<p>“5th graders are usually 11 not 8. If the kid was in a regular school, he would be in 2nd or 3rd grade.”</p>
<p>These children learn all the subjects and go through the normal school system. Magnus learns math all the time. He’s learning the basic curriculum, these children are as advanced in that AND demonstrate unbelievable problem-solving ability not much later in development by scoring into the double-digits on the USAMO and similar tests. I think it’s clear that they’re comparable.</p>
<p>I have a very hard time believing that all Magnus is learning is math. Yes, that is the focus. But most 2nd and 3rd graders are reading short chapter books. At least Magnus is reading and understanding at a much more higher level in order to understand words such as functions, derivatives, integration, etc… So in terms of reading he is well ahead of his peers. What else are they learning in 2nd and 3rd grade? Not Shakespeare. Not Latin. Not physics.</p>
<p>Just because Magnus is focusing on math does not mean that he is behind his peers in other fields. </p>
<p>I recall one 5th grade science unit my S suffered through. Write what you know about rainbows. My S gave a scientific definition of rainbows. Other kids wrote poems or some totally unscientific essay (very short). That’s the sort of things that made me wonder if I was doing the right thing sending him to school.</p>
<p>“Mark said his son’s current curriculum does not include English, history, science or foreign languages, as these subjects do not presently interest him.”</p>
<p>I’m assuming that that statement, combined with the fact that both parents have PhDs in mathematics, probably indicates that math is a huge focus for him. All I’m trying to say is that I know people who spent an equivalent amount of time (because they only get so much math in the school day/out of school) who are just as/more advanced. He may be younger. All I’m saying is that he is exceptional, just like all the other exceptional kids. It’s overblown.</p>
<p>Baelor, how many 8 year olds do you know take BC Calc and score a 5?<br>
How many 2nd and 3rd graders actually learn anything much outside of reading–which he needs to have mastered in order to do calculus and arithmetics? My kids’ k-12 career is not so ancient that I don’t remember what they were learning in those grades.</p>
<p>But think of the corollary of your argument: Plenty of kids are capable of not only studying calculus at 8 or even as 11 year olds (5th graders). Right? So why aren’t there more of them? Why is the US doing so poorly in math when compared with other countries? Where are all those Magnus-like kids? If their growth is being stunted, then Magnus’ parents have done well to homeschool him.</p>
<p>Marite, the point is that although these children are older, they have possibly spent less time studying math than he has. If they were homeschooled, who knows where they would be at age 8. </p>
<p>Where are they? Succeeding, without parents who post it on websites and try to advertise their poor child. Try looking at the National Mathcounts winners for a start. In my state, most of the seventh graders at the top in state had studied at least 2 years of calculus just by spending an hour a day on math. Magnus probably spends more. It’s not that unusual. It’s just a matter of where you look. They are very intelligent, and very driven. But they and their parents are humble enough not to go labeling themselves and prodigies and geniuses.</p>
<p>Again, Magnus is a few years younger. But that makes little difference considering the fact that he truly has spent more time on math and these children are even more advanced than he. Again, all I’m saying is that it’s not unusual enough to justify the accolades. There are many of these children, who maintain a sense of privacy and humility.</p>
<p>Oh, and if you want numbers, 10+. If you want names, PM for privacy’s sake.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Naah…definitely takes innate mathematical talent. Kid is remarkable. Dad is creepy.</p>
<p>It doesn’t offend me that the parents are celebrating their son’s gifts.</p>
<p>If their son were gifted in baseball or football (or whatever popular sport), he’d probably get on the cover of his local newspaper for each achievement. </p>
<p>Because this achievement is academic, the family has to do PR for attention.</p>
<p>Why do kids need outside attention?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heh. I learned S could read when he was 22 months old; happened at breakfast one morning when he was still in his high chair. Surprised me! And he was multiplying and dividing, in his head, when he was three. Addition and subtraction came much earlier.</p>
<p>But we sent him to school anyway, knowing that there is socialization that takes place in school that it’s very difficult to get otherwise, that school teaches far more than simply math or English. Sure, some of the lessons he and all children perhaps could do without, but for the way the world is (rather than the way we’d like it to be). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because not all parents push their gifted kids to learn so quickly. Some parents want their children to learn other lessons, lessons they think are at least as important, if not more important, than learning calculus. How to function in a group. How to lead. How to follow. How to make and keep friends. When not to keep a friend. How to stand up for oneself. How to stand up for a friend. How to talk to someone in a position of authority and advocate for a change, whether in a grade or assignment or whatever else. How to help someone else; how to ask for and accept help when it’s needed.</p>
<p>There are lessons a child has to learn that have nothing to do with books, nothing to do with academic subjects. I can, and did, read to my kid, look at maps with him, do physics experiments in the kitchen with him, but there are many things that are better learned by children from people who are not his parents, and especially from other children.</p>
