Reply to All Kids Are Gifted, a Sports Metaphor

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "All Kids Are Gifted, a Sports Metaphor"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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).[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics