s/o Everyone's gifted: ever wonder...

[kmacnchs]

I don't think that having a brain that helps them to do complex in their heads is more admirable than someone who spends more time and effort and works until they get the correct answer. I think it is much harder for a kid who is this good at academics to develop a work effort, particularly when he never has to try... thus, we homeschool and I require work that requires effort.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I think this is a GREAT POINT! Something for me to remember myself when I am feeling puffed up about my kids and something for me to teach my kiddos whenever the opportunity presents itself - afterall, I was one of those hard workers :)

[mcconnellboys]

Well, I know a number of kids and they are all different. I want to be sort of vague because I don't want to risk the privacy of these kids:

 

Some are math/science gifted and as you mention, that does seem to be more accepted and they seem to be doing well. But some of them are not being pushed to move ahead into college work at very young ages, either. Their parents are really striving to find a mix that is right for them and that honors their desires to do kid things, at times, while still honoring their intellects. The one I know who is in college (and has been for some time, but it's now "official") seems to be very well adjusted, happy, and doing well. He really needed and wanted to be there at a very young age.

 

But when you juxtapose this against another child who has been doing research work in medicine at a major research institute, and was getting ready to take their MCAT's last year to enter medical school - and who had to miss out on overnights with friends, participating on sports teams, etc. because they "had work to do" (very obviously pushed by Mom's insistence), I see trouble ahead..... Would it really matter if they entered med school at age 16 instead of 13 and had time to do fun things they very obviously wanted to do?

[Renee in NC]

Well, I know a number of kids and they are all different. I want to be sort of vague because I don't want to risk the privacy of these kids:

 

Some are math/science gifted and as you mention, that does seem to be more accepted and they seem to be doing well. But some of them are not being pushed to move ahead into college work at very young ages, either. Their parents are really striving to find a mix that is right for them and that honors their desires to do kid things, at times, while still honoring their intellects. The one I know who is in college (and has been for some time, but it's now "official") seems to be very well adjusted, happy, and doing well. He really needed and wanted to be there at a very young age.

 

But when you juxtapose this against another child who has been doing research work in medicine at a major research institute, and was getting ready to take their MCAT's last year to enter medical school - and who had to miss out on overnights with friends, participating on sports teams, etc. because they "had work to do" (very obviously pushed by Mom's insistence), I see trouble ahead..... Would it really matter if they entered med school at age 16 instead of 13 and had time to do fun things they very obviously wanted to do?

 

I cannot even begin to comprehend why a med school would admit a 13yo (or a 16yo for that matter.) It's ridiculous to think that a 17yo med school graduate is something that anyone (individual or school) would strive for. So, residency at 17 and board certified at 21? What's the point?

 

I won't say that early college entrance is bad - I would have love to skip high school and go to college. I don't see the end goal as getting a precocious child (then brilliant teen) into the workforce as early as possible. I am not saying "hold them back" so much as go deeper and wider - research, internships, volunteer work, etc. The world is a huge place for him or her to explore before having to settle in and start paying back student loans.

 

Of course, people can do whatever they want with their own children and I wish that my parents had spent more time figuring out what to do with me. I probably wouldn't have dropped out of high school at 16 if I had been even near appropriate challenge levels. So, I guess on that thought, I'd rather a 16yo in med school than a 16yo still stuck in 10th grade in a school with no AP classes, no research, and no dual-enrollment...

[stripe]

I am not saying "hold them back" so much as go deeper and wider - research, internships, volunteer work, etc.

Yes, and study something deeply, go into nooks and crannies, and dig in, instead of racing along in a strictly linear progression.

[Nan in Mass]

So thinking about this, it seems like sometimes the early college issue boils down to whether the kids need the funding and support for their projects that college can provide. The ones who want to play (and it is play to them) with things that involve scanning microscopes or particle accellerators or groups of people with whom to argue and don't have parents with access to those things need to go to college to be able to continue playing, while the ones whose projects need cheaper equipment and can be done at home in the basement or at their parents' workplace can afford to wait? Not that I have one of these children GRIN. I just have watched a few of them trying to grow up, so I am interested.

 

And perhaps the how-much-to-push issue can be dealt with by pushing them to work hard during work time and leaving them to decide what to play the rest of the time?

 

And this is off topic, now, but perhaps someone has some helpful insight:

It seems like the fine line I am always trying to walk (as a parent of non-brilliant children) is how much help to give them with their play. I provide space and time as best I can, and come-and-see immediately when I am asked. I listen patiently to descriptions of problems (hopefully not causing traffic accidents as I visualize the whateveritis) and provide input when I have experience or ideas. The tricky part, for me, comes in knowing how much material help to provide and how much self-discipline to lend them. Some are fairly obvious, like gymnastics. They want to do it, in a general way, and they've tried not doing it and quickly decided that they go crazy without it, but I provide the yes-you-have-to-go-this-afternoon part. That is easy. And others, like my son's current modeling project, are fairly easy - a conversation with Dad about molds and the legality of copying things, as much sculpy as he wants, a toaster oven tray, and a work surface, and he can be left to manage the rest on his own. Obviously. But there seems to be a whole slew of things that can be ruined by too much or two little parental support. Too many resources or too much information or too much encouragement to keep going and finish something, and the project isn't satisfactorily their own and they don't get the fun of being creative and improvising, or it is like having someone tell you the answer to a puzzle (a big no-no in our family). Too little, and they have to abandon some cool ideas that would keep them busy and entertained and help them grow. Sometimes they are less than perfect at figuring out where the balance point is between tackling something that will bore them soon or something that is beyond a reasonable reach. And then there is the whole cooperative, being part of a group part, the part about if we choose to help you do this, you need to finish it because we have put time and effort into it and it is something that we would like to finish, a partnership. If they don't abandon some projects through laziness, will they ever figure out that it feels yucky? Or that it isn't the end of the world and more projects come along? So maybe (thinking aloud here), ideally, they wouldn't enter into a partnership with you on a project without knowing that it comes with the strings of finishing with you or you both, together, agreeing to quit. Ideally, they would select play projects that are at that ideal challenge point of being only a fun challenge, not an exhausting challenge, and needing only a little outside help. Ideally, any projects that are going to be exhaustingly hard work and need lots of parental help with the daily keeping-on-going, and lots of parental help with resources would be considered part of the part of their education that the parent provides? When the children were younger, I set limits on my involvement by roping off a part of our day for school and using that time for the either the hard stuff (mostly skill building) or the stuff I considered an essential part of their education. I guess my problem is that as they got older, that division began to break down. They have much more control over the school part of their education. And their play projects aren't always something that they can do without parental resources, or make themselves keep doing even though they are glad afterwards that they finished, or do without a partner (parent). It seems like it is easy for either the parents or the children to misjudge the scope of the project and do the wrong thing. Part of me agonizes over this part of parenting. And part of me thinks that I am being stupid to complain about such a wonderful problem. How can you find that balance point? Is it as crucial as it seems?

 

I would like to think the young med student's parents had just misjudged this, not acted solely because of their own ego. I'm not sure how much children "get" the implications of the whole "youngest to do this" race. (I'm thinking of the youngest-to-singlehand-around-the-world races that have just happened.) I think adults have a duty to the child not to let them throw themselves into something of such dubious longterm value. If they wanted to stop global warming, perhaps it would be worth the price. I assume your young aquaintance isn't driven by the wish to cure the world of cancer because his younger brother died of it and can only do that if he becomes a doctor first? I think what some of the parents of profoundly gifted here have been trying to tell us is that some children are driven by things like that. (And that some of them who aren't do things so quickly that they have time to do an unlikely-sounding amount. And that some of them who aren't driven do some unlikely-sounding things as play.)

 

Any thoughts?

-Nan

 

Editing this to add that I have to go do French now so this is probably a disorganized mess.

Editing again to add that I think some of the emotional problems of the adult gifted can probably be attributed to the adult in their lives encouraging them to make sacrifices for projects of dubious worth. If you are told it is going to be great to give up your childhood to be the youngest to do something, and you are gifted enough that you are actually capable of that sort of sustained voluntary sacrifice, you probably are going to feel pretty betrayed when you realize that your sacrifice wasn't a worthy one.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[melmichigan]

Yes, and study something deeply, go into nooks and crannies, and dig in, instead of racing along in a strictly linear progression.

