Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks 15:09. 13:30/16:28 posting again. To be fair, instead of just poking at your claim of bias, I should make my point clear.

I don't see how the tests are biased in any meaningful way. They attempt to measure the intelligence of students. They're certainly not perfect, and intelligence can obviously improve/degrade over time for various reasons. But they do serve as one measure of potential usefulness.

There is correlation with SES. I described a couple reasons why I think that's so, and there may be others.

But for the reasons I described, I see the correlation with SES as something that actually suggests the tests are accurate measures, and not an indicator of inaccuracy of "pseudo-intelligence."

Maybe what you're saying is that the cycle is self-perpetuating, and that high SES parents will continue to breed high-IQ kids, who become high SES parents, who breed more high-IQ kids, etc. If that's your point, then I agree. But I don't see any problem with high-SES parents (a) having kids, or (b) supporting those kids in maximizing their potential. IMO, the part of this particular problem that our society needs to address is ensuring that low-SES but high-IQ kids have access to programs that can maximize their potential too.

NP here: I wanted to address why the test are biased. I have seen the actual test (WPPSI and others) for young preschoolers and I can confidently say there are questions, especially in the vocabulary subtests (Picture Naming and Receptive Vocabulary) that children coming from high SES would score better or parents who actively talk to their children about their environment. For example, if a child has never seen a diamond engagement ring or bracelet or not told what it is, they would not be able to answer the question. Another example, a child is shown a picture of a glass jar and calls it a glass/cup instead of jar would score lower. If a parent doesn't distinguish between a rain coat or jacket, I could go on. Bottom line, the vocabulary subtest scores are highly influenced by enrichment in the child's environment, not solely "innate" ability. As for the other subtests, Block Design, Object Assembly you could make an argument for innate ability, however, this could also be influenced by environment. If a child has never played with puzzles or blocks, they would be at a disadvantage. Now, I would agree that the subtests could pick up on potential learning disabilities.

15:09 back again! This poster really has hit the nail on the head. So, I'm getting off easy and don't really have too much more to add.....other than, yes...the tests are written by white guys and that in and of itself is bound to produce a minute amount of bias for those who aren't either of those things.

socioeconomic status

OP here. What does SES mean?

Wow, I was a lower SES/high IQ kid in elementary school but moved cross-country and into the upper middle class by junior high. So I was spared the anti-college counseling.

Actually, come to think of it, I had high expectations in ES (wanted to go to Harvard and be the first woman justice on the Supreme Court -- damn you Sandra Day O'Connor!) and was generally encouraged by my small-town teachers. I wonder whether race made the difference. I'm white.

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I just don't agree. I've been working with lower achieving and special needs children for over 30 years and have been in all kinds of settings--rural, inner city, private, suburban. We're spending mind-boggling amounts of money (and I'm glad we are) trying to help the non-gifted low-SES children. While I do very much want them to succeed in school and enter the job market with the skills they need, we should not think that gifted students (both low and high-SES) will get it on their own. They deserve to have their skills and abilities nurtured. If anything, lower SES children who show potential and do well in school have to deal with some very difficult pressures--and even prejudices--from within their own communities.

I'm not sure what you think we agree or disagree on. I completely agree that non-gifted, low-SES children should get lots of support. Also, I completely agree that gifted low-SES children should get lots of support because they may face greater challenges (as a PP just pointed out, based on her own experience).

The argument I'm making is different. Let me try to restate it differently: if you make "giftedness" itself a criteria for allocating money, as somebody here argued, then you risk benefiting more high-SES children than low-SES gifted children. For all the reasons I and others have said: giftedness is correlated with an enriched, high-SES environment. We need to face the budget realities: it's a fact that the pot of education money is fairly fixed, because the tea-baggers aren't going to let Congress provide any more money for education. Therefore, from this limited pot of money, diverting money to gifted kids means that the education money is taken away from low-SES kids in order to benefit a group of gifted kids who are predominately (if not exclusively) high-SES.

I'm arguing the extreme here, just to get my point across. I actually think gifted kids should get support too, and an appropriate education that meets their needs.

But I have little patience for the melodramatic "it's a tragedy we don't support gifted kids" when supporting them means, in the current context of fixed budgets, that money gets taken away from low-SES kids of all IQ levels. I also agree with the poster who said that high IQ doesn't automatically translate to "tomorrow's future leaders" and, in fact, it's not clear what IQ tests measure.

