Schools & School districts

[UCGal]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Punt:
Both are equally important.
I have friends who are EXTREMELY involved parents – practically homeschooling their children in addition to the school’s education. But the kids didn’t test GATE. They perform as well or better, academically, than the GATE kids in their classes.

I have other friends who are busy, busy, busy. Nanny takes care of the kids – and english isn’t her first language. The kids test off the charts, but perform mediocre in school.

I think it’s got to be a combo of both.

I know that SDSU uses the Raven test – which tests abstract thinking (puzzle/problem solving rather than knowlege/facts/literacy). I’m not sure how parental involvement would improve scores other than an involved parent makes sure the child is well rested, well fed, and confident when they go to take the test.

[Coronita]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.

[Coronita]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.

[Coronita]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.

[Coronita]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.

[Coronita]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.
[/quote]
You just brought in a 3rd variable. Child’s motivation. If kid is smart and parents are involved, but kid is lazy, they still won’t achieve the max capability.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.
[/quote]
You just brought in a 3rd variable. Child’s motivation. If kid is smart and parents are involved, but kid is lazy, they still won’t achieve the max capability.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.
[/quote]
You just brought in a 3rd variable. Child’s motivation. If kid is smart and parents are involved, but kid is lazy, they still won’t achieve the max capability.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.
[/quote]
You just brought in a 3rd variable. Child’s motivation. If kid is smart and parents are involved, but kid is lazy, they still won’t achieve the max capability.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Given the choices, I’d say the later.

I would tend to think that most kids are *NOT* really gifted as one would think (most parents though think their kids are :)).

I’ll take a kid that isn’t truely gifted with strong work ethics + parent involvement versus a truely gifted kid that otherwise is lazy. I’ve seen my fair share of peers that were “gifted” that wasted their early part of their life away.
[/quote]
You just brought in a 3rd variable. Child’s motivation. If kid is smart and parents are involved, but kid is lazy, they still won’t achieve the max capability.

[madcow]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

There has been quite a lot of research on a similar problem – heritability of intelligence – in the past (now this area is a bit suppressed because it can be applied to interracial differences). Simply google for ‘heritability coefficient’ and IQ/intelligence or go to WIKI . A classical name in this area is Arthur R. Jensen.

Most studies put that coefficient between 0.5-0.6. This means that 50-60% of intelligence (often measured as IQ) variation in offspring is explained by genetics, 40-50% by other factors (environment). This environmental component explains why IQ can grown from generation to generation (this growth is used by some PC people with limited background in genetics to explain the shift by pure non-genetics factors). If I remember correctly, the coefficient is even higher for very high IQs.

Disclaimer: I don’t follow this area much (since it is more politics than science).

[madcow]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

There has been quite a lot of research on a similar problem – heritability of intelligence – in the past (now this area is a bit suppressed because it can be applied to interracial differences). Simply google for ‘heritability coefficient’ and IQ/intelligence or go to WIKI . A classical name in this area is Arthur R. Jensen.

Most studies put that coefficient between 0.5-0.6. This means that 50-60% of intelligence (often measured as IQ) variation in offspring is explained by genetics, 40-50% by other factors (environment). This environmental component explains why IQ can grown from generation to generation (this growth is used by some PC people with limited background in genetics to explain the shift by pure non-genetics factors). If I remember correctly, the coefficient is even higher for very high IQs.

Disclaimer: I don’t follow this area much (since it is more politics than science).

[madcow]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

There has been quite a lot of research on a similar problem – heritability of intelligence – in the past (now this area is a bit suppressed because it can be applied to interracial differences). Simply google for ‘heritability coefficient’ and IQ/intelligence or go to WIKI . A classical name in this area is Arthur R. Jensen.

Most studies put that coefficient between 0.5-0.6. This means that 50-60% of intelligence (often measured as IQ) variation in offspring is explained by genetics, 40-50% by other factors (environment). This environmental component explains why IQ can grown from generation to generation (this growth is used by some PC people with limited background in genetics to explain the shift by pure non-genetics factors). If I remember correctly, the coefficient is even higher for very high IQs.

Disclaimer: I don’t follow this area much (since it is more politics than science).

[madcow]

[quote=gn]I’d like to pose the following question.
In your opinion, which is a bigger factor for students who are in the GATE programs:

– Naturally gifted (i.e. nature)
– Parental involvement (i.e. nurture)[/quote]

There has been quite a lot of research on a similar problem – heritability of intelligence – in the past (now this area is a bit suppressed because it can be applied to interracial differences). Simply google for ‘heritability coefficient’ and IQ/intelligence or go to WIKI . A classical name in this area is Arthur R. Jensen.

Most studies put that coefficient between 0.5-0.6. This means that 50-60% of intelligence (often measured as IQ) variation in offspring is explained by genetics, 40-50% by other factors (environment). This environmental component explains why IQ can grown from generation to generation (this growth is used by some PC people with limited background in genetics to explain the shift by pure non-genetics factors). If I remember correctly, the coefficient is even higher for very high IQs.

Disclaimer: I don’t follow this area much (since it is more politics than science).

[Author]

Posts