Some kids peak early!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is especially true with athletics. The best 9 year old player on the team is rarely still the best player in high school.

This is the only one I totally disagree with. I am a sibling of a professional athlete who was the star of every team he ever played on (from K on up). Tiger Woods was a champ very young on (starting at 2 and winning early on). Most professional hockey, soccer, etc were the stars of their youth leagues. It is very odd to make it to that caliber by being a 'late bloomer'.

To be a top caliber athelete...sorry but you have to have 'genetics' for it. Then add on training and tons of practice. Somebody without the proper body-type, muscle-building ability, fast twitch/slow twitch muscles, etc won't gain them from nowhere.

I played on a National soccer team...traveling team was the same set of girls from 8 years old on. The three girls from my youth team that played with me...we all were the only Freshmen to make the Varsity soccer team which went on the win the VA State Chamionship that year...and later played NCAA.

[Anonymous]

IQ tests are generally not indicative of native intelligence until about 3rd grade. High scores on the WPPSI are more dependent on active parental involvement of the sort you commonly see in this area. Once the children are older, the tests become more reliable and should be relatively fixed over time.

Didn't anyone else read NurtureShock?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ tests are generally not indicative of native intelligence until about 3rd grade. High scores on the WPPSI are more dependent on active parental involvement of the sort you commonly see in this area. Once the children are older, the tests become more reliable and should be relatively fixed over time.

Didn't anyone else read NurtureShock?

I love the book NutureShock.

[Anonymous]

OP whatever you do, do not take out your obvious disappointment in your children (or really, yourself) on your children! Get help!

[Anonymous]

I certainly "bloomed" early as a kid. Had the biggest chest in my class in the 5th grade (not fun!) and then an extremely non-impressive chest from the 10th grade on (also not fun).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because your child tests super high on everything, learned to read at two, and could write her name at three, does not mean she is a genius. Some kids peak early, then when they are 9 or 10, it all evens out. Take a breath and relax.

On the other hand, some kids stay average forever. But I guess you already know that.

[Anonymous]

There have been a few studies that show children in G&T

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP whatever you do, do not take out your obvious disappointment in your children (or really, yourself) on your children! Get help!

well, that was a little over the top. I hardly think OP needs therapy!

as for IQ and parental involvement - BS! Too many examples that you're wrong to even go in to.

OP - I agree with you to a certain extent. But keep in mind, a high IQ does not a successful life make! I would much rather have a high EQ than IQ any day. Those with high EQs are the truly successful and happy people, not those who can't find their way out of a paper bag :O

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ tests are generally not indicative of native intelligence until about 3rd grade. High scores on the WPPSI are more dependent on active parental involvement of the sort you commonly see in this area. Once the children are older, the tests become more reliable and should be relatively fixed over time.

Didn't anyone else read NurtureShock?

This. Yes, some kids who test really high in K will continue to test high in 3. But with kindergarteners, you will also get a second group of kids who test really well in K because they were in enriched environments, with parents using big words and/or great daycare, and this will even out by grade 3. Also in K you will find a third group, brilliant kids who weren't in the mood to take the test that day (being kindergartners) who do great by grade 3.

You can't generalize about early and late sports results, either. As a PP said, genetics are helpful, but genetics are only really important as the kids get older and enter the elite levels. When kids are 5, it's possible to be a great player because you are fast and/or smart, and they're not yet at the travel/elite level where it helps to be really fast or really tall or even really big.

Also, there's a lot of evidence that practice is important, and that people who put in 10,000 hours (or whatever) can become elite. Something that has bugged me about the literature is that the 10,000 hours proponents never really address the question about whether you also need the right genes. There is a branch of this literature that says you can change your body type/even the way certain genes express themselves, if you put in the 10,000 hours, but I'm not sure the literature is mature yet, in terms of proving or disproving anything.

[Anonymous]

We know someone who was bragging about their 4 yo reading Harry Potter. . . "How wonderful!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is especially true with athletics. The best 9 year old player on the team is rarely still the best player in high school.

This is the only one I totally disagree with. I am a sibling of a professional athlete who was the star of every team he ever played on (from K on up). Tiger Woods was a champ very young on (starting at 2 and winning early on). Most professional hockey, soccer, etc were the stars of their youth leagues. It is very odd to make it to that caliber by being a 'late bloomer'.

To be a top caliber athelete...sorry but you have to have 'genetics' for it. Then add on training and tons of practice. Somebody without the proper body-type, muscle-building ability, fast twitch/slow twitch muscles, etc won't gain them from nowhere.

I played on a National soccer team...traveling team was the same set of girls from 8 years old on. The three girls from my youth team that played with me...we all were the only Freshmen to make the Varsity soccer team which went on the win the VA State Chamionship that year...and later played NCAA.

I also agree. I think it may be that someone who isn't good a particular sport at 7 may become very good at it later after their body changes or mind develops. Or someone who was a great soccer player at 9 may change body types and not be as nimble at adolescence, etc. But a young child showing strong coordination and is athletic has a good chance of staying that way. No hardfast rules on this.

[Anonymous]

I would not brag about your child for things that are not true. I have heard some parents do this, and the child immediately realizes (whether the parent does, or admits it, or not) that s/he is not up to par in their parents eyes.

As for before third grade, well nothing really holds true. In other words, at such a young age one can never pigeon hole their child - whether or not they call it this.

The parents I know with smart and/or talented children do not go on and on about them. Telling.

[Anonymous]

I recall when I had just had #1 and I was in a playgroup with a bunch of other mothers with babies around the same age. I decided to stop attending when one women told us her 6 month old sat at the breakfast table pointing to words in the WSJ and Wapo for her to read aloud. That is so not my type of parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I certainly "bloomed" early as a kid. Had the biggest chest in my class in the 5th grade (not fun!) and then an extremely non-impressive chest from the 10th grade on (also not fun).

We have a winner. Next topic.