All Kids Are Gifted, a Sports Metaphor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

Can you point to the study where you got your numbers? The fact is the kids that graduate top of their class are not the most successful kids in life/business/etcetera. They are the ones who continue to get more degrees and better grades, but are more likely to be an employee, not an employer.

Statistically, a dyslexic kid is more likely to own a business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

You're assuming it's binary. Either you're gifted (yay, you!), or you're non-gifted (pfft). It doesn't work that way.

No, it's quantifiable and it's on a spectrum. I never assumed or said anything about binary. But that doesn't change how the statistics typically work out. The kids on the gifted end of the spectrum with IQ scores at the upper end of the percentiles are extremely likely to be on the honor roll, to go on to college, to have successful careers than their many of their peers will. Is a kid at the 96th percentile significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid on the 93rd percentile? Probably statistically insignificant (maybe the kid at the 93rd just had a bad day) - and maybe not on many levels. Is there a magic threshold to make it "binary"? I certainly don't think so. But that kid at the 96th percentile WILL be significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid at the 50th percentile. And meanwhile, the kid at the far bottom of the scale is definitely distinguishable from the kid at the 50th and is probably in a special needs program. We recognize the difference between the kid at the 4th percentile versus the 50th percentile but the difference between the kid at the 50th percentile and the kid at the 96th percentile is equally as big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

Can you point to the study where you got your numbers? The fact is the kids that graduate top of their class are not the most successful kids in life/business/etcetera. They are the ones who continue to get more degrees and better grades, but are more likely to be an employee, not an employer.

Statistically, a dyslexic kid is more likely to own a business.

That is often due to other issues with the employment picture and also doesn't always equate to success. A huge number of businesses fail.

You also seem to be assuming that developmental issues like dyslexia are somehow mutually exclusive from giftedness, when that is not at all the case. In fact, many high-IQ people have developmental issues such as autism spectrum disorder, like Aspergers. Bill Gates for example, who dropped out of college. Or, Isaac Newton, Michaelangelo, Mozart, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Henry Cavendish, Emily Dickinson, James Joyce... For some it does equate to high performance in academics, for others, the issues create a problem where it comes to academics or other areas, however they typically find successes elsewhere at a very high rate.

I really don't think you understand giftedness or how it works at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that no kids are above average and that G&T kids are actually just mediocre is simply ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Luckily nobody is saying that.

Um, yes they are - one example of that as has repeatedly been suggested and implied at various points throughout this thread:

Anonymous wrote:Your problem is that you are confusing GT with good average kids. That is what the current pushy parents have created.

[Anonymous]

parents are parents they are no more or less pushy than generations ago

[Anonymous]

Well, if the gifted kids in your high school had been better supported by the school and community (like the athletes, I presume), maybe they would have excelled at a much greater rate.

Hostile, much? One of my high school classmates played in a couple of Super Bowls. For the record, he was a decent student and a hard worker. Also, exceeding popular. But, no special priviledges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that no kids are above average and that G&T kids are actually just mediocre is simply ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Luckily nobody is saying that.

Um, yes they are - one example of that as has repeatedly been suggested and implied at various points throughout this thread:

Anonymous wrote:Your problem is that you are confusing GT with good average kids. That is what the current pushy parents have created.

This doesn't say that there is no such thing as GT kids. This says that GT kids are not the same as good average kids.

[Anonymous]

Graduated back in the day before GT classes. Valedictorian of my high school class was probably GT. He is a leading AIDS researcher. He did it without being in GT classes. Who knew?

[Anonymous]

^ The suggestion has been that pushy parents of average kids are trying to get their average kids into G&T programs and therefore, that would mean that G&T programs aren't actually composed of G&T kids - that they are just full of average kids who have pushy parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Graduated back in the day before GT classes. Valedictorian of my high school class was probably GT. He is a leading AIDS researcher. He did it without being in GT classes. Who knew?

Good that he was able to do that in spite of not having G&T supports - but G&T probably could have gotten him jumpstarted and even farther along if he did have those supports. I'd wager he probably came from a good environment to help provide supports where the school system failed to provide them. Look, it's not as though G&T students are not going to be bright if they don't get G&T support - but G&T support can help guide, direct and mentor them and open them up to new ideas and opportunities to help more fully develop and maximize their potential. There's probably also kids from the ghetto with high IQ who never end up amounting to much because they never had any help, and that's a shame and a waste.

[Anonymous]

Actually, schools do not differentiate the kid in the 30% from the kid in the 80%.

Also, it is shown there is a sweet spot for intelligence. The top being not so great but being right below that and having other intelligences like having a High EIQ being more valuable.

Still you continuously equate school success with life success and they are not related. A B student is not less likely to be successful than an A+ student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

You're assuming it's binary. Either you're gifted (yay, you!), or you're non-gifted (pfft). It doesn't work that way.

