Does enrichment make "any" student smart and give a leg up?

[Anonymous]

I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

The right kind of instruction or practice can enhance any child's natural intelligence and help him or her to achieve, to test well, or to learn a skill/profession, just as natural talents in areas like music, voice, sports can be developed. Likewise, these natural abilities can be wasted or not fully exploited. Given the same kind and amount of nurturing, the kid with greater natural ability will excel over the one with lesser ability, but in the long run, putting in the work serves kids very well to maximize individual potential. That said, we know that there are other factors besides knowledge/ability that affect success in life; these include physical and mental health, emotional resilience, "attractive" appearance, personality, socioeconomic environment, and government/societal barriers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

The kid who works hard has an almost insurmountable advantage over the kid who does not.
If all kids work hard, then talent and native ability will make the difference but there is no danger that all kids, particularly all teenagers will put in the effort and thereby be competing on pure talent alone.
Sure being wealthy helps. Not worrying about eviction and losing water is better than being constantly reminded of poverty.
So, a poor kid that works hard may not do as well as a rich kid that works hard but they will do better than a rich kid that does not work hard.
There is always an advantage to effort.

In the context of current conversations about racial achievement gaps...
The difference between asians and whites in academic achievement can be entirely explained by differences in effort. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111
An old study out of california said the same thing about blacks, whites and asians. Irrespective of income, effort will always improve performance and cognitive ability.

This is mostly cultural.
When a kid does poorly on a test, some cultures think that kid is academically untalented. An asian might be more inclined to think that kid is academically lazy.
And even a stupid kid is better off with good study habits. Turning a C- student into a B+ student will radically alter the course of their life. That B+ student is smarter than the exact same student that made a C- effort.

[Anonymous]

Enrichment does not make any one smart. Enrichment can provide a boost by providing exposure, additional explications, and practice.

We sent our child for math enrichment because the math at school was not challenging and he enjoys math. We didn’t want him to lose interest in the subject because the work at school wasn’t engaging. The math classes challenged him and provide additional practice. He was exposed to math competitions, which he loves, and has been learning how to approach difficult math problems in a creative manner. We like that the program has homework and has always required that he show his work, so it has helped him develop good study skills and a good approach to completing math assignments.

Does it give him a leg up over his peers? Maybe. He tends to do better in math than his friends and he doesn’t have as much homework as most of them do in Algebra 1. He is less stressed about his math grades because he feels comfortable and confident in his math skills. I would guess he would get the same grade in math without having done math enrichment but he might need to work at it a bit more.

It was ours son’s choice to take extra math, we offered it and he said yes and has continued to say yes. It is something he is interested in. We would not make him attend if he didn’t want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enrichment does not make any one smart. Enrichment can provide a boost by providing exposure, additional explications, and practice.

We sent our child for math enrichment because the math at school was not challenging and he enjoys math. We didn’t want him to lose interest in the subject because the work at school wasn’t engaging. The math classes challenged him and provide additional practice. He was exposed to math competitions, which he loves, and has been learning how to approach difficult math problems in a creative manner. We like that the program has homework and has always required that he show his work, so it has helped him develop good study skills and a good approach to completing math assignments.

Does it give him a leg up over his peers? Maybe. He tends to do better in math than his friends and he doesn’t have as much homework as most of them do in Algebra 1. He is less stressed about his math grades because he feels comfortable and confident in his math skills. I would guess he would get the same grade in math without having done math enrichment but he might need to work at it a bit more.

It was ours son’s choice to take extra math, we offered it and he said yes and has continued to say yes. It is something he is interested in. We would not make him attend if he didn’t want to.

This is contrary to almost everything we know about nature vs nurture debate in IQ and cognitive ability.

Why do so many wypipo like to say their kids are just naturally smart and therefore deserve their effortless academic achievement but the kid that works for it somehow deserves it less?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Stuyvesant high school would like to have a word with you.

[Anonymous]

This is like asking if guitar lessons from Eric Clapton will make any guitar student better. Of course they will…

Will they make a student who doesn’t practice better than one who does? Of course they won’t…

On the question of effort vs aptitude, effort will allow some students to outperform lazy kids with aptitude but there are some incredibly hard working kids with tremendous aptitude.

Hard working Asian students are able to shift their bell curve over enough to piss off the local “meritocracy isn’t real” moms who want to see their talented kid succeed without making trade offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like asking if guitar lessons from Eric Clapton will make any guitar student better. Of course they will…

Will they make a student who doesn’t practice better than one who does? Of course they won’t…

On the question of effort vs aptitude, effort will allow some students to outperform lazy kids with aptitude but there are some incredibly hard working kids with tremendous aptitude.

Hard working Asian students are able to shift their bell curve over enough to piss off the local “meritocracy isn’t real” moms who want to see their talented kid succeed without making trade offs.

+1
Teacher who sees this every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like asking if guitar lessons from Eric Clapton will make any guitar student better. Of course they will…

Will they make a student who doesn’t practice better than one who does? Of course they won’t…

On the question of effort vs aptitude, effort will allow some students to outperform lazy kids with aptitude but there are some incredibly hard working kids with tremendous aptitude.

Hard working Asian students are able to shift their bell curve over enough to piss off the local “meritocracy isn’t real” moms who want to see their talented kid succeed without making trade offs.

One of the issues driving the "meritocracy isn't real" crowd is that college admissions has gotten so far away from academics that they don't want to spend a lot of time on academics anymore. They want to be competitive academically without putting in the time because they need that time for travel sports teams and developing "passions" So they push for policies that minimize the differences in academic achievement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

Even someone with innately low IQ will have a much better life and improve their cognitive ability through effort.
This is essentially the main difference between the asian approach and the american approach.
Americans think their students underachieve because they are stupid.
Asians think their students underachieve because they are lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

It's funny the only people who ever use the phrase low IQ invariably have a low IQ.

[Anonymous]

Here's at least one minor point of data: Longfellow has quite a lot of kids on their math team and quite a lot of kids taking outside enrichment through AoPS, RSM, and the like. They had a lot of kids take the AMC10. Last year, only 3 qualified for AIME. If money and enrichment programs were the only things needed for high achievements, Longfellow should have had 20+ AIME qualifiers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

It's funny the only people who ever use the phrase low IQ invariably have a low IQ.

DP, but what is the politically correct way to express PP's point? As I understood it, enrichment helps all but it can be limited based on the individual's innate intelligence; likewise, the individual with high innate intelligence can fail to reach his or her potential.