Schools & School districts

[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).

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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.
[/quote]

As a former teacher and a parent of three kids, I would definitely say nature is more important than nurture with respect to I.Q.

A child’s positive learning and social environment can help expand a gifted child’s knowledge and would probably raise his/her I.Q. score a bit, but it won’t turn someone with a 90 I.Q. into someone with a 140 I.Q.

Likewise, I’ve seen kids who’ve come from really bad family/social/economic situations –and who had no academic support, whatsoever, outside of school — do exceedingly well on I.Q. tests and eventually become very successful in spite of their SES or learning environment.

Ultimately though, high intelligence does not mean a person is going to succeed. Oftentimes, gifted people are so accustomed to having everything come easy to them, that they lack any kind of motivation to tackle life’s challenges. They can be some of the laziest people you’ll ever know.

Like flu and AN mentioned above, nothing matters if a person doesn’t have a good work ethic.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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.
[/quote]

As a former teacher and a parent of three kids, I would definitely say nature is more important than nurture with respect to I.Q.

A child’s positive learning and social environment can help expand a gifted child’s knowledge and would probably raise his/her I.Q. score a bit, but it won’t turn someone with a 90 I.Q. into someone with a 140 I.Q.

Likewise, I’ve seen kids who’ve come from really bad family/social/economic situations –and who had no academic support, whatsoever, outside of school — do exceedingly well on I.Q. tests and eventually become very successful in spite of their SES or learning environment.

Ultimately though, high intelligence does not mean a person is going to succeed. Oftentimes, gifted people are so accustomed to having everything come easy to them, that they lack any kind of motivation to tackle life’s challenges. They can be some of the laziest people you’ll ever know.

Like flu and AN mentioned above, nothing matters if a person doesn’t have a good work ethic.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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.
[/quote]

As a former teacher and a parent of three kids, I would definitely say nature is more important than nurture with respect to I.Q.

A child’s positive learning and social environment can help expand a gifted child’s knowledge and would probably raise his/her I.Q. score a bit, but it won’t turn someone with a 90 I.Q. into someone with a 140 I.Q.

Likewise, I’ve seen kids who’ve come from really bad family/social/economic situations –and who had no academic support, whatsoever, outside of school — do exceedingly well on I.Q. tests and eventually become very successful in spite of their SES or learning environment.

Ultimately though, high intelligence does not mean a person is going to succeed. Oftentimes, gifted people are so accustomed to having everything come easy to them, that they lack any kind of motivation to tackle life’s challenges. They can be some of the laziest people you’ll ever know.

Like flu and AN mentioned above, nothing matters if a person doesn’t have a good work ethic.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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.
[/quote]

As a former teacher and a parent of three kids, I would definitely say nature is more important than nurture with respect to I.Q.

A child’s positive learning and social environment can help expand a gifted child’s knowledge and would probably raise his/her I.Q. score a bit, but it won’t turn someone with a 90 I.Q. into someone with a 140 I.Q.

Likewise, I’ve seen kids who’ve come from really bad family/social/economic situations –and who had no academic support, whatsoever, outside of school — do exceedingly well on I.Q. tests and eventually become very successful in spite of their SES or learning environment.

Ultimately though, high intelligence does not mean a person is going to succeed. Oftentimes, gifted people are so accustomed to having everything come easy to them, that they lack any kind of motivation to tackle life’s challenges. They can be some of the laziest people you’ll ever know.

Like flu and AN mentioned above, nothing matters if a person doesn’t have a good work ethic.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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.
[/quote]

As a former teacher and a parent of three kids, I would definitely say nature is more important than nurture with respect to I.Q.

A child’s positive learning and social environment can help expand a gifted child’s knowledge and would probably raise his/her I.Q. score a bit, but it won’t turn someone with a 90 I.Q. into someone with a 140 I.Q.

Likewise, I’ve seen kids who’ve come from really bad family/social/economic situations –and who had no academic support, whatsoever, outside of school — do exceedingly well on I.Q. tests and eventually become very successful in spite of their SES or learning environment.

Ultimately though, high intelligence does not mean a person is going to succeed. Oftentimes, gifted people are so accustomed to having everything come easy to them, that they lack any kind of motivation to tackle life’s challenges. They can be some of the laziest people you’ll ever know.

Like flu and AN mentioned above, nothing matters if a person doesn’t have a good work ethic.

