I'll give you one up. I am 99 % certain no amount of prep is going to make you an NBA player of football lineman. Afterall, you are less than 6 ft 2 inches tall and are female. There are biological constraints for the average female related to hormones (testosterone, growth hormone, estrogen, progesterone levels and the like) making your desire and uphill battle. But, the average male will have a much better chance.

... and I could not be a gymnast due to size!

The thing is the natural athletes with the desire to exceed will exceed at their chosen sport. How else can you explain the athletes that devote most of their energy to one sport, but can also play a second sport at a high level....Bo Jackson comes to mind.

Many older athletes played 3 sports (one for each school term) before the days of year round athletics and club sports.
Did you know Bo Jackson played at least 2 sports throughout high school? This feat is not unusual if you have ever played interscholastic sports at the high school and collegiate levels. Many do. Nothing unusual here but he is a great athlete (check Danny Ainge and Michael Jordan who played professional baseball and basketball)

As an adult do you prep for evaluations and tasks at work (if you work)? If so, why shouldn't children (soon to be adults) prep for their tasks ("tests") in school? What's unique about childhood that makes prepping bad but ok when the child is an adult?

....Similarly, there are people that are just smarted than other people. Training and prep can make the test scores look as good, and the evaluations look comparable. However, in the end, they will not be the intellectual leaders of society....they will not be the Albert Einsteins, the Steve Jobs (or Wozniak).

Do you have a problem with kids simply trying to do their best with their best performance on any given "test" day?

Not everyone desires, or has the capablity of being the next Jobs or Einstein; but many aim for a modest and plebian goal of their best performance. There's nothing wrong with this so kids will prep on to attain this goal.

PP: I am 95% certain you are incorrect. You take the best athletes, and they will excel at the sport they are prepped for. I can assure you no amount of prep is going to make me an NBA player. No amount of prep is going to make me an NFL player. The thing is the natural athletes with the desire to exceed will exceed at their chosen sport. How else can you explain the athletes that devote most of their energy to one sport, but can also play a second sport at a high level....Bo Jackson comes to mind.

Similarly, there are people that are just smarted than other people. Training and prep can make the test scores look as good, and the evaluations look comparable. However, in the end, they will not be the intellectual leaders of society....they will not be the Albert Einsteins, the Steve Jobs (or Wozniak).

I'll give you one up. I am 99 % certain no amount of prep is going to make you an NBA player of football lineman. Afterall, you are less than 6 ft 2 inches tall and are female. There are biological constraints for the average female related to hormones (testosterone, growth hormone, estrogen, progesterone levels and the like) making your desire and uphill battle. But, the average male will have a much better chance.

The bottom line: your raw gifts or potential (physical and intellectual) at conception, in the womb, then 9 months later at birth, then 12 years later after K thru 12 and entering College are very plastic and malleable. They are affected significantly by the environment. The intrauterine environment before birth (mother's nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, physical buse of the mother, mother's health condition during her pregnancy) can influence a child's potential/gifts (physical, intellectual and creative). Even after birth, the neonate and child's environment can significantly affect the gifts and potential: lead and other chemical exposure and poisoning during early maturity, poor nutrition, disease and chronic ailments, physical and drug abuse in the child, lack of stimulation (light, touch, feel, hearing, sight, speech, smells) will affect early development of tissues, organs and systems in the child. Furthermore, in the early childhood years the lack of a nurturing environment for the young, the absence of reading, writing, problem solving and critical thinking exercises (in addition to proper nutrition and exercise) will all affect a child's potential and gifts (physical, creative, and intellectual). Any child facing these environmental elements will have a tough time scoring 99.9% on the WPSSI, wining the Nobel Prize in Physics or becoming the NFL player of the year if faced with such an uphill and inclement environment at the moment of conception. There's a hell of alot of gene modification going on in that zygote due to a hellish environment after conception...both in and out of the womb.

How in the hell then is "raw" intelligence fixed? What is "raw" intelligence? When does it appear when the brain is constantly maturing and changing in the womb and during childhood and adolescence (and these changes are affected by environment)? When does it become fixed (at conception, in the 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, or 3rd trimester)? Or does it become fixed in pre-K? Perhaps 1 week before a 5 year-old sits for the WISC? Perhaps God has the answer, or the auswer lies one of the various and sundry man written biblical texts?

Some one on these boards claimed raw intelligence (whatever that means) is measured by a test? What test? When do you administer this test? At conception, in utero, pre-K? Finally, does anyone actually believe raw intelligence (whatever that is and whenever you decide to measure it) is fixed and not plastic or malleable in a 5-year-old?

Preparation and prepping does affect the test score ... even from tests you all claim measure "raw" intelligence in 5 and 6 year-olds.

It matters not whether you use Aristotle, Princeton and Kaplan review; or home grown review with a steady diet of reading, writing, problem solving and critical thinking skills and tasks. Who really wants to quibble over when families start to prep their kids: 4 years, 2 years, 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days before or after the "test" (whenever or whatever that is) - continuous vs intermittent. What's all the fuss about human beings working and preparing in order for their best performance on or off the field. This is a good thing in my view.

