
In some ways it’s less about the education and more about the networking opportunities at these elite universities. Getting ahead is often less about what you know and more about who you know. Harvard wouldn’t quite be Harvard if it didn’t have “affirmative action” for rich and influential people. |
This might be my favorite response I’ve ever seen on this site. bravo, friend. |
There's a huge overlap between the prep crowd and the try-hards. Many are just average kids who got in because the prep made it appear they were gifted on admissions but in reality they had to work 2X as hard to keep up with the truly gifted. I guess that's why I'm a fan of the new system even though its got its problems too. |
BINGO! |
But there’s nothing about the new admissions process that indicates it will find more gifted students. It’s mostly just wishful thinking. If anything the new process will mean fewer gifted students get in. The process broadens access. There’s nothing about it that selects for gifted kids. I also find it odd how people thumb their noses at hard workers. Why is “trying hard” looked down upon? If they want to work hard for their opportunities then let them. It’s their life. As long as they are meeting standards then who are we to judge? Or are we too cool to work hard? |
The admissions committee is not screening for giftedness. The process assumes that all students that meet the GPA/coursework criteria are eligible. |
The top kids at any school regardless of whether their area is rich or poor typically have similar potential. Sure, wealthy kids have had more opportunities to develop skills but at this young age that's not a deal breaker. Nothing against the strivers but I think they need to nurture talent especially at schools where kids may not have these amazing opportunities everyone at the wealthy schools seems to get. |
#fakenews |
FCPS says the exact opposite. That the evaluators are educators with special training and experience in identifying gifted students. |
Citation? |
In other words, you favor pork barrel politics over rewarding demonstrated achievement. |
Yes, I believe that proper training matters vastly more and intrinsic high IQ is neither necessary nor sufficient. I actually trained and taught students for math competitions in the past and I can tell you that many kids who are obviously naturally smart don't necessarily do well at all. They have to first be interested (i.e not pushed by parents who like you think their kid is naturally smart because they scored high on an IQ test and therefore are able to do anything), then on top of that they also have to be very motivated to work hard. Believe it or not, the old adage about 1% nature/99% nurture is much truer than what you seem to believe. You think the kids who do extremely well are 'genius' or whatever other word comes to your mind. Of course they're well functioning (they don't have learning issues), but really not that different from many other people. Where they really excel is in how they learn how to learn, how they self analyze when they make mistakes, how they iterate and seek help, how they ask lots of questions without being afraid or feeling dumb, how they enjoy thinking slowly and deeply about things until they feel they have a good understanding, and just how they love working very hard at this process and not give up when they don't initially succeed. Now not many kids in today's age can do this for a long time; if they did, they would become very skilled and you would be seeing 'geniuses' all over the place. |
Your reasoning is flawed and your anecdotal evidence such as photographic memory is just plain silly. The gifted kids at TJ work INCREDIBLY hard. If you don't believe it, just ask the top kids at TJ. They win math and science competitions because they spend hours everyday preparing. If you want further evidence, try finding the mathematical forums that they inhabit at all hours of the day and see the types of questions they spend time solving. In fact, most of these kids were interested in learning way before TJ and did it from a younger age; you perceive them as 'gifted' but they've been training since elementary school, what you call 'prepping'. What you mistakenly perceive as effortless actually required a ton of effort behind the scenes. In fact those kids will continue to in your words "burn the midnight oil" at places such as MIT just as they did at TJ, because they love learning; it's part of who they are. Frankly I don't think you have any real understanding (or appreciation!) of how the kids you deem as 'smart' systematically train to develop their range of skills. Again, a very common American misunderstanding that results in them being called 'gifted' and 'genius' -- labels which are frankly offensive to them because they sweep aside the amount of effort they had to put in to succeed at high levels. |
You just don’t understand what it’s like to be very, very intelligent. You honestly believe that it’s te “training” that makes kids smart because you simply haven’t been around kids who are naturally *extremely* intelligent. You don’t believe it exists because it doesn’t fit into your narrative that all you have to do is “train” a child the right way and they will love solving difficult math problems. |
Not at all just the opposite. Rewarding kids whose parents spent $10k prepping them for a test so they could appear less gifted than the top kids at their school isn't achievement. Being the top kid at a school of 1000 is worth noting. |