 

:iagree:

[Irene Lynn]

There is also the point that a lot of very gifted children also feel emotion very deeply and do not have the skills to handle it. Our dd would feel deeply burdened, when she heard people speaking harshly to one another. A VERY gifted young man that I knew, covered up his wrists to hide the scars. His loving and well-meaning parents tried to help him to have a happy, normal childhood. He was NOT normal. His brain moved so quickly that slowing it down seemed to cause him physical pain.

 

I chose to homeschool so that our dd would get the academic thrills without all the emotional stuff that school is filled with. I really don't think she could have dealt with it. If I had sent her to school, where school was rather dull, no indepth discussions, and kids were mean to each other and the teachers were not always just (like scolding the whole class for sloppy work or poor lines or something like that), she would have been so burdened by the emotions, she wouldn't have learned much, if there had been anything to learn.

 

A lot of the things that bothered dd deeply did not bother her friends. Some things they didn't even notice, but she would. When she was little, she could not stand slap stick comedy, because she saw all the pain and couldn't deal with it. She knew it was acting, but to watch someone in "pain" and hear people laughing was just too much for her. Our dd has matured slowly in this area, but at 16.5, I think she is going to make it in the world at large without being crushed.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I cannot even begin to comprehend why a med school would admit a 13yo (or a 16yo for that matter.) It's ridiculous to think that a 17yo med school graduate is something that anyone (individual or school) would strive for. So, residency at 17 and board certified at 21? What's the point?

 

 

Well, I read extensively about a child (probably the same child) who did this. I cannot remember if it was the child who was pushing on this or the parents. I do remember that they changed his program so that all of his clinical experience (including some of it which would have come earlier) came when he was older. The issue was that patients would not be comfortable with a teen examining them. And that you need some emotional and life experience to help in the interpersonal parts of medicine. But - I'm fairly sure that this child was actually interested not in face-to-face doctoring (though he had to jump through that hoop) but in medical research.

[EKS]

Well, I read extensively about a child (probably the same child) who did this. I cannot remember if it was the child who was pushing on this or the parents. I do remember that they changed his program so that all of his clinical experience (including some of it which would have come earlier) came when he was older. The issue was that patients would not be comfortable with a teen examining them. And that you need some emotional and life experience to help in the interpersonal parts of medicine. But - I'm fairly sure that this child was actually interested not in face-to-face doctoring (though he had to jump through that hoop) but in medical research.

 

I was thinking as I read these posts that he should have gone for an MD-PhD (and maybe he did). Back when I was applying to programs, that would mean two years of medical school (the classroom part) then the PhD part with research and so forth for three years and then the clinical part for two years. Then he would have been at least 18 or 19 rather than 15 for the clinical piece.

[mcconnellboys]

The goal for this particular child is research and the child has already been participating in research at a prestigious institute for the past couple of years. But summer before last, this child was working 40 hours per week all summer. That's just too much, in my opinion......

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with a child doing this if it's what the child wants and they are capable. This child is capable, but I've seen quite a bit of evidence that some regular childhood experiences are also craved by this child (and, unfortunately, often refused)......

[mcconnellboys]

"Editing again to add that I think some of the emotional problems of the adult gifted can probably be attributed to the adult in their lives encouraging them to make sacrifices for projects of dubious worth. If you are told it is going to be great to give up your childhood to be the youngest to do something, and you are gifted enough that you are actually capable of that sort of sustained voluntary sacrifice, you probably are going to feel pretty betrayed when you realize that your sacrifice wasn't a worthy one. "

 

I'm not sure, Nan. Even if the "work" is worthy; I think (hope) the "fun" is worthy, too. I'm not sure that digging one's toes into the dirt of a beautiful soccer field on a perfect day (if that's what you really yearn to do), isn't just as important to your emotional well-being as whatever scientific accomplishments you may make for society.....

 

I'm afraid I've seen one too many examples from these particular parents to believe that they refuse to allow childhood experiences that the child is specifically requesting just because they don't realize the import. I think they are really caught up in living their lives through this child's accomplishments.

 

Now, the child (an only), does want to do the things they are doing, but they are so very young that slowing down just a little bit, which would have allowed the child to continue on their soccer team, for instance, do more with their choir group, for instance (both things that the child *wanted* - and asked for, repeatedly) would not have ruined their chances at achievement at all. Far from it. Slowing down just a little and graduating a year later, going into med school a year later, working fewer hours at research during the summers, etc. really would not have made this child any less a prodigy.

 

And down the road, I tend to think that it might make them more productive. I think studies have shown that short breaks from work actually tend to increase productivity (and I would think allow for better thought processes, as well).

 

And if the child were so driven that the work was all they wanted, I wouldn't be saying this at all! Another child I know who is in college at a similar age and majoring in math and something else I forget currently is absolutely where they need to be and doing absolutely everything they want to do. My comments are only because I do see that some children, in some circumstances, do end up getting pushed by parents who get too caught up in the glamor and fame of the thing (first child has been all over the news; second child has never been in the news that I know of, for instance).

 

And those who I've seen who tend to have problems after they get older (some sooner than that), have tended to be those who really were being pushed to do too much of the "work" and disallowed from doing most of the "fun" things they craved. I think there's a balance that has to be struck for these kids.

 

I'll just give one more example. I know another young person who has worked with Davidson, had wonderful mentors growing up (retired professors and such), been tutored by great teachers, participated in gifted children's programming through universities in summer, taken some college courses, etc., etc. The parents have always discussed with the children in this family the choices that are made for them. These kids have not only done the "work" that they wanted to do but have also done the "fun" (while still challenging and educational) things they've wanted to do such as KUNA and other Y leadership conferences, Scouting, 4-H, part-time work, volunteer work and on and on. The oldest will probably go into a junior scholars program by 16, but is very social and wanted to have some social high school time before doing that, so is now in an IB program at an area school. That does not mean that this child may not end up being a theoretical physicist who makes some sort of major discovery for science. It just might mean that the discovery comes a few years later. But who knows? The extra thinking/incubation time might make the discovery even better than it would be at a younger age. It's a balancing act. Every child needs it. I think the more gifted the child, perhaps the more important it is to strive to get it right.....

[swellmomma]

They called ours "Enrichment Class" :laugh:

 

[and all it did was mark us as dorks]

 

Ours was called enrichment too. I don't remember thinking the kids who went to it were dorks. I missed the cut off for the program by 1 lousy percent and was Jealous I had to sit in the boring classes while they went and played with lego and such at enrichment.

 

I have not encountered parents who think all their kids are gifted. Maybe it is because I mainly talk with those who have kids with LDs like mine and all we wish for was that our kids would be average. Or because most of those in the homeschool groups I am in are unschoolers and don't think/worry/discuss how smart they think their kids are, or test scores etc.

 

I am one willing to say that one of my kids is very bright, and outsiders have started asking if she is gifted. But I don't label them all as gifted. Smart sure, at least with the older 2 the IQ testing done with the batter of tests for their LD screening proved I was right about that (even if their IQ scored prevented us from getting further services normally given for their Dx). Of the bunch I have 1 confirmed ADHD/LD kid, 1 confirmed ADHD suspected to also be gifted(as per the shrinks comments), 1 about to start testing for ADHD/LD and 1 suspected to simply be gifted. It is not about having labels to make my kids seem better than another person's, or to make our journey look harder, or because it is fashionable to have a kid with a label. FOr me labelling them one way or another is simply acknowledging the challenges to be faced by that child and finding the best way to handle that challenge and provide the best education/life experiences I can for the child. For each of my kids that is acheived differently. This is true in their academic lives, but also in their social connections with people, impulses, passions etc. I am the first to admit to myself that I have children that lost their brains at some point and really aren't that bright most days(usually in a non-academic sense lol)

 

I think when reading posts on a board like WTM it may seem like everyone thinks their kid is gifted, but I think it is simply because this is a gathering place for parents who are also very smart, even gifted themselves who come to learn more and discuss these things with likeminded parents. This does not show the population of parents of average kids who happily send them off to school each day, or the parents of average homeschoolers who don't feel the need or desire to come to a board and ask for help, or for a different curric to meet a particular need of a child etc.

