Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

This is spot on. We have a cultural problem when it is more important to prove that you have the skill than it is to have the skill. This is why standardized exams are deeply problematic - because in many cases they test only for the raw skill rather than the ability to leverage the skill towards the greater good.

Society *usually* does not reward people who leverage their intelligence for the greater good. Just check the money forum…the people making bank are BigLaw, govt contractors, VPs of corporations, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So absolutely absurd to not push kids to do advanced stuff. Especially since some average people are deciding the standards.

Push your kids to do well in school, on screener tests, and everywhere, becait will make them better at the end. They will learn about themselves the most.

Go for Algebra in 7th, even in 6th if you can.

LA should have better acceleration too.

Totally agree. Parents who don’t do this are fools.

dp Parents who push their children past their breaking points just to please their parents are fools. Would you want your teen to die by suicide because the extreme pressure you parents put them under? That you have to be perfect? Are you perfect? Or human? Wanting your child to do the best they can isn't being foolish. Love the child you have not the one you want.

Mold them into the child you want!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So absolutely absurd to not push kids to do advanced stuff. Especially since some average people are deciding the standards.

Push your kids to do well in school, on screener tests, and everywhere, becait will make them better at the end. They will learn about themselves the most.

Go for Algebra in 7th, even in 6th if you can.

LA should have better acceleration too.

Totally agree. Parents who don’t do this are fools.

dp Parents who push their children past their breaking points just to please their parents are fools. Would you want your teen to die by suicide because the extreme pressure you parents put them under? That you have to be perfect? Are you perfect? Or human? Wanting your child to do the best they can isn't being foolish. Love the child you have not the one you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

It may or may not be a distortion - but it's why GT programs were created. There are some kids who can learn something after hearing it once, while most children need to hear something repeated several or many times, as well as lots of practice, to understand a concept. GT programs are supposed to find the first group of kids and give them a place (whether for an hour or a day a week or in FCPS a separate class) where they can hear something once, learn it, and move on to the next concept without having to hear it repeated over and over again for the rest of the class. That's "innate", not an achievement.

There's a lot of pushback now against innate talent/intelligence, because we are focusing now on "growth mindset" and "everyone can do math" but that doesn't mean that some kids learn differently/more quickly than others. It just means those kids are out of fashion right now.

There is even a double standard with the growth mindset. I remember working at a well known Silicon Valley company where it would negatively impact your review if HR thought you did great work but were working too hard. Several people I knew would even hide that they were working on their own time to achieve their OKRs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

This is spot on. We have a cultural problem when it is more important to prove that you have the skill than it is to have the skill. This is why standardized exams are deeply problematic - because in many cases they test only for the raw skill rather than the ability to leverage the skill towards the greater good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So absolutely absurd to not push kids to do advanced stuff. Especially since some average people are deciding the standards.

Push your kids to do well in school, on screener tests, and everywhere, becait will make them better at the end. They will learn about themselves the most.

Go for Algebra in 7th, even in 6th if you can.

LA should have better acceleration too.

Totally agree. Parents who don’t do this are fools.

Anonymous wrote:So absolutely absurd to not push kids to do advanced stuff. Especially since some average people are deciding the standards.

Push your kids to do well in school, on screener tests, and everywhere, becait will make them better at the end. They will learn about themselves the most.

Go for Algebra in 7th, even in 6th if you can.

LA should have better acceleration too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

It may or may not be a distortion - but it's why GT programs were created. There are some kids who can learn something after hearing it once, while most children need to hear something repeated several or many times, as well as lots of practice, to understand a concept. GT programs are supposed to find the first group of kids and give them a place (whether for an hour or a day a week or in FCPS a separate class) where they can hear something once, learn it, and move on to the next concept without having to hear it repeated over and over again for the rest of the class. That's "innate", not an achievement.

There's a lot of pushback now against innate talent/intelligence, because we are focusing now on "growth mindset" and "everyone can do math" but that doesn't mean that some kids learn differently/more quickly than others. It just means those kids are out of fashion right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

It may or may not be a distortion - but it's why GT programs were created. There are some kids who can learn something after hearing it once, while most children need to hear something repeated several or many times, as well as lots of practice, to understand a concept. GT programs are supposed to find the first group of kids and give them a place (whether for an hour or a day a week or in FCPS a separate class) where they can hear something once, learn it, and move on to the next concept without having to hear it repeated over and over again for the rest of the class. That's "innate", not an achievement.

There's a lot of pushback now against innate talent/intelligence, because we are focusing now on "growth mindset" and "everyone can do math" but that doesn't mean that some kids learn differently/more quickly than others. It just means those kids are out of fashion right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

This idea that there is such a thing as 'intelligence' or 'talent' that is meaningful without effort, and that it is somehow more 'real' than achievements that are worked for is a distortion (one that is more common in American culture than many others).

I think the difference to me is that spending more time at something to get good at the actual thing (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, arts, science, sports) is worthwhile, what I think would be problematic is if you are spending most of the time to beat some artificial hoop (e.g., Cogat test) rather than spending the effort to excel at what actually matters. I get why people do it, but it's a sign of a flawed system.

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.

Anonymous wrote:Winner if everyone was studying an extra hour or two a day things would be very different same with sports

There needs to be a way to differentiate between talent and spending more time at something. Aap should be based on talent not time spent preparing.