The rest of the dialogue seems motivated by mankind's typical selfishness, envy and jealousy. Kids go ahead and prepare and/or prep... for your swim and lacrosse contests or your school tests. It's a great habit to develop early in your long lives.

PP: I am 95% certain you are incorrect. You take the best athletes, and they will excel at the sport they are prepped for. I can assure you no amount of prep is going to make me an NBA player. No amount of prep is going to make me an NFL player.

The thing is the natural athletes with the desire to exceed will exceed at their chosen sport. How else can you explain the athletes that devote most of their energy to one sport, but can also play a second sport at a high level....Bo Jackson comes to mind.

Similarly, there are people that are just smarted than other people. Training and prep can make the test scores look as good, and the evaluations look comparable. However, in the end, they will not be the intellectual leaders of society....they will not be the Albert Einsteins, the Steve Jobs (or Wozniak).

People are simply born with different bundles of gifts and abilities. There probably are ways of measuring this, but really, all you have to do is look around you. Look at professional athletes: do you think they play their sports professionally just because they worked hard? No, they were born gifted athletes, and then they worked hard. Hitting baseballs every day does not make a child into a major league baseball player. Having the raw ability and then hitting baseballs every day can make a professional ball player. A prima ballerina doesn't get there simply by working hard: she must first have the gift of gracefulness and musicality. You can't be an opera singer at the Met simply by working hard and studying opera: you must first have a beautiful voice.
Why should intelligence be any different? We all have different strengths in different areas that we were born with. Intelligence is one of many gifts we may be given and to be successful in any avenue, we certainly must work hard to reach our potential, but we are not all given the same amount of every gift.
It actually doesn't matter whether we can measure intelligence or not. Some people were smarter than others long before intelligence tests existed, and some people will continue to be smarter than others even if they never take an intelligence test. A long time ago, one caveperson picked up a stone and thought "Hmm, this would make a good tool." S/he was the smart one. And s/he never took an intelligence test.

How do you know athletes were born gifted before they choose their appointed task and worked hard. Do you have any data of evidence for this?

If you do not have swimming pools in your neighborhood or rivers and seas in your country there is no opportunity to swim and show those gifts?

If there are no books or computers in your land, therefore, all children are born stupid, dumb and lacking intelligence?

The best basketball athletes in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s in the US were White. They were therefore born gifted. Blacks doing this period could not play basketball at these high levels. They were not gifted basketball players. However, when these people were then allowed and permitted to play basketball ... these gifts appeared in their children from birth?

The Fins have a reputation for a legacy of superb javelin throwing in their culture and land. They were born gifted. No one else likes throwing the javelin and therefore lack the throwing gifts endowed to the Fins?

I could go on ad nauseum. The bottom line, if you can put the average individual born anywhere in the world (rural villages and urban cities) and put them in the right environment with the right exposure these individuals too can become gifted at whatever task you choose -- intellectual, creative, physical. There are examples of this throughout history and all over the world.

Raw intelligence can be characterized by tests like the WISC the first time the WISC is taken. Perhaps, as we learn more about the brain, an MRI will tell about raw intelligence.

The way I look at it is true genius is the outside the box thinkers. That is, the people that look at a problem another way. Albert Einstein though about what it would be like to travel on a light wave. That was a revolutionary though pattern.

I guess we are now back to test scores as a measure and the instrument of "raw" intelligence. Unfortunately, preparation can raise test scores. This can be test prep or continuous prep with longstandi extensive reading, writing and problem solving. "Raw" intelligence is therefore malleable and plastic if you are using test scores (e.g., WISC) to measure it? I remind you, if you read the literature and science in the 1970s about the aptitude SAT test the experts told us that this aptitude test was a measure of raw intelligence and you could not improve your test scores with preparation. Are you willing to put skin in the game and claim the same lack of malleability and plasticity for the WISC?

Preparation for all tests can affect the test score even if you choose to fly under the raider of cheating by reading, writing and doing problem solving and critical thinking well before the test date. This to a large degree explains why high SES begets higher scores. I wonder how kids in Papua New Guinea, rural Asia and Africa, New Zealand, Russia would perform on the WISC? Conversely, I wonder how Americans would perform on their instruments of "raw" intelligence?

Perhaps "raw intelligence" is simply confined to the American speaking people of the globe since they likely will perform the highest on the WISC even if they don't think outside the box.

I would think that parents who prep their kids (specifically for the NNAT and CoGAT, not for 'life' or to be 'Einsteins'.... this thread seems to have gone off the deep end, but I digress) do so because they truly believe that their DCs would thrive in an AAP environment.

Parents 1) know their children better than the screening committee ever can by looking at a file 2) know that the FCPS AAP Centers are not geared only for the profoundly gifted, but serve kids who simply need a more advanced curriculum than what is offered at the base school.

No one is trying to transform their average child into a genius by prepping. Its parents of very smart kids who want them to get their best shot at maximizing their academic potential. Not necessarily to go Ivy League, be a millionaire, transform the world, fill in the blank with all the extremes- but just to do what's best for them right now.