[sheryl]

About some of the stuff you read on homeschool boards regarding the amount and level of work kids are doing?

 

Recognizing that many people are homeschooling precisely because they want their children to have access to higher level / more intensive schooling (eg: profound giftedness)... does anyone else ever feel like the proportions are just a wee bit... um, skewed?

 

I just read a post on another board where a mom said something akin to their 16 yo having almost 70 college credits (was this in addition to high school credits? That wasn't entirely clear - I just scanned it). Maybe things have changed - I only needed 125 credits for my entire baccalaureate.

 

Yes, there are kids out there who can do calculus at 8. I don't know if they understand the ramifications of it, but they can do the calculations. There are kids who have read the unabridged Iliad at 10. I'm certain some of them found it to be thrilling. Could they write a paper commensurate with a book of its level? Who am I to say.

 

But I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that so many kids are supposedly finishing high school with 8 AP classes, 2 years worth of college credits, half of the Western Canon read and understood, sport, etc. and...

 

STILL BE A KID

 

Someone please tell me that there are some other parents out there who just want their kid to be a kid -- even if they "have the potential" to do harder and harder and harder work (we did that at first, decided it wasn't worth it).

 

I'm seeing a future wherein we will have a whole bunch of burnt out kids who are really going to miss not having had the time to just hang out and be twelve.

 

 

a

 

A, YES! That's me. Thank you for saying this...I've thought this also. My friends know I want my dd to be a kid! She's turning 11 this spring, not 30! Kudos to ya!!!

[Jean in Newcastle]

"Editing again to add that I think some of the emotional problems of the adult gifted can probably be attributed to the adult in their lives encouraging them to make sacrifices for projects of dubious worth. If you are told it is going to be great to give up your childhood to be the youngest to do something, and you are gifted enough that you are actually capable of that sort of sustained voluntary sacrifice, you probably are going to feel pretty betrayed when you realize that your sacrifice wasn't a worthy one. "

 

 

 

 

That is so sad to me. It would be more important to me that my children be well-rounded in their own unique way than to push them to achieve or to be the youngest at something. I realize that many highly gifted are not totally rounded - their tendency to obsess on certain things might skew things but I think it is unhealthy to be only directed to one thing.

[asta]

And if the child were so driven that the work was all they wanted, I wouldn't be saying this at all! Another child I know who is in college at a similar age and majoring in math and something else I forget currently is absolutely where they need to be and doing absolutely everything they want to do. My comments are only because I do see that some children, in some circumstances, do end up getting pushed by parents who get too caught up in the glamor and fame of the thing (first child has been all over the news; second child has never been in the news that I know of, for instance).

 

 

And this is where I disagree. (not with you mcconnell, with the concept)

 

No matter how intelligent a child is, chronologically, they are still a child. A person of 14 may have the intellect of a 45 year old, but still have only been on the planet fourteen years.

 

In my mind, at that point, intelligence is irrelevant: a parent must step in and say NO! Here are some interesting things for you to read, but you are NOT going to Harvard, you're going to Disney with the rest of the family (or to the beach, or camping, or building a nature trail or whatever).

 

You're brilliant? Got it. You live on planet earth. In society. You need to know how to relate to it. And that includes other 14 year olds, not just your "intellectual equals". You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

 

{before someone flames me, I'm not directing this post at anyone specific, except maybe my own family members}

 

You're only interested in one thing? Welcome to the autistic spectrum. You're not the only person here. There are lots of special snowflakes in this drift. Get over it. Again: planet earth, society, relating. No one is asking you to look them in the eye, just to accept that there is a polite way to hold a fork and a conversation.

 

I take umbrage (oooo big college word) that "unless I've walked in someone's shoes, I couldn't possibly know" (Ok, that pretty much was a quote) what it's like. I have my own shoes. I have to buy shoes. I look at the shoes of my friends and family. It's easy to say that an 8 year old isn't going to burn out. Well, I'm looking at 40+ year old "child prodigies" with brain cancer, TIAs, strokes, seizures, organ cancer, early onset Alzheimer's... and I can't help but wonder what going so fast, so young, does to the brain and body.

 

Time to play in the snow.

 

 

asta

[Charles Wallace]

About some of the stuff you read on homeschool boards regarding the amount and level of work kids are doing?

 

Recognizing that many people are homeschooling precisely because they want their children to have access to higher level / more intensive schooling (eg: profound giftedness)... does anyone else ever feel like the proportions are just a wee bit... um, skewed?

 

I just read a post on another board where a mom said something akin to their 16 yo having almost 70 college credits (was this in addition to high school credits? That wasn't entirely clear - I just scanned it). Maybe things have changed - I only needed 125 credits for my entire baccalaureate.

 

Yes, there are kids out there who can do calculus at 8. I don't know if they understand the ramifications of it, but they can do the calculations. There are kids who have read the unabridged Iliad at 10. I'm certain some of them found it to be thrilling. Could they write a paper commensurate with a book of its level? Who am I to say.

 

But I'm having a hard time swallowing the idea that so many kids are supposedly finishing high school with 8 AP classes, 2 years worth of college credits, half of the Western Canon read and understood, sport, etc. and...

 

STILL BE A KID

 

Someone please tell me that there are some other parents out there who just want their kid to be a kid -- even if they "have the potential" to do harder and harder and harder work (we did that at first, decided it wasn't worth it).

 

I'm seeing a future wherein we will have a whole bunch of burnt out kids who are really going to miss not having had the time to just hang out and be twelve.

 

 

a

 

You're making a number of assumptions in your post on which I would like to comment.

 

1. What evidence exists to support your belief that these academically-accelerated children do NOT "just hang out and be twelve"?

 

If a hypothetical child is operating on a hypothetical grade level six years ahead and therefore does calculus instead of learning division, how is meeting this academic need fundamentally a violation of his/her childhood? Surely a child operating on a "normal" grade level is not having less of a childhood than a child operating at several grade levels below "normal," right?

 

2. Please define what you mean by "letting your kid be a kid." Again, many -- obviously not all, of course, but many -- parents who are appropriately meeting their children's academic needs are attempting to homeschool in order to "let their kid be a kid" at whatever level is appropriate for that kid. For some kids, that level is calculus. For others, it is long division. Just as you would not put a "normal" child into a special-needs class in order to force him into a preconceived notion of what he should be doing, just so would you not force any other child into work that was inappropriate for him or her to fit a preconceived view.

 

I'm eager to hear the replies of others on this issue. Ultimately, I will say that for many homeschooling parents, homeschooling is about making the shoe fit the foot -- not the other way around. If it seems inappropriate to you, perhaps this is because you haven't been in those particular shoes. I hope your enquiry here helps develop a wider understanding of the scope of the issue you have raised.

[Charles Wallace]

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I think the whole idea of "giftedness" is a crock. It seems like everywhere you go (not just the WTM forums) people are talking about how their kids have been tested, and are different levels of "gifted." I really think that any child who has above average intellectual ability in one ore more areas is being labeled that way, and given that half the population is statistically above average, there are a lot of so-called "gifted" kids out there.

 

ETA: And I'm honestly not referring to anyone specific here- more the people I've spoken with over at CafeMom.

 

I've made this statement before on a different website, and had literally dozens of parents say, "Oh, but little Johnny knew his ABCs at six months old and could read at a sixth grade level by kindergarten!" or something to that effect. And I'm sorry, but being a grade level ahead (or more) in a subject or two doesn't make you gifted. The term has been so watered down by parents desperate to prove that their children are better than everyone else's that it is essentially meaningless.

 

As for the classes the op was talking about, I think that speaks more to the quality of the class than the abilities of the child, in many cases. If you look at what children today are expected to learn, compared to a hundred years ago, and the superficial depth to which we study things, it's quite sad. We aren't getting smarter- or more gifted, lol- we're just expecting less of ourselves, and this is true from kindergarten on up through college. I studied literature and anthropology for five years, and I managed to get a 3.8 gpa while working forty hours a week of night shifts. Not because I'm just so amazingly smart, but because the material had been dumbed down to what I would expect to see in, oh, maybe ninth grade because the other students' educational backgrounds were practically non-existent.

