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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

How old is your data?
Your info sounds dated.
Like 1990's?

[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.

In this instance, your misuse of the word invariably aligns with your ostensibly ironic use of the phrase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

How old is your data?
Your info sounds dated.
Like 1990's?

My data is potentially biased by region: JHU’s CTY talent search is only one of many such programs based on the “Talent Search Model” we developed under the guidance of Dr. Stanley:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734282911433946?download=true&journalCode=jpaa#:~:text=Abstract,an%20above%2Dlevel%20testing%20program.

As a regional talent search based in the mid Atlantic and extending into New England, our pool likely included a higher percentage of Jewish students than other regions.

It is also somewhat dated. But it still demonstrates race is NOT the influential factor in academic development.

Culture determines the likelihood of higher academic achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

How old is your data?
Your info sounds dated.
Like 1990's?

My data is potentially biased by region: JHU’s CTY talent search is only one of many such programs based on the “Talent Search Model” we developed under the guidance of Dr. Stanley:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734282911433946?download=true&journalCode=jpaa#:~:text=Abstract,an%20above%2Dlevel%20testing%20program.

As a regional talent search based in the mid Atlantic and extending into New England, our pool likely included a higher percentage of Jewish students than other regions.

It is also somewhat dated. But it still demonstrates race is NOT the influential factor in academic development.

Culture determines the likelihood of higher academic achievement.

I think a more recent study would show a shift.
It seems like concentration of academic talent in jewish populations becomes less as the jewish population becomes less immigrant and less "jewish"
I look at the children of wealthy jews in places like livingingston, NJ and they do not seem as academically talented as their parents and grandparents.

But al this is consistent with the notion that culture plays a realy big role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

How old is your data?
Your info sounds dated.
Like 1990's?

My data is potentially biased by region: JHU’s CTY talent search is only one of many such programs based on the “Talent Search Model” we developed under the guidance of Dr. Stanley:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734282911433946?download=true&journalCode=jpaa#:~:text=Abstract,an%20above%2Dlevel%20testing%20program.

As a regional talent search based in the mid Atlantic and extending into New England, our pool likely included a higher percentage of Jewish students than other regions.

It is also somewhat dated. But it still demonstrates race is NOT the influential factor in academic development.

Culture determines the likelihood of higher academic achievement.

The problem with CTY is that in recent years, it's programs have turned into a bit of a money grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

How old is your data?
Your info sounds dated.
Like 1990's?

My data is potentially biased by region: JHU’s CTY talent search is only one of many such programs based on the “Talent Search Model” we developed under the guidance of Dr. Stanley:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734282911433946?download=true&journalCode=jpaa#:~:text=Abstract,an%20above%2Dlevel%20testing%20program.

As a regional talent search based in the mid Atlantic and extending into New England, our pool likely included a higher percentage of Jewish students than other regions.

It is also somewhat dated. But it still demonstrates race is NOT the influential factor in academic development.

Culture determines the likelihood of higher academic achievement.

The problem with CTY is that in recent years, it's programs have turned into a bit of a money grab.

the smart kids do AoPS now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which orifice did you pull this out of: “meritocracy isn’t real”?

[Anonymous]

Getting a middle class non-legacy kid admitted into top universities is like training an olympic athletes. Do you think tiger wood and le bron just rely on their natural born gifts and not have extra hours after hours of practice?