Anonymous wrote:Is your child an actual prodigy (like Young Sheldon, doing Algebra in 1st grade) or works hard (gets high marks and gets things right with reading/study but no prodigal abilities)?

I recognize the former would be a shoe-in for AAP but how good of a chance does the hard worker have?

Neither. Both of mine are bright and understand things quickly. They have not had to work hard or study to do well in AAp, but they are also not prodigies.

AAP exists to justify parental expectations that their DC will get a top-notch education therefore be fast-tracked to TJHSST and/or a college deemed aspirational. Also, they don’t have to mix in with the average kids or poors. And, they are given school choice! How nice!

Initially AAP was rolled out to bolster declining enrollment. Some ES on the chopping block to close were magically transformed into GT Centers with students bused into the former neighborhood school. FCPS magic!

This whole thread is kind of pointless when everyone has wildly different definitions of genius. If you view genius as a prodigy or generational talent who will make significant contributions to their field, then no one in AAP is a genius.

DD was in AAP (teacher recommended we place her in AAP in 3rd grade). She is neither a genius nor a hard worker. As a matter of fact she was recently diagnosed with ADHD and struggles with executive functioning.

I think she is super smart (not genius level) and the work was easy for her back then. Now that she is in high school the stakes are higher and it takes more effort to do well academically. It’s a daily struggle to get her to “work hard.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

I'd also argue that although contest math participants are bright, more often than not, they are simply kids who work very hard to learn these problems. They are rarely, if ever, geniuses. Terrance Tao is one of the rare cases where a contest math kid went on to do significant work in the field.

Yes, and Tao was reading math books for hours on his own as a child, per his parents descriptions. Even more proof that interest/curiosity + significant amounts of time spent is a general recipe for success. The "genius" label is mostly an American invented excuse to label kids in a way that hides the reality of the situations.

DP. The idea of genius is a bit of an American idea. There are other cultures that believe that anyone and everyone can and should do. That works well for some but not others. Personally, I think some people are more academically-minded than others and that some people are geniuses at what they do, whether that's math or chess or golf tricks or whatever. It's usually a combination of aptitude/natural talent and desire/hard work. In children, I see no problem in fostering both, even and especially in the children where they don't both align.

Work harder. The AAP class is too big to include only geniuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

I'd also argue that although contest math participants are bright, more often than not, they are simply kids who work very hard to learn these problems. They are rarely, if ever, geniuses. Terrance Tao is one of the rare cases where a contest math kid went on to do significant work in the field.

Yes, and Tao was reading math books for hours on his own as a child, per his parents descriptions. Even more proof that interest/curiosity + significant amounts of time spent is a general recipe for success. The "genius" label is mostly an American invented excuse to label kids in a way that hides the reality of the situations.

You think if your kid did the same, the results would be similar?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

I'd also argue that although contest math participants are bright, more often than not, they are simply kids who work very hard to learn these problems. They are rarely, if ever, geniuses. Terrance Tao is one of the rare cases where a contest math kid went on to do significant work in the field.

Yes, and Tao was reading math books for hours on his own as a child, per his parents descriptions. Even more proof that interest/curiosity + significant amounts of time spent is a general recipe for success. The "genius" label is mostly an American invented excuse to label kids in a way that hides the reality of the situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax hasn't produced the next Terence Tao, so no there aren't any geniuses or prodigies here. And if there were, it obviously wouldn't be because of AAP. Prodigues are doing university math in early ES way before FCPS has a chance to get involved.

Terrance Tao should not be the lower limit of genius here. Math wise, we should be looking at how many MOPS or IMO participants there are. I think FCPS sends one very couple of years. So I think FCPS does have its fair share of (math) geniuses

I'd also argue that although contest math participants are bright, more often than not, they are simply kids who work very hard to learn these problems. They are rarely, if ever, geniuses. Terrance Tao is one of the rare cases where a contest math kid went on to do significant work in the field.

My 140iq (wisc) son is neither. He's great with patterns (math, chess, cubing etc) and is a fast learner but I wouldn't say he's a prodigy. There's a wide range of kids between prodigies and hard workers.