 

 

If you accept the idea that giftedness is a crock, do you also accept the idea that intellectual disability is a crock as well?

 

The fact is, I.Q. runs a gamut, with most people right in the middle. Some are a little higher, some a little lower. A few people are the outliers.

 

The problem you're speaking of is when parents whose children may be a little higher than the norm -- what a friend of mine calls "plain vanilla gifted" -- exaggerate this claim or obfuscate the idea that giftedness, like every other quality out there, comes in levels.

 

There is a world of difference between Johnny knowing his ABCs at four and a child who's reading at the high school level (and understanding the work) at four.

 

To say that giftedness is a crock is in itself on the absurd side, because of course that would imply that there are no people at all of superior intellect (unless you meant something very different by the word "gifted"). You would also have to say that everyone is "normal," therefore, and that a child who, at ten years old, cannot understand how to read and write functions on the same level as the child who's working at the college level. Both are extremes -- and both exist.

 

For what it's worth though, Mergath, I utterly and completely agree with you about dumbed-down curriculum. Many students I have had as freshmen could not struggle their way through a simple sentence without getting something wrong. They have evidently never or rarely been asked to write a grammatically correct sentence.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Pam Wilhelm]

I didn't read all the answers....... I've been down this road before. No doubt there are some very, very intelligent children in this world....... I've met a few...they were bright, loving, well balanced. I've also met a few that were intolerable to be around. I just want to weigh in with my own opinion...since everyone has one........

 

My kids could all read on a ninth grade level in utero!!!! So mine are better then yours! :D

 

Not really........ but it sure felt good to pretend I was one of "those" parents with one of "those" kids.

 

Kids are kids...... some are smart...... some aren't as smart. Some know how to take tests....... some don't. Some will be successful and balanced adults ........ and some won't. We all do the best we can. :cheers2:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You're making a number of assumptions in your post on which I would like to comment.

 

1. What evidence exists to support your belief that these academically-accelerated children do NOT "just hang out and be twelve"?

 

If a hypothetical child is operating on a hypothetical grade level six years ahead and therefore does calculus instead of learning division, how is meeting this academic need fundamentally a violation of his/her childhood? Surely a child operating on a "normal" grade level is not having less of a childhood than a child operating at several grade levels below "normal," right?

 

2. Please define what you mean by "letting your kid be a kid." Again, many -- obviously not all, of course, but many -- parents who are appropriately meeting their children's academic needs are attempting to homeschool in order to "let their kid be a kid" at whatever level is appropriate for that kid. For some kids, that level is calculus. For others, it is long division. Just as you would not put a "normal" child into a special-needs class in order to force him into a preconceived notion of what he should be doing, just so would you not force any other child into work that was inappropriate for him or her to fit a preconceived view.

 

I'm eager to hear the replies of others on this issue. Ultimately, I will say that for many homeschooling parents, homeschooling is about making the shoe fit the foot -- not the other way around. If it seems inappropriate to you, perhaps this is because you haven't been in those particular shoes. I hope your enquiry here helps develop a wider understanding of the scope of the issue you have raised.

:iagree::iagree:

 

I know that my ds is racing through many subjects and often knows more than is presented. He is working at an advanced level and it is still easy for him. Most of the things that he learns are on his own in his free time. Yet he is still a kid and likes to play, have fun, watch TV, etc. I suspect many who are gifted do so as well. I realize there is fine line between challenging and pushing too hard and I try not to cross it. As far as early college, we are too far away to know that and will take things year by year, but I will not rule it out. I think some kids are ready for college early and I am not sure if their lives are ruined by doing so. I definitely believe that the last 2 years of high school might be a waste and that kids should enter college or trade school after 10th grade IMHO. I also think that we have prolonged childhood in many respects compared to years gone by.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited March 6, 2010 by priscilla
spelling

[LisaKinVA]

No matter how intelligent a child is, chronologically, they are still a child. A person of 14 may have the intellect of a 45 year old, but still have only been on the planet fourteen years.

 

In my mind, at that point, intelligence is irrelevant: a parent must step in and say NO! Here are some interesting things for you to read, but you are NOT going to Harvard, you're going to Disney with the rest of the family (or to the beach, or camping, or building a nature trail or whatever).

 

 

As someone who has BTDT in her own life... and now faces these same issues with my own children, you really have to be careful with this mindset.

 

A parent with an "immovable" opinion, who refuses to listen to their child -- even a 12, 13 or 14 year old can crush that child's spirit all in the "name" of "doing what they feel is best for that child."

 

While I will agree that sometimes "passions" should be moderated, and sometimes children should be strongly encouraged to try something different, you have to actively listen.

 

My parents refused listen to me, because my complaints ran contrary to their beliefs. They were certain they were right. If you ask me the #1 thing that I remember from my "young life" it is THAT. They later apologized, but the damage was done. There were repercussions we all faced as a result of that one decision.

 

This has definitely colored the way I deal with my children. Although I do have to work hard at helping them balance their passions with "new things" -- I always strive to listen, and IF we can make it work, we will. But if we can't, we explain why -- and let them know we wish we could let them do X or Y.

[nmoira]

 

You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

This speaks volumes to me about where you're coming from, but I'm choosing to assume you aren't being glib. I don't see why a child who has run out of options in the pursuit of their passion can't attend college and work on social skills at the same time. It's not simply a question of being with intellectual equals, it's also about being in an intellectually stimulating environment; at this level the alternative to college (or assistantships/apprenticeships) is essentially to have them pursue their passion in isolation. Edited March 6, 2010 by nmoira
muddled up

[LisaKinVA]

You're making a number of assumptions in your post on which I would like to comment.

 

1. What evidence exists to support your belief that these academically-accelerated children do NOT "just hang out and be twelve"?

 

If a hypothetical child is operating on a hypothetical grade level six years ahead and therefore does calculus instead of learning division, how is meeting this academic need fundamentally a violation of his/her childhood? Surely a child operating on a "normal" grade level is not having less of a childhood than a child operating at several grade levels below "normal," right?

 

2. Please define what you mean by "letting your kid be a kid." Again, many -- obviously not all, of course, but many -- parents who are appropriately meeting their children's academic needs are attempting to homeschool in order to "let their kid be a kid" at whatever level is appropriate for that kid. For some kids, that level is calculus. For others, it is long division. Just as you would not put a "normal" child into a special-needs class in order to force him into a preconceived notion of what he should be doing, just so would you not force any other child into work that was inappropriate for him or her to fit a preconceived view.

 

I'm eager to hear the replies of others on this issue. Ultimately, I will say that for many homeschooling parents, homeschooling is about making the shoe fit the foot -- not the other way around. If it seems inappropriate to you, perhaps this is because you haven't been in those particular shoes. I hope your enquiry here helps develop a wider understanding of the scope of the issue you have raised.

:iagree:

 

My children are not what anyone would call "little geniuses." They are, however, definitely gifted. But, along with IQ, personal preferences, internal motivation, personality... all play into that. We're dealing with little people, and each of my 5 are so different.

 

My 10 yr. old son, who is no more "gifted" than his 8 yr. old sister is content to do the bare minimum OR LESS, if he can get away with it. While he is somewhat challenged academically, he is capable of more. However, he has no interest in doing more. I'm not going to push. It is more important that what he does, he puts his best efforts into. He's my overly sensitive child, highly sociable, thinks public school would be "fun" because he'd get to see his "friends" every day. Drags his feet, has to call scout leaders to let them know he can't go to this merit badge activity, or that one, because he hasn't completed X or Y assignment (not because it was too hard, but because he chose to do something else instead). He is a constant source of frustration.

 

My 8yr. old daughter, however, enjoys starting her school work at 7am and finishing by 10:30. She needs little encouragement, and is pretty competitive. She gets the rest of the day to play, and read, and she LOVES that. However, now that her 6yr. old brother is tearing through math at an incredible pace, she is starting to do extra math so her little brother doesn't catch up to her.