<p>
If that were the case, a 5 wouldn’t just mean “extremely well qualified”; it would mean “perfectly qualified”. Even if “regular speech” entailed a score of 5 being equated to perfection (which I have never seen evidence of), what is said in “regular speech” isn’t always right. In fact, in this situation, it’s completely wrong. A 5 may be a maximum score or a full score, but it is a far cry from the truly perfect score.</p>
<p>I think when someone works very hard on something, anything, some outside attention is reaffirming. Is it necessary? No.</p>
<p>kryptonsa36, who cares. everyone does call a 5 a perfect score where I’m from.</p>
<p>owlice, completely agree with everything in your post.</p>
<p>Hard_Knocks, did you look at the website? </p>
<p>Is the term “stage parent” still in use?</p>
<p>owlice:</p>
<p>I am all for kids being well rounded. But there’s a strain in this thread and in the American culture in general that seeks to make monsters of gifted children.</p>
<p>Baelor: Great. 10+ out of how many millions 8 year olds? That’s about the ballpark for PG. I have met a number of PG kids myself. It’s wonderful to see how enthusiastic they are about their passion-- in this case, math.</p>
<p>If this is the worst example of “stage parenting” I am not sure I understand why stage parents get such bad rap - and if it is NOT, well, then I feel sorry for those of you with such weak stomachs that this makes you ill. Life must be tough for you. ;)</p>
<p>Marite, I am agreeing with you. I think it’s great how enthusiastic they are, and it is truly wonderful that many are provided with many opportunities. I think that I am not making myself clear, and that is entirely my fault:</p>
<p>1) A PG child does not need to be socially inept. Although they may have problems finding common ground with their peers, they can at least be exposed to others and learn how to operate appropriately in social settings.</p>
<p>2) A PG child should explore things because of their natural and wonderful internal drive, NOT so that their parents can create a disgusting and creepy website discussing their child’s accomplishments. They are a child blessed with gifts, not a dog whom their parents taught tricks in order to win a show.</p>
<p>3) A PG child does not need publicity. There are many PG children, although they form a small segment of the population. I, for various reasons (gifted program, then a top private school) have been exposed to many gifted and talented children, from published writers to math competitors to concert pianists. They are all incredibly humble and do not announce their accomplishments. Neither do their parents. In addition, this particular child’s gifts are not so incredible that they deserve national media attention. Finally, this is not a rant against all press about PG children in general. But consider Magnus, who got a 5 on the Calculus AP and bikes 50+ miles a week. Now consider an article about a true concert pianist of age 8 who donates the proceeds to charity, or puts on concerts for others. There was a young student (name escapes me, but was in Guinness Records or something) who attended Harvard at an incredibly young age and started a charity for people in Africa (education-based, I believe). These are children who have taken their gifts and done something truly great with them. Magnus’ gifts are immense, but his parents’ pleasure with their alleged wunderkind doesn’t mean that articles need to be written about him.</p>
<p>1) We do not know that this PG child is socially inept.
2) This PG child appears to be exploring activities he is VERY interested in - so why assume he is merely a show dog?
3) Publicity? If a small article in a local paper and a personal blog about a kid that nobody has ever heard of is “publicity” and if that is truly the goal of the parents, then they really do need a new PR manager.</p>
<p>This is a fascinating discussion. Out of curiousity, I did a search for “child prodigies” on the web. Here’s a wikipedia link describing prodigies in many different areas:
[List</a> of child prodigies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“List of child prodigies - Wikipedia”>List of child prodigies - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I thought this entry in particular about another mathematical prodigy in the early 1900’s was interesting, because this young man’s parents apparently received quite a bit of negative publicity at the time for their theories on educating their son, similar to some of the things said here about Magnus’ parents:
[William</a> James Sidis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis]William”>William James Sidis - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>1) He has no friends of his own. Let me rephrase, because you are correct that the implication that I made was that he was socially inept. One does not have to sacrifice exposure to friends and relationships as a PG child. This child clearly has sacrificed, or been forced to, the learning and experience that comes from being with his peers. Is this a more fair statement?</p>
<p>2) Have you seen the website? The Youtube channel? The views and attitudes of the parents? For precision, again let me rephrase: A child should not feel pressure to perform or pursue areas of interest because of the motivations of the parents. I think that the parents clearly play a role in what he learns and what he pursues. It’s not coincidence that his parents have doctorate degrees in mathematics. A child’s accomplishments should not be treated the way they are by his parents, even if they aren’t involved in what he pursues at all. They treat him like a show dog. I stand by that statement completely because the fact that the website exists at all is enough evidence by itself.</p>
<p>3) It’s still publicity, for one. His piano pieces have also been performed on Fox4 and CBS TV. I encourage you to take a look at the MusicDoLove Youtube channel, that has videos of Magnus.</p>