can be done.
I once spoke with an orchestra director who said most successful musicians are not prodigies or even the most talented, but got where they were through hard work. I think that applies to most areas of life.
Most of those “genius” kids described by OP daughter’s friend are most likely hard working HS kids with above average IQ. They have perfect GPA, test scores etc, not because their IQ, but because they also work hard on top of their IQ. Most likely none of them will grow up to be those once in a century genius who change/influence the path for mankind. If they can continue with their drive and motivation into their future careers, they will likely be contributing to their field of choice steadily and surely. Nothing negative about them. On the other hand, getting perfect GPA, test scores, going to Ivies are not indicative of being more successful contributing to society. There are so many other factors, including IQ, passion, hard work, luck, maybe even EQ, that are part of an unknown formula for one’s future path.
The OP daughter’s friend can have a very successful path if she is determined to find one. First step is to get off this Forum and become/continue being active in her school/community
Perhaps her goal should be to start at making a small difference, for even a small difference may mean the world to one person. As a doctor would it not be worth it to even save one life? Is it not worth it if she doesn’t have notoriety or change the world? I think it is to the life she saves.
“In this world we may not do great things, but we can do small things with great love.” Saint Teresa of Calcutta
@gallentjill Here is my perspective as someone with an M.D. and a Ph.D., who does research for a career.
I'm not sure it's necessary or even beneficial for someone to get both degrees. A Ph.D. alone would have been sufficient for my area of research. The M.D. degree and associated clinical training in my case probably just took 6 years away from my research. This doesn't hold for everyone, of course, but two degrees are not necessarily better than one.
Accomplishments or accolades in grade school, middle school, high school, and even college mean almost nothing later on in life. In research, no one cares or knows where you went to school or what awards you have received; they care instead about your results.
Young students who work hard to pad their resume are often driven by extrinsic rewards, like grades or college admissions. But I find that successful researchers are driven instead by their intrinsic motivation, including their desire to understand a particular problem or to reconcile some discrepancy. People who are driven by extrinsic rewards, which can involve always trying to conform to a teacher's expectations, can have an attitude that goes against being nonconformist and creative.
High school students who work in a lab and get their name on a paper generally don't have the understanding or insight that started the research question to begin with. They generally contributed a small part to the work, like running a gel or generating a figure. It is a much different task to be a principal investigator, who comes up with original ideas, and gets grant money or support to pursue those ideas.
One does not need to be exceptional at math to be a scientist. One example of this is the great biologist E. O. Wilson at Harvard, who took algebra in his freshman year at the University of Alabama, and didn't take calculus until he was 32 years old.
For science, it may not be the best idea to matriculate at the most selective school you are admitted to (i.e., being a small fish in a big pond). Malcolm Gladwell discusses this in his book David and Goliath, where he provides evidence that it is often more beneficial to be a big fish in a small pond. The Nobel laureate Thomas Cech wrote an article discussing how liberal arts colleges do well in educating successful scientists.
Science is a highly social activity. A scientist needs to organize a team to help conduct the research, supervise and teach students, collaborate with other researchers, and communicate results to others. These people skills are often not apparent at the high school level.
Success in science generally does not require "genius". It does require some reasonable level of education to learn the fundamentals of one's field. But beyond that, success depends mainly on personal qualities: curiosity, common sense, drive, and hard work, in addition to the social skills mentioned above. Sometimes, there is a bit of luck involved, though, such as being in the right place at the right time to make a particular observation.
@mdphd92 Thank you for that great post! Interestingly, the kid in question has recently started talking about forgoing medical school and just going for the PHd. I think research is her real passion. This is all great information.
^^^I think that shows that most HS students’ ideas of “what they want to be when they grow up” can be subject to adjustment and change as they gain more information about their own interests/strengths and learn about different options/pathways.
And that PhD path can change again as the student gains more insight into her interests, likes and dislikes. My own D thought about the PhD route… and then discovered that despite loving science, she was not loving endless hours alone in the lab. Each experience helps them figure it out.
My kid’s intended major changed several times even before attending one class at the school he’s going. This is why for our kid, it was important to go to a school which had strong programs across the board.
Some great posts here. Yes, ambition plays a big part in where you end up, but that’s not to say Steve Jobs was a happier person than you or me. I met billionaires, millionaires, CEOs, Presidents and relatively poor people in my line of work and they all have problems. This observation influenced many of my own decisions.
An ability to find small happiness and laugh at yourself are very much unspoken qualities of happiness.
Regular kids know how to talk to people. They know how to laugh and they are funny and bright. Regular kids are usually better at explaining things to people and love it when they “get it”. Regular kids relate to people and empathize well. They watch tv and play video games and ride bikes. They play football and soccer and are good at things you cannot quantify with an SAT, ACT or MCAT. We need “REGULAR KIDS” to encourage us to try one more cancer treatment, to tell us to not lose hope, to keep science real and to use their talents to be creative in how they treat illnesses. Thank goodness for regular kids because they go on, many times, to lead extraordinary lives where they make a difference.
“but that’s not to say Steve Jobs was a happier person than you or me”
The Walter Issacson biography paints a picture of a man driven by constant unhappiness and dissatisfaction. His first big house after Apple’s IPO was devoid of furniture for a decade because he could not find any that satisfied his aesthetic.
Even without his tragic illness, I would not trade places with Steve Jobs.
OP here. I think this thread has been great and has generated lots of wonderful stories. I want to explain that in this case, the worry was not about getting into a specific school or jealousy of others’ achievements. It isn’t about thinking regular people can’t be happy or do good for others. Its hard to describe exactly since I’m interpreting for someone else, but I think some of it the fear of starting out behind. When kids are taking 3 years of college math in high school, along with AP everything else, how does she catch up?
AND then there is the fear that if there are so many truly brilliant people out there, what contribution can a regular kid make – not to the world, or to her community or family – but to science. (I’m going to keep the exact goal vague for confidentiality reasons.)
Why would any lab or academic department want a “regular” hard working kid when they can have geniuses working for them. And if a regular kid were able to find their way into a lab or academic department, what could she hope to achieve next to those extraordinarily gifted kids.
I think this thread has done a good job of answering that question, but I love the stories so if you have them, keep them coming.
