I agree with the premise of the reformers. There's no such thing as giftedness. Such a notion is unnecessarily divisive. The classes should not be eliminated, instead they should be relabeled as the study harders
"Tall people are taller than short people, which make short people uncomfortable. Therefore there's not such thing as being tall."
This kind of thinking, which is getting more common every day, make us smile when it's done by children. When it's adults however, it's absolutely terrifying to me.
That's not the point of what I said... I acknowledge that some kids end up smarter than others. I just don't put most of that difference down to innate intelligence. I'm not even sure there is such a thing. I highly doubt the difference between a 9th grader studying calc and a 9th grader studying algebra is some great brain difference. They're both straightforwards subjects that anyone can learn.
We're not talking about asking TAG students to develop a new version of string theory. We're asking them to ingest already discovered information and apply it. The idea that this requires innate intelligence is just silly. Anyone can be trained to do these things. Those who work harder will be able to get into these courses.
What I find dangerous is the attribution of all material differences between people to genetics/predisposition. This thinking leads to the end of meritocracy, and even the celebration of achievement.
Mm, over the years, I've known some people who were legitimately kinda dumb. One learned, at the tender age of 27, that flamingos weren't mythical a la dragons. On the other hand, I've known some people who were absolutely brilliant.
You might as well argue everyone can run the same speed for the same amount of time. If you haven't observed this yourself, I would think you've probably just travelled through life in very homogeneous social circles.
> One learned, at the tender age of 27, that flamingos weren't mythical a la dragons.
Ignorance is different from intelligence. For example, it's highly unlikely Aristotle knew what maize was. That doesn't make him stupid. Just ignorant of certain things that he hadn't experienced.
Not the same thing. Orthogonal, in point of fact. You can have both gifted and non-gifted who work hard or do not work hard.
Some people are just born stronger, or with more energy, or with more social skill. Some people are just quicker about patterns and facts. And some people are unflagging about whatever they put their mind to.
Yeah, I actually agree with you. But as I said elsewhere, the difference between a 9th grader studying calc and a 9th grader studying geometry/algebra is NOT innate intelligence. We're not asking these kids to derive new string theories that unify quantum mechancis and general relativity. They're being asked to learn information and apply it. Anyone -- even someone of below average intelligence -- can accomplish this with effort.
The idea that a program should only be for those with 'innate' intelligence is silly. In fact, the name of the program is why it's controversial and being targeted by these groups. Instead, the group should be renamed to indicate that it's for anyone that wants to achieve.
For example, 'high achievers' or something. Anyone is capable of doing these classes. This is not some advanced theoretical physics / mathematics course.
That's not what's happening in NYC, but, it sounds like a good idea.
While we're fantasizing about alternatives, I think we should stop having traditional classes altogether, and have them be ongoing modules. In traditional classes, they last 2 or 3 months, the teacher has a specific tempo of imparting information, and everyone is expected to absorb it at the same rate. But that's not true. People absorb the information differently. Kids who are slower in the topic don't have time to get it, and kids who are quicker in the topic have to wait around until the class ends for everyone. Or maybe some kids struggle, then suddenly "get it", but because they struggled at first, their grade suffers.
Let's decouple "demonstrate mastery" from "specific amount of time". Have an ongoing module. The teacher is there to help you understand a specific, limited topic. If you're quick on the uptake for that topic and can "demonstrate mastery" in two months, or a day, whatever, let's move you on to the next topic post haste. If you struggle with it, hang around until it clicks, no shame. If your life is going to shit for some reason and you need a break, no big deal, take a break, and come back when you're ready. It does not have to affect your grade because there is no conveyor belt along which all kids must move together, come hell or high-water.
That way the smart kids - hard-working, innately intelligent, prodigy, privileged, whatever explanation you prefer - can speed along as quick as they please. The kids who struggle can get the extra time they need to master the topic.
After they demonstrate mastery of the core program - those basics that all civilized people are expected to know - the kids can leave, no matter how early they got through it. Maybe they can apply to college, or get a job if they're old enough. Or maybe the school offers more advanced courses like multivariate calculus or novel-writing or whatever.
The article concedes the name might not be appropriate, but eliminating the program is wrong. There are also movements to eliminate AP classes and advanced mathematics for under grade 12 in a few places (mostly CA iirc, hopefully it hasnt spread).