And no, "very smart" does not always result in a 98 percentile + test score. Its one day, one test, whereas parents have been watching Jr's every move since birth.

I can't imagine that parents with children who are struggling to keep up with grade level instruction are doing whatever they can to get their kids into AAP....but rather are working to secure tutoring or pitching in with extra help at home. All I'm saying is - parents know their kids best and every good parent is doing what they believe in the best interest of their own DC.

People are simply born with different bundles of gifts and abilities. There probably are ways of measuring this, but really, all you have to do is look around you. Look at professional athletes: do you think they play their sports professionally just because they worked hard? No, they were born gifted athletes, and then they worked hard. Hitting baseballs every day does not make a child into a major league baseball player. Having the raw ability and then hitting baseballs every day can make a professional ball player. A prima ballerina doesn't get there simply by working hard: she must first have the gift of gracefulness and musicality. You can't be an opera singer at the Met simply by working hard and studying opera: you must first have a beautiful voice.
Why should intelligence be any different? We all have different strengths in different areas that we were born with. Intelligence is one of many gifts we may be given and to be successful in any avenue, we certainly must work hard to reach our potential, but we are not all given the same amount of every gift.
It actually doesn't matter whether we can measure intelligence or not. Some people were smarter than others long before intelligence tests existed, and some people will continue to be smarter than others even if they never take an intelligence test. A long time ago, one caveperson picked up a stone and thought "Hmm, this would make a good tool." S/he was the smart one. And s/he never took an intelligence test.

Raw intelligence can be characterized by tests like the WISC the first time the WISC is taken. Perhaps, as we learn more about the brain, an MRI will tell about raw intelligence.

The way I look at it is true genius is the outside the box thinkers. That is, the people that look at a problem another way. Albert Einstein though about what it would be like to travel on a light wave. That was a revolutionary though pattern.

You can teach a child how to get a high score on a particular test (that is written to be given to young children who have not been exposed frequently to that particular test), but that kind of test prep does not change the child's raw intelligence.

Is this conjecture or do you have data to confirm this. Show any evidence to prove this point.

To do the experiment you would have to define raw intelligence and have an instrument to measure it. Then you can test your hypothesis but designing an experiment with a test preparation and a no test preparation control group. Otherwise your assertion is just conjecture.

Actually, raw intelligence has nothing to do with a test score. It has to do with how quickly one learns, one's capability for deep learning, one's ability to be creative and to take multiple ideas and come up with something totally new and different. It is the capabilities one is simply born with. Yes, hard work is necessary to fulfill the possibilities of great inborn ability, but hard work cannot make up for or change in born capability.
People are discussing two different things on this thread. One is whether people should work hard in life and do their best at whatever they do- well, of course they should! The other is whether people should teach young children specific techniques to help them do better on specific types of tests, a very different proposition from just working hard and doing one's best in whatever one sets one hand to.

You can teach a child how to get a high score on a particular test (that is written to be given to young children who have not been exposed frequently to that particular test), but that kind of test prep does not change the child's raw intelligence.

You have admitted a test score has nothing to do with raw intelligence. You have given us your definition of raw intelligence. I do not agree with it but this is irrelevant; how do you measure "raw intelligence"?

On the other hand, we all know that test scores , and not "raw intelligence", are used for entry into pre-K, K, Big 3, Ivy, and medical school. I suspect people on this Board are more concerned about test scores. Preparation will increase test scores whether continuous for life, or intermittent, before the "test", "quiz", "exam" or "fun exercise". We all have our separtate strategies using one or both strategies at various points during the educational journey. I generally agree those kids who develop a life long habit of extensive reading, writing, and problem solving are the best prepped! Where does cheating and ethics come in?

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, you are so right about "prep[ing] by enrichment." Unfortunately, that is not what most parents mean when they inquire about where to find test prep materials. Enrichment will enhance any child's life no matter how smart s/he is. Prepping for a test will simply enable a child to do better on tests but will have no effect on that child's true level of intelligence.

I guess there is no such thing as raw intelligence since "level" of intelligence is a reflection of prepping for enrichment. Sounds like raw intelligence is an achievement test based on exposure, past experiences and what one has learned.

Raw intelligence is then the score you get on test day?

Kids go on and prep. You'll be better off. I'll take it anyway you can do it ...continuous or intermittent. Of course, like exercise continuous is better. But exercise or prep when you can. It's better than doing nothing in my opinion.

Actually, raw intelligence has nothing to do with a test score. It has to do with how quickly one learns, one's capability for deep learning, one's ability to be creative and to take multiple ideas and come up with something totally new and different. It is the capabilities one is simply born with. Yes, hard work is necessary to fulfill the possibilities of great inborn ability, but hard work cannot make up for or change in born capability.

People are discussing two different things on this thread. One is whether people should work hard in life and do their best at whatever they do- well, of course they should! The other is whether people should teach young children specific techniques to help them do better on specific types of tests, a very different proposition from just working hard and doing one's best in whatever one sets one hand to.

You can teach a child how to get a high score on a particular test (that is written to be given to young children who have not been exposed frequently to that particular test), but that kind of test prep does not change the child's raw intelligence.