I cringe to think about how much time I had when I was that age that I didn't put to good use. An sophomore in MIT might be challenged to find the time to make the bed properly, let alone get lost in the pursuit of the subjects that are covered in Circuits and Electronics. I was a horrible student in college, not because I was dumb (okay, I take back what I said about me being an idiot, I'm about average) but because I didn't manage my time properly. As a kid, I didn't have that problem.

ETA: And as for the numbers of people who have taken that test, it's not like it's the SAT or the required placement exam to get into a good college in China. If there were truly big stakes attached to that exam then there would be a lot more than 340 people out of 150,000 getting a perfect score.

Again, I'm happy for the kid. But I think the real story here is that kids can accomplish a lot, we just need a way to get them engaged.

My question is, given the drive to do this, is this kid really outstanding or is this something that many more kids are capable of doing?

Okay, clearly it's outstanding even if more kids are capable of doing this. It takes a lot of effort to do something like this on your own free will, and that's not something a lot of people are willing to do. Or, they just don't see a reason for doing it. Getting noticed by MIT would be a great reason, but it's difficult to connect the dots when when you are weighing your decision based on rewards rather than passion.

Just saying, is it genius or is it working smart and hard for something that you are driven to figure out? Genius is difficult to define. What is genius? Is it something we are born with? Can we go from average to genius? If we have to be born a genius, then case closed, the kid is special and untouchable. If his accomplishment was working smart and hard, then that's more achievable, even if it's something not many people are willing to do. Maybe it's a combination of both, which is problematic because we then get to that vague genius term again. ;)

Again, I think the schools need to figure out how to get more kids engaged. Kids spend so much of their time at schools and then more time on homework when they get home. The schools need to be able to make the most of this substantial time they have with our children. Sure, it's not all on the school. It has to be on the parent and the child as well. But the schools are still a huge component.

This is markedly different than that rich kid with connections getting Yahoo to buy his little news summary "startup" that was really a proxy play for some third party IP ... Yeah, no one thinks that kid is the next Sirinvasa Ramanujan.

Make it into the story of a 'boy genius' and you reduce it to a one-off event. It's a question of how you're framing the story.

The think the term genius could be harmful or just playing down accomplishment.

That would be like toiling for years with a few failed start-ups and then hitting one big success, but the media dismisses your success because you are the son of <insert rich CEO>. Sure, that couldn't have hurt, but what about the years of blood, sweat and tears that you put into it? What about the failures?

For the media, why write about those things when it's easier and perhaps more engaging for readers to talk about your family.

If I meet Laserman and he is able to shoot freaking lasers from his forehead, I want to be just like him. But if he tells me "forget it kid, I'm a superhero mutant, you could never be like me" then that's it. My dreams are crushed.

But if I see that Laserman is more like Ironman and that he actually built this capability with real science and engineering, then perhaps I could really be like him. That's inspiring to me.

That's what genius is to me. It's something you're born with. It's some sort of mutant superpower. Instead of calling this kid a genius, couldn't we instead recognize the actual hard work he put into getting to the point of being called a genius and then show other kids that they could do the same thing? Or even better, how they could achieve similar highs but in different areas?

Really, it's not about me, it's about the children! I'm happy with who I am, leave me out of this. ;)

>Again, I think the schools need to figure out how to get more kids engaged.

It's upto the kid to be responsible and learn things. If they don't care and just want to fuck bitches, then it's his problem. You seem to have a big resentment against your teachers but it's your problem that you're lazy.

"Sorry, son, your friend is a genius and you aren't, there's nothing you can do about it, now go back to plowing the field."

Screw that, I think lots of kids have this potential, they just haven't been helped to find the beginning of the path.

As for me being lazy, maybe when I was in the K12 system. Today I'm self taught, work from home freelance programmer. Aside from shipping code all day, I have had to keep my skills relevant for the years I have been doing this. I'm able to make my way doing this without living in my parent's basement. I would say that makes me an expert at laziness and procrastination. Everyone has these problems at times, but I have dealing with them down to a science, or I would literally starve. Nobody will wait for me to get around to getting my work done, if I'm not making reasonable progress, then I get replaced. There is zero job security for a freelancer.

I suppose in some ways that makes me a bit like this kid. So, I'm rooting for him. I hope he gets into MIT. I also hope that other kids don't take that genius thing seriously and realize that they could do the same thing if they put in the effort.

Also, while I hated the K12 system, I loved my teachers. I can credit many of them for the successes I have had in life. The overall system still sucks though.

This boy is most certainly special, but if we can figure out why he's so capable we may be able to replicate this for every child. Imagine an army of little kids, each having the opportunity to follow what they're best at and what they like the most. On the other hand, if the experience is not replicable, we can celebrate him as a talented human being and leave it at that.

That's not what I got out of that at all. Perhaps you're projecting in some way?

Your definition of "outstanding" seems to have something to do with innate talent.

My definition of outstanding is "what does he do with what he's got"?

Unless this article is made up, this kid has accomplished quite a lot, much more than others in similar or better circumstances. I think that's what matters, and it's also the best predictor of future accomplishment.

Here's what I've picked up in my working years: "genius" is a completely worthless novelty if it is not put to productive use.

I'm looking at their material: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput...

I don't consider a lot of the equations to be sophisticated at all.

My opinion: I consider John von Neumann to be a genius. Here's what sets him above the rest: he produced novel results in many different fields. IMO, it's not enough to just ace a course, no matter the age.

You would usually use the Laplace equivalent and not the diff. eq. themselves, as this is """easier"""

That, and we're all blissfully unaware of what fraction of that 150k participated in the course, and what fraction merely participated in clicking the confirmation email.

>As a kid, I didn't have that problem.

Word to that. Yours truly, for example, took Multivar and LinAlg at Georgetown while in high school (in summer semester before sr. year - for fun), scored a 35 on the ACT w/o prep, AIME participant, that kind of thing. Later failed out of college. I hope this kid really is a genius because if he's not, well, "Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first call promising."