Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time and again, the studies that have been done with extremely gifted children have demonstrated that academic acceleration (yes, including to the college level) is the most beneficial approach, whether we define "beneficial" as psychological or academic. In this case, did you read Sky's comment about how well-suited he was, and how underchallenged he believes (and correctly, I am confident in saying) he would have been at middle school? His parents are giving him an appropriate education for his ability - rather than attempting to place him according to his age, which certainly would be inappropriate.
This raises a good question of how we should evaluate what is best for a child whose academic abilities lie so far to the end of the curve that he or she cannot really be evaluated like other children of the same age. I can see that a genius child stuck in his regular grade would feel stifled and bored out of his mind, and that might lead to behavior problems of its own.
However, I can't help but think it might be better to have this child study college-level work in a more private environment instead of out in "general population", so to speak. Perhaps working one-on-one with professors instead of being in a class with students who don't know how to talk to him and who he doesn't know how to talk to either. That raises another question now that I think about it - I know that college level teachers don't face the same background checks etc. that K-12 teachers do because they're not working with minors (I had no checks at all for my college job). Did this student's professors have to do any additional training or get any extra checks, and if not, should they?
This raises a good question of how we should evaluate what is best for a child whose academic abilities lie so far to the end of the curve that he or she cannot really be evaluated like other children of the same age. I can see that a genius child stuck in his regular grade would feel stifled and bored out of his mind, and that might lead to behavior problems of its own.
However, I can't help but think it might be better to have this child study college-level work in a more private environment instead of out in "general population", so to speak. Perhaps working one-on-one with professors instead of being in a class with students who don't know how to talk to him and who he doesn't know how to talk to either. That raises another question now that I think about it - I know that college level teachers don't face the same background checks etc. that K-12 teachers do because they're not working with minors (I had no checks at all for my college job). Did this student's professors have to do any additional training or get any extra checks, and if not, should they?
It's an extraordinarily difficult issue having a profoundly gifted child. On the one hand, no matter whether you place him or her with chronological peers or intellectual peers, there is and always will be only a partial "fit." No solution is utterly perfect, regardless of which option a parent chooses.
The solution you're posing isn't always practicable, unfortunately. Think about it: what would induce a professor to tutor a student when s/he could simply attend the professor's class? I know this may sound silly or dismissive, and I don't mean it to, but I would tend to think that most professors would say, "Why should I tutor a student? I teach class; she can attend then." This is particularly at issue in lab sciences. What is the professor to do -- bring over a mini-lab to the student's house? I hope you don't take that question as snark, because I'm posing it to raise a serious issue of practicality. I'm sure you can see some of the inherent problems we're talking about, and those are just ones off the top of my head.
You're right in supposing that college students wouldn't have much beyond their common academic subject to talk to a child about. Ultimately, though, it's a tough issue: you're basically forced, as a parent, to choose between academics and socialization. Socialization with peeps your own age is a tricky thing for a profoundly gifted kid no matter what, given that it's really hard to share your gripes about Professor Jones' quantum physics midterm with another kid who's worried about mastering the fine art of long division. I'm sure that's partly why his mother and father have him in martial arts: sports tends to be an outstanding "equalizer" and point of bonding with others. Ultimately, everything about a PG child is "made to order": the one-size-fits-most approaches just don't work.
Your issue about background checks is a relevant one, but if I remember rightly, I think the boy's parents started him off by taking one class, then two, and now more. I'm assuming that they either waited in class with him, waited outside for him, or waited in the car for him until the class was over, so I'm guessing (a pure assumption on my part!) that there wouldn't be a whole lot of opportunities a professor could take to violate a child's and parent's trust in that way, although I do think this is a relevant consideration for any parent to be reasonably concerned about, even when we are talking about people who've submitted to federal background checks.
It's an extraordinarily difficult issue having a profoundly gifted child. On the one hand, no matter whether you place him or her with chronological peers or intellectual peers, there is and always will be only a partial "fit." No solution is utterly perfect, regardless of which option a parent chooses.
The solution you're posing isn't always practicable, unfortunately. Think about it: what would induce a professor to tutor a student when s/he could simply attend the professor's class? I know this may sound silly or dismissive, and I don't mean it to, but I would tend to think that most professors would say, "Why should I tutor a student? I teach class; she can attend then." This is particularly at issue in lab sciences. What is the professor to do -- bring over a mini-lab to the student's house? I hope you don't take that question as snark, because I'm posing it to raise a serious issue of practicality. I'm sure you can see some of the inherent problems we're talking about, and those are just ones off the top of my head.
You're right in supposing that college students wouldn't have much beyond their common academic subject to talk to a child about. Ultimately, though, it's a tough issue: you're basically forced, as a parent, to choose between academics and socialization. Socialization with peeps your own age is a tricky thing for a profoundly gifted kid no matter what, given that it's really hard to share your gripes about Professor Jones' quantum physics midterm with another kid who's worried about mastering the fine art of long division. I'm sure that's partly why his mother and father have him in martial arts: sports tends to be an outstanding "equalizer" and point of bonding with others. Ultimately, everything about a PG child is "made to order": the one-size-fits-most approaches just don't work.