 

My 6yr. old son has to be engaged, and he LOVES to get 100% correct AND he loves to do a full unit of math in a day (maybe an hour or two, depending upon the topic). He will start his third year of math (since Sept) in May, putting him into the 4th grade math book. He scares me. I keep hoping he'll hit a "wall" and slow down. The prospect of having a 3rd grader in Pre-Algebra/Algebra 1 is a bit...scary. But, what else does a parent of such a child do? Say "no" -- you MUST sit here and drill your math facts (which he already knows, and will bore him into frustrated tears or an angry outburst), because you're six, and you need to be a "kid?"

 

Believe me, I KNOW my children are children. But I also know my children well enough that they would feel they were being punished, or tortured if they were forced to do what others deem "age appropriate."

[LisaKinVA]

If you accept the idea that giftedness is a crock, do you also accept the idea that intellectual disability is a crock as well?

 

The fact is, I.Q. runs a gamut, with most people right in the middle. Some are a little higher, some a little lower. A few people are the outliers....

 

...To say that giftedness is a crock is in itself on the absurd side, because of course that would imply that there are no people at all of superior intellect (unless you meant something very different by the word "gifted"). You would also have to say that everyone is "normal," therefore, and that a child who, at ten years old, cannot understand how to read and write functions on the same level as the child who's working at the college level. Both are extremes -- and both exist.

 

 

:iagree: My children are not on the far "extreme" end... just different enough so that sending them to the local public school would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. :D In fact, the GT coordinator for our county told me that the schools would not be a good fit for the children and said if I truly cared about my children's education I would homeschool them.

[asta]

This speaks volumes to me about where you're coming from, but I'm choosing to assume you aren't being glib. I don't see why a child who has run out of options in the pursuit of their passion can't attend college and work on social skills at the same time. It's not simply a question of being with intellectual equals, it's also about being in an intellectually stimulating environment; at this level the alternative to college (or assistantships/apprenticeships) is essentially to have them pursue their passion in isolation.

 

Actually, you don't know where I'm coming from. I haven't told you.

 

All I've done is start a lively thread and keep poking at it.

 

Cheers,

 

 

asta

[asta]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

[Jean in Newcastle]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

 

My son is almost 13 (so not under 10 but not 15/16/17 either). I've never had him tested so I don't know his actual IQ. He is highly gifted but not uber freaking genius.

[EKS]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

 

My son is almost 14 and falls into the highly gifted camp.

 

We seem to have reached a threshold with him recently, where he really doesn't fit with his chronological peers *at all* anymore and he can't even pretend very well. Thankfully, he has been able to be a part of a technology-type group with kids a few years older who are just like him. The group also has an adult mentor who was just like these kids when he was a kid. Unfortunately, the mentor is going to be moving far away soon and I'm not sure if the kids will be able to keep the group going. We'll see. But without this outlet, he is going to be pretty lonely unless we can find something else.

 

So far we've been able to meet his academic needs through homeschooling. He is 2E, so he is still a bit all over the place academically. And there is *no way* on this planet that I will be sending him to college early. As you pointed out somewhere in this gargantuan thread, he is still an almost 14yo. But he is also not an uber-freakin genius, that's for sure. And if this is what it is like dealing with a more run of the mill gifted kid, I really feel for the parents of the profoundly gifted ones.

[nmoira]

Actually, you don't know where I'm coming from. I haven't told you.

 

All I've done is start a lively thread and keep poking at it.

 

I don't see much of the devil's advocate in this thread; you've stayed pretty much on one theme. As to your post, keeping 'em home until they can pass for normal isn't a realistic strategy for kids who will often never seem or feel normal.

 

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

My eldest is 8, and my best guess is EG not PG; however she still surprises me on a regular basis. I do hold her back from a straight line progression in some things -- for example, she's working on interesting diversions in math rather than moving into algebra. We do three hour school days and I don't particularly want one subject taking up a disproportionate amount of that time. However, her greatest passion is language, not math, so she doesn't feel thwarted.

[zaichiki]

And if this is what it is like dealing with a more run of the mill gifted kid, I really feel for the parents of the profoundly gifted ones.

 

We have an HG kid, too, who is undiagnosed but has the test scatter to suggest 2E. At nearly 11 he still doesn't fit in with his age-peers -- I can't picture it happening any time soon. He'll always be one of the geeky kids (but we adore him of course). I feel the way you do -- I can't imagine how parents of PG kids do it!

[zaichiki]

You're brilliant? Got it. You live on planet earth. In society. You need to know how to relate to it. And that includes other 14 year olds, not just your "intellectual equals". You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

 

{before someone flames me, I'm not directing this post at anyone specific, except maybe my own family members}

 

You're only interested in one thing? Welcome to the autistic spectrum. You're not the only person here. There are lots of special snowflakes in this drift. Get over it. Again: planet earth, society, relating. No one is asking you to look them in the eye, just to accept that there is a polite way to hold a fork and a conversation.

 

I take umbrage (oooo big college word) that "unless I've walked in someone's shoes, I couldn't possibly know" (Ok, that pretty much was a quote) what it's like. I have my own shoes. I have to buy shoes. I look at the shoes of my friends and family. It's easy to say that an 8 year old isn't going to burn out. Well, I'm looking at 40+ year old "child prodigies" with brain cancer, TIAs, strokes, seizures, organ cancer, early onset Alzheimer's... and I can't help but wonder what going so fast, so young, does to the brain and body.

 

 

Wow. You certainly *are* "poking" a litttle bit, aren't you. Wow. Just wow.

[asta]

I don't see much of the devil's advocate in this thread; you've stayed pretty much on one theme. As to your post, keeping 'em home until they can pass for normal isn't a realistic strategy for kids who will often never seem or feel normal.

 

 

What part of this

 

In my mind, at that point, intelligence is irrelevant: a parent must step in and say NO! Here are some interesting things for you to read, but you are NOT going to Harvard, you're going to Disney with the rest of the family (or to the beach, or camping, or building a nature trail or whatever).

 

You're brilliant? Got it. You live on planet earth. In society. You need to know how to relate to it. And that includes other 14 year olds, not just your "intellectual equals". You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

 

[...]

 

You're only interested in one thing? Welcome to the autistic spectrum. You're not the only person here. There are lots of special snowflakes in this drift. Get over it. Again: planet earth, society, relating. No one is asking you to look them in the eye, just to accept that there is a polite way to hold a fork and a conversation.

 

Implies "keeping 'em home until they can pass for normal"?

 

All it says is that intellectual age does not equal maturity level, and that parents should be willing to recognize that, no matter *how badly* a child wants to do something. There will always be options available to intellectually stimulate brilliant people that do not involve placing them in situations that are entirely inappropriate from a chronological/maturation point of view.

 

The people of this board/generation are not the first parents to have brilliant children. Nor are they the first people to struggle with/seek out suitable/appropriate activities to nourish the intellect of those children. Is it hard to find high level "stuff" outside of traditional university coursework? Of course it is. Is it impossible? Obviously not - the generations previous to us did it. There are alternatives to simply sending an extremely bright, but very young child to an environment that is a severe chronological mismatch.

 

As to "passing for normal", I think you may have missed the snowflake reference. Yes, I *do* believe it is our duty to teach our children how to operate within the society in which they will live. High intelligence, low intelligence, ASD, physical impairments - pick whatever "ism" you want. It isn't a matter of "keeping them at home until they can pass", it is a matter of teaching them to pass as a means of survival.

 

There is a saying in the ASD circle in which I travel: fake it until you make it. "Normal" societal cueing is one big mystery for those on the spectrum. So what is a kid to do? Get trounced? Spend their life as an outcast? Who would want that for their kid? So what do we do? We practice. Facial expressions in the mirror. Reading etiquette books. Theater classes (when a person does this, you do that; when someone raises or lowers their voice in this manner, it usually means this/that). Over time, most 'functioning' ASD folk aren't even identified as such. They have established enough coping mechanisms to operate independently - they know WHAT they are supposed to do even if they don't understand WHY everyone else feels the NEED to do it.

