All Kids Are Gifted, a Sports Metaphor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we are talking about GT vs. not GT, 80% is not GT. I agree a 80% kid and a GT kid (the way it is measured now) are not significantly different.

[Anonymous]

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.

His parents were nice people. I can vouch for the fact that he had great teachers. He went to prestigious private school for college-not Ivy. He got along great with his peers in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But many tests are thought to be SES biased. Which is different than having two students start at the same starting line and see who crosses the finish line first.

Running tests are biased against children who have poor health care and untreated asthma...

And try outs to get on the basketball team, hockey team are SES biased too. Kids who can afford to play and go to fancy summer camps and skills clinics will do better, get more skills more quickly.

Face it, life is SES biased.

[Anonymous]

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.

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we are talking about GT vs. not GT, 80% is not GT. I agree a 80% kid and a GT kid (the way it is measured now) are not significantly different.

Look, relative to GT versus not GT, as though there were something magical that is supposed to happen, that's not how it works. It's a spectrum and a normal statistical distribution. It's not as though there is some extra mutant brain lobe that makes a kid G&T. There is a significant difference between a kid in the bottom 5% percentile versus a kid with 100 IQ. But the difference between a kid of 95 IQ versus a kid of 100 IQ versus a kid of 105 IQ will not be as readily evident or noticeable. But then there will also actually be a big difference between the kid of 100 IQ versus the kid who is in the top 5% percentile. Just as kids in the lowest percentile take longer to process information, have a smaller working memory, have more difficulty recognizing patterns, et cetera - in comparison to the average kid, the kids in the top percentile generally process faster, have a bigger working memory, et cetera. Only difference there is that people don't pay as much attention to it as they do with the bottom 5% because the top 5% tends to be more functional and self-sufficent, needing fewer supports than someone who is profoundly disabled. Meanwhile, you are also evidently ignoring the fact that many of the kids in that 80% bracket typically aren't exactly "average 100 IQ kids" either - more likely, they are 115, 120, et cetera. Maybe not G&T but not exactly average 95-105 IQ kids either.

It is a continuum, with kids falling in a generally Gaussian bell curve distribution along it, with most kids gravitating around 100 IQ and tapering off with less and less kids as you go toward either end. There isn't some magic line which, upon crossing it, suddenly turns kids into Doogie Howser (as has repeatedly been suggested here as well).

[Anonymous]

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.

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

Didn't say it came from the Ivy. This was the main one: National Merit Scholarship -> http://www.nationalmerit.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But many tests are thought to be SES biased. Which is different than having two students start at the same starting line and see who crosses the finish line first.

Running tests are biased against children who have poor health care and untreated asthma...

And try outs to get on the basketball team, hockey team are SES biased too. Kids who can afford to play and go to fancy summer camps and skills clinics will do better, get more skills more quickly.

Face it, life is SES biased.

While it's true there can be advantageous and detrimental environmental effects, it's not the be all and end all to IQ. There are many privileged rich kids who only test out to have below-average IQ. There are also folks like Bill Cosby who came from public housing yet he has high IQ and was in a G&T program. So, the contrary may be shown.

[Anonymous]

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

There are tons of academic scholarships that don't come from the colleges. I suggest you do a little more research outside Harvard's website.

[Anonymous]

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.

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

Didn't say it came from the Ivy. This was the main one: National Merit Scholarship -> http://www.nationalmerit.org/

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation does not itself give out full scholarships. Some businesses do give them to children of family members, but that's just a lucky shot that you happen to have a parent that works for one of those companies. I was a National Merit Scholar myself and I have been through the process with my kids, so I am very familiar with the program. Many corporations offer scholarships of under $5000/year renewable for four years; the numbers that offer full ride scholarships are much lower. A number of large state universities offer full ride scholarships as noted above in hopes of increasing the average scores of their entering freshman class. Getting Finalist scores on the PSAT is great, but it does not necessarily mean a full scholarship to a top university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

There are tons of academic scholarships that don't come from the colleges. I suggest you do a little more research outside Harvard's website.

There really are not tons of non-college provided academic scholarships out there. Most of the ones that do exist are for fairly small awards, i.e., $1000 or less. The number of outside full scholarships is low and each one receives "tons" of applications, most of which will cite extremely high test scores. Your best bets for merit aid based on test scores are colleges where the average accepted scores are much lower than your own, so a school that would be a safety in terms of acceptance. UAlabama and UOklahoma are two of the best known examples of schools that offer full ride scholarships to National Merit Finalists.