20.49 refers to 20.47

By the way, I had a carbon copy experience in North Carolina in the 1960s following entering this country. I ignored the counselor who thought I was crazy with an occupational goal of pediatric neurosurgery. He recommended that the kids from his school work predominantly at the local petrol stations and he felt this would be satisfactory in my case (I was a 13 year-old with a father caught in a far away war). I knew what I wanted and politely asked him to send in the letters of reference (as requested by the schools I was applying to). He was a counselor for 498 other students and seriously could not fathom why I wanted to "get out of the beautiful South" and head North to greener intellectual pastures. The rest is history. My 5 younger sibs have similar harrowing stories to tell as they struggled to find their way and fortunately escaped to all go the top colleges and graduate schools and are leading successfull lives with their families. The advice we received in elementary, middle and high school was cloaked in preconceived notions of the educators and psychologists of the time.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks 15:09. 13:30/16:28 posting again. To be fair, instead of just poking at your claim of bias, I should make my point clear.

I don't see how the tests are biased in any meaningful way. They attempt to measure the intelligence of students. They're certainly not perfect, and intelligence can obviously improve/degrade over time for various reasons. But they do serve as one measure of potential usefulness.

There is correlation with SES. I described a couple reasons why I think that's so, and there may be others.

But for the reasons I described, I see the correlation with SES as something that actually suggests the tests are accurate measures, and not an indicator of inaccuracy of "pseudo-intelligence."

Maybe what you're saying is that the cycle is self-perpetuating, and that high SES parents will continue to breed high-IQ kids, who become high SES parents, who breed more high-IQ kids, etc. If that's your point, then I agree. But I don't see any problem with high-SES parents (a) having kids, or (b) supporting those kids in maximizing their potential. IMO, the part of this particular problem that our society needs to address is ensuring that low-SES but high-IQ kids have access to programs that can maximize their potential too.

NP here: I wanted to address why the test are biased. I have seen the actual test (WPPSI and others) for young preschoolers and I can confidently say there are questions, especially in the vocabulary subtests (Picture Naming and Receptive Vocabulary) that children coming from high SES would score better or parents who actively talk to their children about their environment. For example, if a child has never seen a diamond engagement ring or bracelet or not told what it is, they would not be able to answer the question. Another example, a child is shown a picture of a glass jar and calls it a glass/cup instead of jar would score lower. If a parent doesn't distinguish between a rain coat or jacket, I could go on. Bottom line, the vocabulary subtest scores are highly influenced by enrichment in the child's environment, not solely "innate" ability. As for the other subtests, Block Design, Object Assembly you could make an argument for innate ability, however, this could also be influenced by environment. If a child has never played with puzzles or blocks, they would be at a disadvantage. Now, I would agree that the subtests could pick up on potential learning disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3. As a consequence, I'm uneasy about statements like one PP made, to paraphrase, that "it's a tragedy that we don't support gifted kids with lots of federal/state money, because they are our future leaders.". This sounds a bit like creating an entitlement for kids who already come from privileged backgrounds (given that everybody seems to agree there is a connection between IQ, SES and enriched environments). Some of you step up to this problem by saying we need to help the gifted at all SES levels, ie at inner city schools. But if you're coming from a position that IQ is innate, then you can justify diverting money away from that low-SES kid who at age 8 measured average, when in fact what you're measuring is the impact of that kid's environment on him.

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but there are certainly low-SES kids who show intelligence at a very early age--isn't that innate? I don't think making that assumption equates to a justification of diverting money away from low-SES children. As much as I believe that we should be helping all children reach their potential, I think we should also be supporting gifted kids from all "walks of life."

Yes, certainly there are low-SES kids who show high intelligence. But the problem is that, because of less "enriched" environments, there will be fewer of these kids. In other words, a lot of the discussion here has been about how it's not necessarily "innate" as you say (with the appropriate caveats that research hasn't yet shown how much is innate vs. how much is susceptible to environment, or whether an enriched environment can produce a genius, etc.). And this leads to the conclusion that supporting gifted kids from "all walks of life" may mean that we are supporting a smaller percentage of low-SES kids and a higher percentage of high-SES kids.

Really, I just don't agree. I've been working with lower achieving and special needs children for over 30 years and have been in all kinds of settings--rural, inner city, private, suburban. We're spending mind-boggling amounts of money (and I'm glad we are) trying to help the non-gifted low-SES children. While I do very much want them to succeed in school and enter the job market with the skills they need, we should not think that gifted students (both low and high-SES) will get it on their own. They deserve to have their skills and abilities nurtured. If anything, lower SES children who show potential and do well in school have to deal with some very difficult pressures--and even prejudices--from within their own communities.