 

Preparing one's children for the real world is much more than academics.

 

 

asta

[melmichigan]

I think when reading posts on a board like WTM it may seem like everyone thinks their kid is gifted, but I think it is simply because this is a gathering place for parents who are also very smart, even gifted themselves who come to learn more and discuss these things with likeminded parents. This does not show the population of parents of average kids who happily send them off to school each day, or the parents of average homeschoolers who don't feel the need or desire to come to a board and ask for help, or for a different curric to meet a particular need of a child etc.

 

Yes!

[Mergath]

If you accept the idea that giftedness is a crock, do you also accept the idea that intellectual disability is a crock as well?

 

 

Obviously not. As I said earlier, I was never trying to make the point that there aren't people who fall on both intellectual extremes, only that the "gifted" label has been so distorted it is essentially meaningless. I've heard/read lots of parents who say, "Well, I've never had my child tested, but I'm sure he/she is gifted." And then there's the fact it's been turned into an entire industry.

 

I am certainly not arguing that there are no highly intelligent children out there, but when I hear someone say that their darling three year old is gifted and couldn't possibly be burdened by attending a normal preschool, I do have to resist the urge to roll my eyes.

[MissKNG]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

 

I quick snippet of an uber-freaking gifted kid under 10:

 

His family was in Germany during WWII. He spent his preschool/younger years starving, pretty much homeless and of course, no education. He built a working bicycle at about age 6 and a running motorcycle at about age 9. Somehow he "knew" what to do (probably had very little education by 9) and had to scrounge for the parts. (I think this is the "wow" part because I can't think of any 6 year old building bicycles with no education)

 

He almost got his family kicked out of the refugee camp several times. He was telling me of his antics - he was bored, bright and fearless! He was Bart Simpson x 100!! (I think this is the "still being a kid" part)

Edited March 6, 2010 by MissKNG
clarification

[Corraleno]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

I don't have a gifted teen yet (DS just turned 12), but I was a gifted teen. Definitely not an uber-freaking genius, but I was sooooo ready to go to college at 14. I would have given anything to get the h*** out of public high school and go to college. And not just because of the lack of intellectual stimulation ~ I hated the whole social scene even more than I hated the academic boredom. It's not that I was socially awkward and didn't fit in, it's that I thought the social "games" were incredibly pointless and shallow and had no interest in giggling about boys and pop stars and who "liked" who. I graduated at 16 and went straight into college, and I could easily have done so a couple of years earlier. I was literally suicidal throughout the 3 years I spent in HS, and I honestly don't know if I could have survived another year of it.

 

Now, my son will probably start taking a few CC courses in his particular area of interest when he's 14 and will probably be doing all CC courses by 16, because he will have far outstripped what I can teach him at home and he might as well be getting college credit for doing college level work. But he will still be living at home and still be doing whatever he wants to do with his free time. He's more HG than me, but he's got some of his dad's social awkwardness, so he needs more time before he's living away from home.

 

I do agree with some of what you said in your original post, and I'm sure there are kids out there who are forced to give up a lot of normal "kid stuff" just because their parents want to brag that they got into Harvard. But for some HG/EG/PG kids, keeping them out of college at 14 may be crueler than letting them go. It doesn't mean they have to live in a dorm and hang out with 20-year-olds all day ~ they can still live at home, play with legos, ride their bikes, or whatever their interests are. OTOH, some kids (including me) would have zero interest in living at home and hanging out with other 14 year olds. Social and emotional maturity can vary just as much as intellectual capacity.

 

I think we tend to fetishize childhood a bit in our culture, and see it as this precious, innocent time that all children need in order to grow up "normal." But I don't think that applies to everyone ~ my childhood was definitely the worst part of my life and I couldn't wait for it to end!

 

Jackie

[Nan in Mass]

All of mine are 15 or older. They are brightish. Well, I guess the one who was tested landed in a more-than-just-brightish catagory, with a spiky sort of pattern to the testing that suggests to me that he is wired a bit differently than your average ok-at-academics person. The tester said he didn't have learning disabilities, but I am wondering how exactly they are defining that. We all have our priorities set on something other than academics and are seive-brained, so nobody is looking at early college GRIN.

 

However, I know and know of some geniuses. The ones I know are adult now (at least over 20, some even dead now), so I have some perspective. The one I know best was a close friend in high school. He was bright enough that MIT wasn't a challenge and when he wanted to go back for a graduate degree, they welcomed him with open arms, told him he could work with any prof he chose, and not to worry, they would pay for everything and arrange a stipend for him. I don't think he was once-in-a-generation brilliant, but he was certainly brilliant enough for this discussion. His father worked for a think-tank company which never found him very useful because he lacked the communication skills to explain his ideas and the social skills to work with other people. They pretty much gave him an office off by himself and left him alone. And my oldest had a friend who is probably now either dead or in jail (if they managed to keep him there) who was what everyone fears their child will become, the sort that can hack into anything, the sort without the moral brakes. Some of my parents' friends are genius level, but not once-in-a-generation brilliant. Again, though, high enough that I can discuss how their lives played out. My husband works with inventors. Some of those are known all over the country and in some others brilliant. They are adults. I think many of the people taking part in this discussion have children under 10 but aren't talking about their own children; they are talking about themselves, their parents, thier friends. Or they are people like my husband, brightish but working with people who are brilliant.

 

-Nan

[elizabeth]

I don't have a gifted teen yet (DS just turned 12), but I was a gifted teen. Definitely not an uber-freaking genius, but I was sooooo ready to go to college at 14. I would have given anything to get the h*** out of public high school and go to college. And not just because of the lack of intellectual stimulation ~ I hated the whole social scene even more than I hated the academic boredom. It's not that I was socially awkward and didn't fit in, it's that I thought the social "games" were incredibly pointless and shallow and had no interest in giggling about boys and pop stars and who "liked" who. I graduated at 16 and went straight into college, and I could easily have done so a couple of years earlier. I was literally suicidal throughout the 3 years I spent in HS, and I honestly don't know if I could have survived another year of it.

 

Now, my son will probably start taking a few CC courses in his particular area of interest when he's 14 and will probably be doing all CC courses by 16, because he will have far outstripped what I can teach him at home and he might as well be getting college credit for doing college level work. But he will still be living at home and still be doing whatever he wants to do with his free time. He's more HG than me, but he's got some of his dad's social awkwardness, so he needs more time before he's living away from home.

 

I do agree with some of what you said in your original post, and I'm sure there are kids out there who are forced to give up a lot of normal "kid stuff" just because their parents want to brag that they got into Harvard. But for some HG/EG/PG kids, keeping them out of college at 14 may be crueler than letting them go. It doesn't mean they have to live in a dorm and hang out with 20-year-olds all day ~ they can still live at home, play with legos, ride their bikes, or whatever their interests are. OTOH, some kids (including me) would have zero interest in living at home and hanging out with other 14 year olds. Social and emotional maturity can vary just as much as intellectual capacity.

 

I think we tend to fetishize childhood a bit in our culture, and see it as this precious, innocent time that all children need in order to grow up "normal." But I don't think that applies to everyone ~ my childhood was definitely the worst part of my life and I couldn't wait for it to end!

 

Jackie

:iagree: and a big sigh of relief

[Crimson Wife]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

I would suspect that many of the parents on this thread are HG+ themselves, have spouses, adult siblings, parents, etc. who are HG+ and so on.

 

And FWIW, none of the people I know who are HG+ have ever come down with brain cancer or early Alzheimer's. One died of breast cancer in her 30's but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with her intellect...

[nmoira]

What part of this

 

Implies "keeping 'em home until they can pass for normal"?

 

All it says is that intellectual age does not equal maturity level, and that parents should be willing to recognize that, no matter *how badly* a child wants to do something. There will always be options available to intellectually stimulate brilliant people that do not involve placing them in situations that are entirely inappropriate from a chronological/maturation point of view.

What is appropriate should be decided on a child by child and situation by situation basis. I object to blanket statements.

 

The people of this board/generation are not the first parents to have brilliant children. Nor are they the first people to struggle with/seek out suitable/appropriate activities to nourish the intellect of those children. Is it hard to find high level "stuff" outside of traditional university coursework? Of course it is. Is it impossible? Obviously not - the generations previous to us did it. There are alternatives to simply sending an extremely bright, but very young child to an environment that is a severe chronological mismatch.

This type of stimulation is typically easier to accomplish if you live in or near a large or moderately large city because of a greater availability of resources.

 

You specifically said:

 

You're brilliant? Got it. You live on planet earth. In society. You need to know how to relate to it. And that includes other 14 year olds, not just your "intellectual equals". You don't have any intellectual equals? Then you need to learn how to relate to people who aren't. And not in a condescending manner.

I find the suggestion that an exceptionally gifted child (just over the line of "too smart" I guess) shouldn't be permitted to seek out an environment with intellectual peers because they should focus solely on relations with age peers to be condescending. This is specifically the sentiment to which I was referring.

 

As to "passing for normal", I think you may have missed the snowflake reference. Yes, I *do* believe it is our duty to teach our children how to operate within the society in which they will live. High intelligence, low intelligence, ASD, physical impairments - pick whatever "ism" you want. It isn't a matter of "keeping them at home until they can pass", it is a matter of teaching them to pass as a means of survival.

I don't think anybody here disagrees.

 

Preparing one's children for the real world is much more than academics.

Nobody is arguing to the contrary.

[melmichigan]

I don't have a gifted teen yet (DS just turned 12), but I was a gifted teen. Definitely not an uber-freaking genius, but I was sooooo ready to go to college at 14. I would have given anything to get the h*** out of public high school and go to college. And not just because of the lack of intellectual stimulation ~ I hated the whole social scene even more than I hated the academic boredom. It's not that I was socially awkward and didn't fit in, it's that I thought the social "games" were incredibly pointless and shallow and had no interest in giggling about boys and pop stars and who "liked" who. I graduated at 16 and went straight into college, and I could easily have done so a couple of years earlier. I was literally suicidal throughout the 3 years I spent in HS, and I honestly don't know if I could have survived another year of it.

 

Now, my son will probably start taking a few CC courses in his particular area of interest when he's 14 and will probably be doing all CC courses by 16, because he will have far outstripped what I can teach him at home and he might as well be getting college credit for doing college level work. But he will still be living at home and still be doing whatever he wants to do with his free time. He's more HG than me, but he's got some of his dad's social awkwardness, so he needs more time before he's living away from home.

 

I do agree with some of what you said in your original post, and I'm sure there are kids out there who are forced to give up a lot of normal "kid stuff" just because their parents want to brag that they got into Harvard. But for some HG/EG/PG kids, keeping them out of college at 14 may be crueler than letting them go. It doesn't mean they have to live in a dorm and hang out with 20-year-olds all day ~ they can still live at home, play with legos, ride their bikes, or whatever their interests are. OTOH, some kids (including me) would have zero interest in living at home and hanging out with other 14 year olds. Social and emotional maturity can vary just as much as intellectual capacity.

 

I think we tend to fetishize childhood a bit in our culture, and see it as this precious, innocent time that all children need in order to grow up "normal." But I don't think that applies to everyone ~ my childhood was definitely the worst part of my life and I couldn't wait for it to end!

 

Jackie

 

:iagree: I still don't get half the social mumbo jumbo, who cares, really. :001_rolleyes:

[asta]

All of mine are 15 or older. They are brightish. Well, I guess the one who was tested landed in a more-than-just-brightish catagory, with a spiky sort of pattern to the testing that suggests to me that he is wired a bit differently than your average ok-at-academics person. The tester said he didn't have learning disabilities, but I am wondering how exactly they are defining that. We all have our priorities set on something other than academics and are seive-brained, so nobody is looking at early college GRIN.

 

However, I know and know of some geniuses. The ones I know are adult now (at least over 20, some even dead now), so I have some perspective. The one I know best was a close friend in high school. He was bright enough that MIT wasn't a challenge and when he wanted to go back for a graduate degree, they welcomed him with open arms, told him he could work with any prof he chose, and not to worry, they would pay for everything and arrange a stipend for him. I don't think he was once-in-a-generation brilliant, but he was certainly brilliant enough for this discussion. His father worked for a think-tank company which never found him very useful because he lacked the communication skills to explain his ideas and the social skills to work with other people. They pretty much gave him an office off by himself and left him alone. And my oldest had a friend who is probably now either dead or in jail (if they managed to keep him there) who was what everyone fears their child will become, the sort that can hack into anything, the sort without the moral brakes. Some of my parents' friends are genius level, but not once-in-a-generation brilliant. Again, though, high enough that I can discuss how their lives played out. My husband works with inventors. Some of those are known all over the country and in some others brilliant. They are adults. I think many of the people taking part in this discussion have children under 10 but aren't talking about their own children; they are talking about themselves, their parents, thier friends. Or they are people like my husband, brightish but working with people who are brilliant.

 

-Nan

 

You wrote that so much more eloquently than I could have.

 

:001_smile:

 

a

[asta]

And FWIW, none of the people I know who are HG+ have ever come down with brain cancer or early Alzheimer's. One died of breast cancer in her 30's but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with her intellect...

 

I could name four HG/TE that I know personally. None of them related to another in any way. It just strikes me as a weird statistic.

 

 

a

[Barb_]

I could name four HG/TE that I know personally. None of them related to another in any way. It just strikes me as a weird statistic.

 

 

a

 

Asta...you are smart enough to know that anecdotes aren't statistics.

 

Barb

[Barb_]

Is there anyone on this thread dealing with a child over the age of 15/16/17 who falls into the gifted/exceptionally gifted/uber-freaking genius camp?

 

Or is everyone here dealing with the ten and below set?

 

 

asta

 

I've already posted on this thread pages ago about my almost-20yo and my 15yo. I've been happier with the acceleration route than the let-them-be-high-schoolers route. It's on page 3.

 

Barb

[Crimson Wife]

I could name four HG/TE that I know personally. None of them related to another in any way. It just strikes me as a weird statistic.

 

If they all lived in the same area, my suspicion would be some sort of environmental contamination.

 

I did a Google search and couldn't find any information suggesting that people of higher intelligence are at greater risk of developing a brain tumor or early Alzheimer's.

[mcconnellboys]

Bingo! You win the prize!

[Capt_Uhura]

Actually, there was a NOVA??? special a few years ago looking at IQ and longevity. It wasn't in this country. The kids, none were related, that had the highest IQ were still living and well into their 90s.....the others were dead. Honestly. They were quite surprised by the results.

 

From my limited reading of this thread, it seems that there are many definitions of gifted here. Some only equate those equivalent to Einstein as being gifted or those that are gifted across the board - academically, socially, can do anything kind of folk. I think gifted really has a very narrow range ... it is used in a school setting to sort kids into categories. And it varies greatly by location. You can have a kid w/ a 125 IQ (technically not gifted) who is bored to tears, acting out in a regular classroom which is being taught to the struggling kids. You can have a kid w/ a 133 IQ who is well placed in a classroom with high achievers, involved parents, challenging curriculum, teachers skilled in differentiation. You can have a kid w /a 145IQ in that same environment who is miserable. You can have a 133IQ kid who is just fine in a regular class b/c they don't have the drive. You can have a 125IQ kid who isn't fine b/c she does have the drive. So much of it is also personality AND environment. WHere my friend lives, the *average* IQ is indeed in the high 120s and not 100. It's near a major university and the burbs are filled w/ mathematicians, engineers, scientists, PhDs in history, social science at a much higher rate so their stats are skewed....self-selection bias. So for their school, gifted services don't start until 138+ b/c the teachers teach at a much higher level. I figured they were a grade level ahead of where my DS was when he was in school b/c of the demographics. So if you live in an area like that, I can see where everyone might seem gifted. Where I live, most do not know what the word means or else equate it to Einstein.