No, it's quantifiable and it's on a spectrum. I never assumed or said anything about binary. But that doesn't change how the statistics typically work out. The kids on the gifted end of the spectrum with IQ scores at the upper end of the percentiles are extremely likely to be on the honor roll, to go on to college, to have successful careers than their many of their peers will. Is a kid at the 96th percentile significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid on the 93rd percentile? Probably statistically insignificant (maybe the kid at the 93rd just had a bad day) - and maybe not on many levels. Is there a magic threshold to make it "binary"? I certainly don't think so. But that kid at the 96th percentile WILL be significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid at the 50th percentile. And meanwhile, the kid at the far bottom of the scale is definitely distinguishable from the kid at the 50th and is probably in a special needs program. We recognize the difference between the kid at the 4th percentile versus the 50th percentile but the difference between the kid at the 50th percentile and the kid at the 96th percentile is equally as big.

[Anonymous]

So I would take that as a no you don't have a study to back the numbers you made up.

Yes. I understand giftedness and 2E, and disabled kids, and general ed kids, which you seems to totally not understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

Can you point to the study where you got your numbers? The fact is the kids that graduate top of their class are not the most successful kids in life/business/etcetera. They are the ones who continue to get more degrees and better grades, but are more likely to be an employee, not an employer.

Statistically, a dyslexic kid is more likely to own a business.

That is often due to other issues with the employment picture and also doesn't always equate to success. A huge number of businesses fail.

You also seem to be assuming that developmental issues like dyslexia are somehow mutually exclusive from giftedness, when that is not at all the case. In fact, many high-IQ people have developmental issues such as autism spectrum disorder, like Aspergers. Bill Gates for example, who dropped out of college. Or, Isaac Newton, Michaelangelo, Mozart, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Henry Cavendish, Emily Dickinson, James Joyce... For some it does equate to high performance in academics, for others, the issues create a problem where it comes to academics or other areas, however they typically find successes elsewhere at a very high rate.

I really don't think you understand giftedness or how it works at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Typically they do end up in the top percent not just by IQ but in grades and elsewhere as well. My experience has been that the kids that were in G&T were also valedictorian, et cetera - otherwise generally top in their classes and most got scholarships for college. One for example was also in the top 0.5% nationally on the PSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to an Ivy.

I'll put my anecdotes against yours: A lot of the "non-gifted" kids in my high school class have done as well or better in their careers than the "gifted" kids.

Let's run through your scenario and look at some example numbers to delve into what the statistics would more typically look like and why your anecdotal information isn't really all that relevant - You are perfectly free to talk about the 10 non-gifted kids who went on to get their Ph.D., the 20 who ended up running a big successful business, et cetera, as compared to the 7 gifted kids who got their Ph.D. and the 12 who ended up running a big successful business but consider that maybe it's a class size of 600 where you are comparing the non-gifted population (97%, or 582 kids) where 10 out of 582 (or 1.7%) got Ph.Ds. and 20 out of 582 (or 3.4%) ended up running a big successful business as compared to the gifted population (3%, or just 18 kids) where 7 out of 18 (or 38%) got a Ph.D. and where 12 out of 18 (or 66%) ended up running a big successful business.

You're assuming it's binary. Either you're gifted (yay, you!), or you're non-gifted (pfft). It doesn't work that way.

No, it's quantifiable and it's on a spectrum. I never assumed or said anything about binary. But that doesn't change how the statistics typically work out. The kids on the gifted end of the spectrum with IQ scores at the upper end of the percentiles are extremely likely to be on the honor roll, to go on to college, to have successful careers than their many of their peers will. Is a kid at the 96th percentile significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid on the 93rd percentile? Probably statistically insignificant (maybe the kid at the 93rd just had a bad day) - and maybe not on many levels. Is there a magic threshold to make it "binary"? I certainly don't think so. But that kid at the 96th percentile WILL be significantly distinguishable as compared to a kid at the 50th percentile. And meanwhile, the kid at the far bottom of the scale is definitely distinguishable from the kid at the 50th and is probably in a special needs program. We recognize the difference between the kid at the 4th percentile versus the 50th percentile but the difference between the kid at the 50th percentile and the kid at the 96th percentile is equally as big.

A student at the 4th percentile doesn't get special education on the basis of their IQ. Some students at that level have disabilities, of course, just like some students with IQs at the 96th %ile, have disabilities, but the 4th %ile by itself does not qualify a child for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A student at the 4th percentile doesn't get special education on the basis of their IQ. Some students at that level have disabilities, of course, just like some students with IQs at the 96th %ile, have disabilities, but the 4th %ile by itself does not qualify a child for anything.

You're confusing the cause and effect. Lots of kids have disabilities. But severe and profound disabilities are likely to be what puts a kid in the 4th percentile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, schools do not differentiate the kid in the 30% from the kid in the 80%.

Also, it is shown there is a sweet spot for intelligence. The top being not so great but being right below that and having other intelligences like having a High EIQ being more valuable.

Still you continuously equate school success with life success and they are not related. A B student is not less likely to be successful than an A+ student.

You're comparing high 90% with high 80% which isn't really that statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. A B student isn't average, he's above average. I thought we were talking about comparing the high-performing kids to the average kids, but you seem to be sliding away from that.

Compared to the kid who gets a lot of C's and D's the kid with a high B average is likely to do better, and will be more likely to go to college. But the kid with the high B average also would be less likely to be the one to get a full scholarship or admission to one of the better schools than the one with more A's.