The above presumes the absence of important genetic defects and deficiencies (some of which ironically can be overcome)

This may be off-tangent, but I am a real live adult who was a very bright, low SES kid. We exist. In my early years of schooling, there was minimal differentiation, but most of my teachers tried to do what they could to keep me engaged in appropriate work. In retrospect, some of them had crazy ideas about what to do, but I understand they were trying to the best of their abilities/experience. One teacher really loathed me and expended an inordinate amount of time trying to make me miserable - but that was just one year, not a lifetime.

High school was the real challenge. Even though I was in the equivalent of AP classes and had been since middle school - with great grades - my guidance counselor could not get her mind around my going to college. In her mind, I just wasn't from a family that went to college. She would suggest vocational programs, all sorts of things, probably because my older siblings had gone to trade schools. (My parents supported my wish to go to college though they had no idea about how to help or counsel me.) I ignored the counselor's advice, went on to college, then to an Ivy for graduate school. She sticks in my craw more than any other experience. All I can think about are the kids who were not as singularly focused as me about going to college - those are children/adults I think about every day.

The human brain and the human body are quite plastic...so is intelligence, the soul, the heart and will power (in my opinion and experience). Training in any one of these domains makes a huge impact on outcome measures (in my opinion and experience). Lack of training also makes a huge impact on outcome measures.

But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?

This is another reason why I wonder whether IQ really measures what we want to measure. Once you start talking about leaders or scientific breakthroughs, I'm not at all sure that the success stories involve people with the highest IQs. I think that an approach that starts from looking at people who have actually accomplished the sorts of things we'd like to see more of and asking what makes them the kind of people they are/enabled them to achieve what they achieved is a more promising approach than positing innate intellectual capacity/talent and trying to test for it and then foster it in the kids who test highest.

Perhaps our attempts to capture intelligence (or "pseudo" intelligence) in a bottle is simply catching those individuals that score highly on the WPSSI and the SAT exam (on a particular day) and we are not really capturing intelligence only people who reach a certain score/bar on the WPSSI and SAT. I wonder how we define or categorise the epoch changing contributions to mankind and the species of average "WPPSI and SAT" performers (or those that do not meet our definition of intelligence). Maybe what we are calling intelligence afterall isn't really the intelligence we are striving to measure rather only a mechanism to get into various schools, colleges and clubs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3. As a consequence, I'm uneasy about statements like one PP made, to paraphrase, that "it's a tragedy that we don't support gifted kids with lots of federal/state money, because they are our future leaders.". This sounds a bit like creating an entitlement for kids who already come from privileged backgrounds (given that everybody seems to agree there is a connection between IQ, SES and enriched environments). Some of you step up to this problem by saying we need to help the gifted at all SES levels, ie at inner city schools. But if you're coming from a position that IQ is innate, then you can justify diverting money away from that low-SES kid who at age 8 measured average, when in fact what you're measuring is the impact of that kid's environment on him.

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but there are certainly low-SES kids who show intelligence at a very early age--isn't that innate? I don't think making that assumption equates to a justification of diverting money away from low-SES children. As much as I believe that we should be helping all children reach their potential, I think we should also be supporting gifted kids from all "walks of life."

Yes, certainly there are low-SES kids who show high intelligence. But the problem is that, because of less "enriched" environments, there will be fewer of these kids. In other words, a lot of the discussion here has been about how it's not necessarily "innate" as you say (with the appropriate caveats that research hasn't yet shown how much is innate vs. how much is susceptible to environment, or whether an enriched environment can produce a genius, etc.). And this leads to the conclusion that supporting gifted kids from "all walks of life" may mean that we are supporting a smaller percentage of low-SES kids and a higher percentage of high-SES kids.

Even a quick websearch indicates that the evidence isn't so straightforward.

I think it's analogous to the maze-bright and maze-dull rats. Impoverished environment depresses everybody's IQ and produces a very narrow spread, neutral environment gives the most play to genes/creates the widest variation, enriched environment raises everybody's IQ and, once again narrows the range.

Poor kids adopted into upper middle class households gain 10+ points in IQ according to some studies. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
and http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/intelligence/188/1.html for examples of such findings.

Th IQs of adopted children and their birth parents are strongly correlated. The correlation increases as the children age.

There is little correlation between the IQs of adoptive parents and their adopted children, and what correlation there is decreases as the children age.