 

I also think a lot of it has to do w/ HSing. My teacher friends have said the top 10% of any class could be moved up a grade. And I recently read in the NYT that a good teacher can advance a class 1.5yrs in 1yr. The other end of the spectrum teacher advances a class 0.5yr each year. Take the HS situation w/ 1:1 or 3:1 student: teacher ratio w/ individualized lesson planning where you can go at the child's pace. An average kid can easily get ahead of the public school after several years. I know w/ my son, b/c we naturally reinforce lessons over the summer, we need much less review to get back into the swing of things whereas in school, the kids were reviewing until November so that puts us already at least a month ahead....that really adds up over 5-6yrs of HSing.

 

I once had a conversation with a teacher friend about IQ and what it means in school. And she said it's like being stuck in a 2nd grade classroom where the teacher is talking at the level of the middle of the class but being able to handle information being given at a 6-7th grade level..everything down to the instructions. She asked me to imagine being stuck in that situation where everything is repeated 4x in 4 different ways, where you complete your work in 10min and everyone else takes 30min and you just have to sit there, day in and day out. You want to discuss the similarities between this book and that one and the other kids are struggling to read the book. You got the concept the 1st time but it's repeated 2months, then at 6months, and then you have to sit through it all over again the next year. It can be a useful construct in a school setting but outside that, especially for HSers who can go at a child's pace and interests, it has little meaning.

[Renee in NC]

I once had a conversation with a teacher friend about IQ and what it means in school. And she said it's like being stuck in a 2nd grade classroom where the teacher is talking at the level of the middle of the class but being able to handle information being given at a 6-7th grade level..everything down to the instructions. She asked me to imagine being stuck in that situation where everything is repeated 4x in 4 different ways, where you complete your work in 10min and everyone else takes 30min and you just have to sit there, day in and day out. You want to discuss the similarities between this book and that one and the other kids are struggling to read the book. You got the concept the 1st time but it's repeated 2months, then at 6months, and then you have to sit through it all over again the next year. It can be a useful construct in a school setting but outside that, especially for HSers who can go at a child's pace and interests, it has little meaning.

 

 

YYYYEEEESSSSS! *This*! :willy_nilly:

 

Or when your 4th grade teacher agrees to give you a "math contract" even though you haven't been labeled "gifted" in this school district yet. Basically it gives you 10 assignments or so to work on in math at your own pace (self-taught) during regular math time. So, you get it and you are so excited and you finish the work the first day. When you turn it in, though, your teacher is irritated that you are done and tells you, "I don't have time to do this for you everyday!" I never got another one and spent another wasted year in school....

 

ETA: I can't imagine how the HG/PG kids felt in school - I was miserable, so they had to be even *more* miserable!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Actually, there was a NOVA??? special a few years ago looking at IQ and longevity. It wasn't in this country. The kids, none were related, that had the highest IQ were still living and well into their 90s.....the others were dead. Honestly. They were quite surprised by the results.

 

From my limited reading of this thread, it seems that there are many definitions of gifted here. Some only equate those equivalent to Einstein as being gifted or those that are gifted across the board - academically, socially, can do anything kind of folk. I think gifted really has a very narrow range ... it is used in a school setting to sort kids into categories. And it varies greatly by location. You can have a kid w/ a 125 IQ (technically not gifted) who is bored to tears, acting out in a regular classroom which is being taught to the struggling kids. You can have a kid w/ a 133 IQ who is well placed in a classroom with high achievers, involved parents, challenging curriculum, teachers skilled in differentiation. You can have a kid w /a 145IQ in that same environment who is miserable. You can have a 133IQ kid who is just fine in a regular class b/c they don't have the drive. You can have a 125IQ kid who isn't fine b/c she does have the drive. So much of it is also personality AND environment. WHere my friend lives, the *average* IQ is indeed in the high 120s and not 100. It's near a major university and the burbs are filled w/ mathematicians, engineers, scientists, PhDs in history, social science at a much higher rate so their stats are skewed....self-selection bias. So for their school, gifted services don't start until 138+ b/c the teachers teach at a much higher level. I figured they were a grade level ahead of where my DS was when he was in school b/c of the demographics. So if you live in an area like that, I can see where everyone might seem gifted. Where I live, most do not know what the word means or else equate it to Einstein.

 

I also think a lot of it has to do w/ HSing. My teacher friends have said the top 10% of any class could be moved up a grade. And I recently read in the NYT that a good teacher can advance a class 1.5yrs in 1yr. The other end of the spectrum teacher advances a class 0.5yr each year. Take the HS situation w/ 1:1 or 3:1 student: teacher ratio w/ individualized lesson planning where you can go at the child's pace. An average kid can easily get ahead of the public school after several years. I know w/ my son, b/c we naturally reinforce lessons over the summer, we need much less review to get back into the swing of things whereas in school, the kids were reviewing until November so that puts us already at least a month ahead....that really adds up over 5-6yrs of HSing.

 

I once had a conversation with a teacher friend about IQ and what it means in school. And she said it's like being stuck in a 2nd grade classroom where the teacher is talking at the level of the middle of the class but being able to handle information being given at a 6-7th grade level..everything down to the instructions. She asked me to imagine being stuck in that situation where everything is repeated 4x in 4 different ways, where you complete your work in 10min and everyone else takes 30min and you just have to sit there, day in and day out. You want to discuss the similarities between this book and that one and the other kids are struggling to read the book. You got the concept the 1st time but it's repeated 2months, then at 6months, and then you have to sit through it all over again the next year. It can be a useful construct in a school setting but outside that, especially for HSers who can go at a child's pace and interests, it has little meaning.

:iagree:

[elizabeth]

YYYYEEEESSSSS! *This*! :willy_nilly:

 

Or when your 4th grade teacher agrees to give you a "math contract" even though you haven't been labeled "gifted" in this school district yet. Basically it gives you 10 assignments or so to work on in math at your own pace (self-taught) during regular math time. So, you get it and you are so excited and you finish the work the first day. When you turn it in, though, your teacher is irritated that you are done and tells you, "I don't have time to do this for you everyday!" I never got another one and spent another wasted year in school....

 

ETA: I can't imagine how the HG/PG kids felt in school - I was miserable, so they had to be even *more* miserable!

 

 

Can I get an Amen??? My favorite year in school was 5th grade ,I met another" quick study" so we were grouped together. After two grade skips in kindy and 1st , the teacher for 5th was kind enough to put a stack of spelling curriculum covering many levels, a self paced SRA reading program , math books for the next couple years and was gracious enough to leave us alone. Thank you Mrs Heuer !!!That was the only time I had a teacher get out of my way so I could progress at my pace until college and it was miserable. It is sad that many teachers have no experience or education with gifted/accelerated learners. They all say the same thing ,"I cannot teach this child differently from the whole class there is not time." That is the point, sweetheart, they do not need instruction for a long, long time....likely when they become specialists in their studies. That is the level of cluelessness we have to live with. Facilitation ? Yes.In fact I often refer to my work with dd in this manner. Actual instruction ? Maybe next year, give me the book and I will let you know if I need any help. Dd has needed actual instruction to tie her shoes and learn calculus. That is it. The shoe tying deal is ongoing. Calc ? It's all good. That would be ideal for most gifteds . But apparently some people need to feel needed so we perpetuate the nonsense of not radically grade skipping students who thrive on challenge and are denied "flow" states of mind/experiences until college if they survive being bored to death that long. Many do not . Suffice it to say that we do no coops and as soon as she hit 5 feet, off to college classes. Regarding the idea that many ppl here are talking about themselves rather than their dc?? Well ,yes if you have studied anything about IQ, parentsand sibs are about 10 points max variance from one another. It is genetic in large part. Here is a link to the Templeton Report from the Belin Blank Center at University of Iowa . The best part of all this is that within the hs community we are treated with contempt and derision by those who feel inferior or are insecure despite continued silence regarding grade level , coursework etc.So heck no I am not going to post what we are doing nor dd chronological age . Why would I ??Simply to have charges of elitism thrown in my face? No thank you. And so it goes. You should read the comments some ppl have put on this very board about those of us who are professionals. To me it speaks volumes about them. Insecure much?? Maybe it is just that my politics are wrong ? Oh yes it is that old charge of elitism promulgated by pundits who actually have canoodled many people into the concept that smart is not to be trusted. Here is the report for those who have not yet had a chance to read it. http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/'>http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/'>http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/'>http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/