[Anonymous]

This was mid-'80s and the aforementioned individual most certainly did get enough scholarship money for an Ivy, he's one of my best friends - his parents are of modest means and certainly couldn't afford it. He then went on to get dual degrees, a masters, PhD and postdoctoral work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, an individual with profound intellectual disabilities has an IQ under 20, putting them in the .00005th %ile,

an individual with severe intellectual disabilities has an IQ between 20 and 35, putting then in the .0007th %ile.

An IQ at the 4th %ile puts someone around a 73 or 74, and does not qualify them as having an intellectual disability. Some people with IQ's in this range also have disabilities, probably a higher percentage of people with IQs in that range have disabilities, because there are some disabilities, such as language disabilities, that can depress test scores. But there are also people with IQ's in that range who do not qualify for any special education services.

[Anonymous]

There really are not tons of non-college provided academic scholarships out there. Most of the ones that do exist are for fairly small awards, i.e., $1000 or less. The number of outside full scholarships is low and each one receives "tons" of applications, most of which will cite extremely high test scores. Your best bets for merit aid based on test scores are colleges where the average accepted scores are much lower than your own, so a school that would be a safety in terms of acceptance. UAlabama and UOklahoma are two of the best known examples of schools that offer full ride scholarships to National Merit Finalists.

There is more money than you think if you are willing to research it and write essays for organizations that give them. It does take research and effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No we are talking about GT vs. not GT, 80% is not GT. I agree a 80% kid and a GT kid (the way it is measured now) are not significantly different.

Look, relative to GT versus not GT, as though there were something magical that is supposed to happen, that's not how it works. It's a spectrum and a normal statistical distribution. It's not as though there is some extra mutant brain lobe that makes a kid G&T. There is a significant difference between a kid in the bottom 5% percentile versus a kid with 100 IQ. But the difference between a kid of 95 IQ versus a kid of 100 IQ versus a kid of 105 IQ will not be as readily evident or noticeable. But then there will also actually be a big difference between the kid of 100 IQ versus the kid who is in the top 5% percentile. Just as kids in the lowest percentile take longer to process information, have a smaller working memory, have more difficulty recognizing patterns, et cetera - in comparison to the average kid, the kids in the top percentile generally process faster, have a bigger working memory, et cetera. Only difference there is that people don't pay as much attention to it as they do with the bottom 5% because the top 5% tends to be more functional and self-sufficent, needing fewer supports than someone who is profoundly disabled. Meanwhile, you are also evidently ignoring the fact that many of the kids in that 80% bracket typically aren't exactly "average 100 IQ kids" either - more likely, they are 115, 120, et cetera. Maybe not G&T but not exactly average 95-105 IQ kids either.

It is a continuum, with kids falling in a generally Gaussian bell curve distribution along it, with most kids gravitating around 100 IQ and tapering off with less and less kids as you go toward either end. There isn't some magic line which, upon crossing it, suddenly turns kids into Doogie Howser (as has repeatedly been suggested here as well).

I am agreeing with you, not sure why you continue to argue your point. The relationship to iQ and success only works up to a point. Once you have a basic IQ (not Gt) everything above that does not equate to being more successful.

[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.

The Ivies do not give merit scholarships, they only give need-based financial aid. So, yes, it is entirely possible to get tuition at an Ivy paid for if the family demonstrates enough need, but not exclusively for high PSAT scores. There are a number of universities that are not part of the Ivy League that give full ride merit scholarships (tuition +room and board + other expenses) based solely on PSAT scores that equate to Finalist status, most notably University of Alabama and University of Oklahoma.
So, while being a fantastic student will help you to get into an Ivy, it will not get you a scholarship to an Ivy. Your family must be able to show low enough income and equity to be awarded need-based aid to and Ivy.

Didn't say it came from the Ivy. This was the main one: National Merit Scholarship -> http://www.nationalmerit.org/

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation does not itself give out full scholarships. Some businesses do give them to children of family members, but that's just a lucky shot that you happen to have a parent that works for one of those companies. I was a National Merit Scholar myself and I have been through the process with my kids, so I am very familiar with the program. Many corporations offer scholarships of under $5000/year renewable for four years; the numbers that offer full ride scholarships are much lower. A number of large state universities offer full ride scholarships as noted above in hopes of increasing the average scores of their entering freshman class. Getting Finalist scores on the PSAT is great, but it does not necessarily mean a full scholarship to a top university.

I know many nation merit scholars and they all went to school for free. Yes, it may come from many sources, and yes the Ivy's know what these sources are and yes they direct their applicants to these sources. It's semantics at this point... But people go to Ivy's on full scholarships they are just not managed by the ivy. But it is all smoke an mirrors, so Ivy's can say they don't give scholarships.