[davelj]

I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.

[davelj]

I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.

[davelj]

I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.

[davelj]

I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.

[davelj]

I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.

[Coronita]

[quote=davelj]I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.[/quote]

My observation was that more often then not the really really gifted kids (the small 0.5%) that was promising to be a mover and shaker of the world didn’t so turn out that way in most cases. Some examples of what happened to the people I knew:

1)Lazy Learner Complex: For some of the truely exceptional kids, learning was too easy for them in the early ages. Then, as they went through higher education/professional the rest of the world caught up.

2)Confused Complex: For some other gifted truely exceptional kids, they were able to learn about things quickly, but lacked any focus or commitment to one thing. Consequently, they drifted.

3)Arrogant to Insanity Complex: For some, they folks thought they were smarter than everyone else. Often perceived as perfectionists, and to some extent demonstrates a level of arrogance. When a lot of them ended up in MIT/Havard/Stanford, etc, it suddenly hit them…They aren’t as smart as they thought they were, and that there are others smarter….In the pursuit of perfection, some of them couldn’t “deal” with not being the “best”. It was downhill from there.

The nice thing about this country is that you don’t have to be a genius to do pretty well here. In fact, there are plenty of idiots who are pretty successful.

The A students work for the B managers work for the company run by the C students is somewhat true (although I see it differently not so much as acadamia achievement per se), at least in engineering/technical.

The really geeky people lacking social skills (probably folks that were A students) work for people who have good social skills with much less technical abilities (often times clueless) who in turn work for a company run by someone who has a geeky passion AND has scial skills (A-/B students that also had a life).

Unfortunately, this big disconnect in those that can do and those that manage is a problem in itself for U.S. big co’s moving forward. There is just too much mid-management fat. Folks that only have social skills but lack know-how. Yahoo is a prime example of what happens when middle-management fat goes really obese (so I have heard from colleagues).

[Coronita]

[quote=davelj]I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.[/quote]

My observation was that more often then not the really really gifted kids (the small 0.5%) that was promising to be a mover and shaker of the world didn’t so turn out that way in most cases. Some examples of what happened to the people I knew:

1)Lazy Learner Complex: For some of the truely exceptional kids, learning was too easy for them in the early ages. Then, as they went through higher education/professional the rest of the world caught up.

2)Confused Complex: For some other gifted truely exceptional kids, they were able to learn about things quickly, but lacked any focus or commitment to one thing. Consequently, they drifted.

3)Arrogant to Insanity Complex: For some, they folks thought they were smarter than everyone else. Often perceived as perfectionists, and to some extent demonstrates a level of arrogance. When a lot of them ended up in MIT/Havard/Stanford, etc, it suddenly hit them…They aren’t as smart as they thought they were, and that there are others smarter….In the pursuit of perfection, some of them couldn’t “deal” with not being the “best”. It was downhill from there.

The nice thing about this country is that you don’t have to be a genius to do pretty well here. In fact, there are plenty of idiots who are pretty successful.

The A students work for the B managers work for the company run by the C students is somewhat true (although I see it differently not so much as acadamia achievement per se), at least in engineering/technical.

The really geeky people lacking social skills (probably folks that were A students) work for people who have good social skills with much less technical abilities (often times clueless) who in turn work for a company run by someone who has a geeky passion AND has scial skills (A-/B students that also had a life).

Unfortunately, this big disconnect in those that can do and those that manage is a problem in itself for U.S. big co’s moving forward. There is just too much mid-management fat. Folks that only have social skills but lack know-how. Yahoo is a prime example of what happens when middle-management fat goes really obese (so I have heard from colleagues).

[Coronita]

[quote=davelj]I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.[/quote]

My observation was that more often then not the really really gifted kids (the small 0.5%) that was promising to be a mover and shaker of the world didn’t so turn out that way in most cases. Some examples of what happened to the people I knew:

1)Lazy Learner Complex: For some of the truely exceptional kids, learning was too easy for them in the early ages. Then, as they went through higher education/professional the rest of the world caught up.

2)Confused Complex: For some other gifted truely exceptional kids, they were able to learn about things quickly, but lacked any focus or commitment to one thing. Consequently, they drifted.