The simple truth is that some topics will require more time and effort to acquire skills and knowledge in for some people. Math, science and reading were stupid easy for me, but some of my friends struggled with those while blowing my somatic and creative skills (painting, singing, acting, shop classes) out of the water.
Neither of us should be held back from accelerated learning and practice in the topics we excelled at.
> As it reads like you want to mock and shame kids who do well in school (which I hope wasn’t your intent).
Not at all.. That was the opposite fo my intent.
I believe names like 'talented and gifted' actually make it out so that the kid's hard work is not appreciated and recognized. I hoped that 'studied harder's would indicate that the reason the kids were in this course is because they worked hard, and that anyone could achieve what they did if they too worked hard enough.
IME, as a 'talented and gifted' kid, a lot of people chocked up my success to innate talent, while they slacked off and explained away their slacking off as 'Oh well I'm just not as naturally smart as iammisc..'. I don't believe labeling children as innately gifted is a useful thing. Any child can accomplish these advanced HS / middle school courses with hard work. This is not particularly difficult material.
In another comment, I changed my suggestion to 'high achievers'. Sorry I'm not great at coming up with new names on the spot.
>The answer is an emphatic NO. In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need to work hard, learn one’s field well, learn other fields and tools, ask questions, talk to other mathematicians, and think about the “big picture”. And yes, a reasonable amount of intelligence, patience, and maturity is also required. But one does not need some sort of magic “genius gene” that spontaneously generates ex nihilo deep insights, unexpected solutions to problems, or other supernatural abilities.
>The popular image of the lone (and possibly slightly mad) genius – who ignores the literature and other conventional wisdom and manages by some inexplicable inspiration (enhanced, perhaps, with a liberal dash of suffering) to come up with a breathtakingly original solution to a problem that confounded all the experts – is a charming and romantic image, but also a wildly inaccurate one, at least in the world of modern mathematics. We do have spectacular, deep and remarkable results and insights in this subject, of course, but they are the hard-won and cumulative achievement of years, decades, or even centuries of steady work and progress of many good and great mathematicians; the advance from one stage of understanding to the next can be highly non-trivial, and sometimes rather unexpected, but still builds upon the foundation of earlier work rather than starting totally anew. (This is for instance the case with Wiles‘ work on Fermat’s last theorem, or Perelman‘s work on the Poincaré conjecture.)
This is the comment he left on that post.
"It appears my previous comment may have have been interpreted in a manner differently from what I intended, which was as a statement of (lack of) empirical correlation rather than (lack of) causation. More precisely, the point I was trying to make with the above quote is this: if one considers a population of promising young mathematicians (e.g. an incoming PhD class at an elite mathematics department), they will almost all certainly have some reasonable level of intelligence, and some subset will have particularly exceptional levels of intelligence. " He acknowledges that serious talent exists.
>Relying on intelligence alone to pull things off at the last minute may work for a while, but, generally speaking, at the graduate level or higher it doesn’t.
>One needs to do a serious amount of reading and writing, and not just thinking, in order to get anywhere serious in mathematics; contrary to public opinion, mathematical breakthroughs are not powered solely (or even primarily) by “Eureka” moments of genius, but are in fact largely a product of hard work, directed of course by experience and intuition. (See also “the cult of genius“.)
Sure. Mozart had unusual skill, but it was mainly due to piano practice. (Don't know much about Bach's backstory, so I won't comment on him)
Actually, this is an interesting point. I am also a great piano player. Many people chock this up to innate skill, when they hear me as an adult.
It's not. I just worked insanely hard at piano practice. In fact, I was a well below average piano student. My teachers were often frustrated with me, and other students were much better. However, those students are now much worse than I am. It's because in high school and middle school, I spent hours upon hours at the piano, and now I can play better.
For example, I can play very well by ear, and pump out a piece without much practice now. People think this is due to some innate talent. People ask if I have perfect pitch, was a musical prodigy, etc. I was not a prodigy, and I do not have perfect pitch (in fact I often failed the aural portion of my piano exams). What I do have is an absolutely insane number of hours that I practiced, publicly and privately, to make up for what I perceived as a deficiency.
I do not believe in innate intelligence, at least not in the general case. I believe in exceptional circumstances. For example, Mozart started playing very young and was in a very musical family. In retrospect, had my parents been more musical, I think I would have been 'better' at the piano early on, because several discoveries about music I made later on would have been inculcated in me earlier.
So in general, I reject the idea of 'innate' ability. Those that have 'innate' ability often only appear to have it. In reality, they worked insanely hard.
