NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/edu/1307

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
From: [e-mail] (Laurie Gelb)
Newsgroups: sci.edu
Subject: Re: Smart kids (Was Re: Magnet schools)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:12:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Lines: 146
Nntp-Posting-Host: eitri.mda.uth.tmc.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman
Rubin) responds to my comment that:

>>if a kid would rather read science books than play basketball, s/he
>>should be encouraged to pursue those interests.  But a kid
>>who makes good grades, understands things others don't, etc. is often labeled
>>a "nerd" or "geek" not because s/he lacks a personality, but because the
others
>>are jealous.  Helping a kid to understand that attitude is crucial for
survival
>>in, yes, the real world.  That's the world where enlightenment is often
feared,
>>where facts are often subordinate to emotions.  If a kid with a high IQ is
>>going eventually to contribute to the improvement of that world (assuming you
>>care about human survival somewhat and would prefer to see intellect used
>>rather than hoarded like a toy), s/he has to understand it enough to find a
>>place in it. That implies the motivation to understand it.  Parents either
>>provide that motivation or destroy it ("you're better than the rest of those
>>kids; don't worry about them").

by saying:

>On the contrary, that kid is being destroyed by the current system.  One
>does not develop one's mind by playing basketball.  As an adult, one has
>considerable choice of one's associates, and the anti-intellectuals can
>have their dumbness.

I am not athletic, so I can't comment on the mental skills required to play
sports, except to say that to equate athletics with anti-intellectualism
is highly questionable.  Are you really defending the proposition that
no one with an IQ at the gifted level should be permitted to play sports
because it is a waste of  mental capacity?  If they are so gifted,
surely they can decide that for themselves--even gifted kids.

>Those who go along with the crowd are very unlikely to contribute to the
>improvement of anything.  What is needed is to encourage the idea that
>inquisitiveness, ingenuity, continual questioning, striving to understand
>instead of just learning to get A+, is needed.  Not all can do that, but
>very few public schools even allow the children to do that.  The word
>allow is not an overstatement; the schools teach pap.

And what happens when that gifted child finds employment (assuming not every
gifted child is immediately willing and able to begin self-employment)? Do
our universities, public agencies, and corporations encourage innovation for
its own sake?  Only when it coincides with their goals.  And how will a
gifted adult know what those are, if s/he has been trained to ignore them?

Never have I advocated "going along with the crowd" for its own sake.  Nowhere
do I see that in my comments.  But to diverge from the crowd, you have to
know where it is and where it's going.  There are too few totally oblivious
geniuses  to depend on such a group to save the world, let
alone to foster such a group. What we need to foster is "aware" intellects.

I further added that:

>>Minds need to be nurtured, not isolated.  Knowledge is useless in a vaccuum.

>>This is why my gifted child is no longer in private school.  Some lessons
>>extend beyond what can be taught in a classroom.

to which the response was:

>Very definitely so.  With 99.99% of the classrooms teaching little, it is
>necessary to learn outside.  But to acquire understanding of structure and
>concepts, not facts.  To acquire the desire to excel, even if others will
>dislike you for it.

Do you consider that desire the parents' responsibility or the school's?  I
consider it the former's.  Gifted learners learn the way they learn best.
Some memorize facts, and weave them into patterns.  Others disregard facts,
and rediscover the important ones for themselves.  I don't generalize about
how to help a child learn, except to say that it is the parents' responsibility
to help a child discover how s/he learns best.

>It is the nerds and geeks who will make the contributions to knowledge, and
>advance mankind.  The schools teach little beyond what computers will do in
>the future; that the great bulk of the people want to live like that is no
>reason to waste a mind.

Who said anything about wasting a mind?  Some of our greatest minds have
survived public schools, and still do.  The ability to shut out what's
harmful and let in what's good is more important than ever in a world
chock full of stimuli.  A gifted child learns it early or not at all.  I have
personally witnessed the tragedy of what happens when this ability is needed
most and does not manifest itself.  How many gifted people do you know who
have tried or committed suicide?  I know several.

My final comment was:

>>Note that I do not advocate lowering one's intellectual standards in order
>>to accommodate the rest of the world, nor would I ever advocate my son's
>>doing so.  That's why we *must* teach a gifted child how to have different
>>expectations for him/herself and for others.

and the reply was:

>In order to have different expectations, it is necessary to accomplish
>what others cannot.  You have lowered your child's intellectual level
>greatly.  You may even have destroyed the ability to understand.

Since he entered public school 1.5 years ago, my son's standardized test
scores,
his intellectual curiosity, and his ability to reason abstractly have decreased
not one iota.  The latter two have increased.  He is still in the 99%
percentile overall. (I know, it's mostly testing for factual knowledge.)   He
is actually more enthusastic
about getting up in the morning then when he attended an exclusive Montessori
school. I suppose this could be used as evidence that his IQ is eroding,
except that it's clear what some of the attractions are.  He enjoys some group
projects, which were very limited at his first school. He enjoys activities
such as choir, which the other school does not offer.  He enjoys the fact
that some of the neighborhood kids walk home with him, which was not possible
at the other, because we were the only family close enough to walk home.  In
short, he enjoys
interaction and collaboration with "lesser beings!"  Does this mean that he
no longer qualifies as gifted--he must surrender his uniqueness because it
doesn't matter to him 24 hours a day?  Surely only  an insecure child would
need constant reminders of his gifts.



And in reference to my signature:

>>Uncle Sam wants YOU...
>>to pay your taxes, obey his laws, and keep your mouth shut.

I certainly agree that:

>And anyone who does this is nothing more than a machine.  We do not need
>a nation of machines.

I don't think that an identity exists such that public schools turn out
machines and private schools turn out achievers.  As a libertarian, it would
certainly be tempting for me to believe that, but if individualism means any-
thing, it's that mentally-competent persons make their own choices (if they
dare)--especially whether to vegetate or grow. Parents can't (and shouldn't)
control that choice, but have a moral obligation to convey
that it is the child's choice.


>
Laurie Gelb
[e-mail]

Uncle Sam wants YOU...
to pay your taxes, obey his laws, and keep your mouth shut.