3)Arrogant to Insanity Complex: For some, they folks thought they were smarter than everyone else. Often perceived as perfectionists, and to some extent demonstrates a level of arrogance. When a lot of them ended up in MIT/Havard/Stanford, etc, it suddenly hit them…They aren’t as smart as they thought they were, and that there are others smarter….In the pursuit of perfection, some of them couldn’t “deal” with not being the “best”. It was downhill from there.

The nice thing about this country is that you don’t have to be a genius to do pretty well here. In fact, there are plenty of idiots who are pretty successful.

The A students work for the B managers work for the company run by the C students is somewhat true (although I see it differently not so much as acadamia achievement per se), at least in engineering/technical.

The really geeky people lacking social skills (probably folks that were A students) work for people who have good social skills with much less technical abilities (often times clueless) who in turn work for a company run by someone who has a geeky passion AND has scial skills (A-/B students that also had a life).

Unfortunately, this big disconnect in those that can do and those that manage is a problem in itself for U.S. big co’s moving forward. There is just too much mid-management fat. Folks that only have social skills but lack know-how. Yahoo is a prime example of what happens when middle-management fat goes really obese (so I have heard from colleagues).

[Coronita]

[quote=davelj]I ain’t a parent – which is a blessing for both me and society as a whole – but it seems to me that you just want your progeny to be content (“happy” sets too high a bar), ultimately. And my guess is that if you focus your efforts on your kids being intellectually curious, disciplined and creative… then they’ve got good odds of figuring out how to be content.

Having said that, I think focusing on schools, gifted programs, grades, etc. is largely a waste of time (and often money). Admittedly, however, this is based on anecdotal evidence from my own life – albeit substantial anecdotal evidence. An extreme example follows.

I have a friend that’s a very high IQ genius – like 170+. Very engaging guy, not at all a geek or in any way socially awkward. Started reading at 2. Attended an expensive, high-fallutin’ private school for K-12 and then went to UVA as an Echols Scholar and graduated with a 4.0. Was accepted into MIT’s graduate program for physics (he ultimately declined). Brilliant guy. But completely unfocused and a little bit lazy. Today, he’s 41 and unemployed. Has done many different kinds of jobs, most recently freelance graphic design. I would be shocked if he’s ever made more than $50K/year. And he’s not the happiest camper at this point. He’s had every advantage life has to offer – genetic, cultural and socioeconomic – but just can’t get his shit together. I’ve seen a number of other folks with similar backgrounds – although less extreme examples – suffer the same fate.

The cliche that, “The “A” (grade) kids work for the “B” kids who work for the company owned by the kids who got C’s,” isn’t completely without some basis in fact.

By definition most people are of about average intelligence and motivation. May as well get your kids used to socializing with these folks as early as possible.

The emphasis on grades, SATs, colleges, etc… pretty much a waste of time, energy and money in my view.[/quote]

My observation was that more often then not the really really gifted kids (the small 0.5%) that was promising to be a mover and shaker of the world didn’t so turn out that way in most cases. Some examples of what happened to the people I knew:

1)Lazy Learner Complex: For some of the truely exceptional kids, learning was too easy for them in the early ages. Then, as they went through higher education/professional the rest of the world caught up.

2)Confused Complex: For some other gifted truely exceptional kids, they were able to learn about things quickly, but lacked any focus or commitment to one thing. Consequently, they drifted.

3)Arrogant to Insanity Complex: For some, they folks thought they were smarter than everyone else. Often perceived as perfectionists, and to some extent demonstrates a level of arrogance. When a lot of them ended up in MIT/Havard/Stanford, etc, it suddenly hit them…They aren’t as smart as they thought they were, and that there are others smarter….In the pursuit of perfection, some of them couldn’t “deal” with not being the “best”. It was downhill from there.

The nice thing about this country is that you don’t have to be a genius to do pretty well here. In fact, there are plenty of idiots who are pretty successful.

The A students work for the B managers work for the company run by the C students is somewhat true (although I see it differently not so much as acadamia achievement per se), at least in engineering/technical.

The really geeky people lacking social skills (probably folks that were A students) work for people who have good social skills with much less technical abilities (often times clueless) who in turn work for a company run by someone who has a geeky passion AND has scial skills (A-/B students that also had a life).

Unfortunately, this big disconnect in those that can do and those that manage is a problem in itself for U.S. big co’s moving forward. There is just too much mid-management fat. Folks that only have social skills but lack know-how. Yahoo is a prime example of what happens when middle-management fat goes really obese (so I have heard from colleagues).

[Author]

Posts