Your issue about background checks is a relevant one, but if I remember rightly, I think the boy's parents started him off by taking one class, then two, and now more. I'm assuming that they either waited in class with him, waited outside for him, or waited in the car for him until the class was over, so I'm guessing (a pure assumption on my part!) that there wouldn't be a whole lot of opportunities a professor could take to violate a child's and parent's trust in that way, although I do think this is a relevant consideration for any parent to be reasonably concerned about, even when we are talking about people who've submitted to federal background checks.
No, I don't at all think you were being snarky. I think you raise a number of very good points here. I can definitely see why a professor would avoid/choose not to privately tutor a student, regardless of age, because as you say, a professor's job is to lecture and not be a private tutor. Plus, part of college is definitely about being in the classroom where there are competing ideas and interpretations that you must both absorb and develop your own rebuttals to.
I imagine being the parent of a very gifted child would be a very hard task. However I do think that some parents, let's say, overly nurture their child's great talents in order to push some ultimate goal: a college degree by the age of 15, let's say. Not saying that's the case with this young boy, as I don't know enough of the story to say that - but sometimes I worry if the college degree thing is more for the parents than the child. If that is the case, then I would think the college environment at a young age would do more harm than good. If the child is naturally into it and really enjoys the college environment and pushed him/herself to be there, I imagine they find ways to adapt and highly benefit from that experience.
I imagine being the parent of a very gifted child would be a very hard task. However I do think that some parents, let's say, overly nurture their child's great talents in order to push some ultimate goal: a college degree by the age of 15, let's say. Not saying that's the case with this young boy, as I don't know enough of the story to say that - but sometimes I worry if the college degree thing is more for the parents than the child. If that is the case, then I would think the college environment at a young age would do more harm than good. If the child is naturally into it and really enjoys the college environment and pushed him/herself to be there, I imagine they find ways to adapt and highly benefit from that experience.
I think I tend to be less skeptical mostly because if the boy is "taking a full course load of physics, calculus, and Chinese language classes at the university," according to the article, this really is far beyond parental vanity, given that these courses would represent a demanding intellectual load for someone who was 18 or 19, much less a student who probably hasn't hit puberty yet.
I know of an Indian couple who has a kid that will go to college earlier than that. He's 7 years old & knows 5 languages fluently and is studying calculus for fun.
How about we say good job, and be impressed for someone doing something this amazing.
I am amazed anyone would criticize someone for getting an education...
I agree, I am not too sure why there's so much negativity towards this child. He is clearly brilliant and just by watching his interview I can tell he has every held pretty well together.
He competes in pool tournaments, takes taekwondo and plays table tennis in his free time so he seems like a well-rounded kid too.
Of course there are cases in which parents may push their kids too far (which is a serious issue, I agree). However just one glance at this progression of this kid demonstrates that Sky Choi is clearly driven by an insatiable intellectual curiosity, not his parents.
Is college the best the thing for him? I don't know, maybe there are better venues to channel his growth. However I can tell you one thing, being stuck in 6th grade learning basic math when you have advanced knowledge of Calculus and Physics just doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. Did you ever notice that the vast majority of these kids are studying math and science? This kid is also studying Chinese, according to these posts. These are subjects that don't require a ton of insight, unlike say, social studies or literature. When my older daughter was in 8th grade, there was a 6th grader in her social studies class. They had to do a "National History Day" project. The girl's mother told me she could see a big difference in insight between the older kids and her daughter. Just a thought.
I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. Did you ever notice that the vast majority of these kids are studying math and science? This kid is also studying Chinese, according to these posts. These are subjects that don't require a ton of insight, unlike say, social studies or literature. When my older daughter was in 8th grade, there was a 6th grader in her social studies class. They had to do a "National History Day" project. The girl's mother told me she could see a big difference in insight between the older kids and her daughter. Just a thought.
I'm not necessarily sure I see your point. I'm not trying to sound snarky when I ask whether greater proficiency in math and science over social science isn't naturally to be expected of a gifted child; however, I see several reasons for this:
1. The nature of math allows for acceleration.
Because math is largely cumulative (i.e., you can't study calculus before you've mastered multiplication), because it is clear and easy to demonstrate a mastery of the subject matter, and because the answer to a math problem is absolutely objective, it is far easier for a parent to demonstrate that their child has mastered the given skills and objectives of a given math class and to demand (and receive) appropriate acceleration.
For instance, a math teacher in a school with which I'm familiar recently had an incoming freshman sign up for Calculus A-B. When she (very skeptically) agreed to the placement only if he could successfully complete a final exam from a prerequisite class, he sat down, took the exam, scored an A+ on it, and therefore was allowed to take the class. However, this determination is less easy to make for (let's say) an English class. Even when a child has read all of the teacher's intended texts (or most of them) and has comprehended them fully, the argument I have most often heard advanced is, "She hasn't taken Romeo and Juliet with me; it won't hurt her to have it twice." Certainly this is true if a student has read one or two works a teacher intends to teach, but far less true if she has read the majority of the major works on the curriculum. However, one might then say, "Well, she knows how to write a research paper, but she's never put together a poster featuring Zac Efron as Romeo." In short, it's harder to demonstrate hands-down that a student is capable of being accelerated in English or social sciences.
2. Finding appropriate reading material for profoundly gifted students is a pain in the...
This should be subtitled "The Lord of the Flies problem." I'm sure you're well aware that LOTF is a fairly common text in many high school freshman or sophomore classes. However, with its graphic violence (including a sow attacked by spear-wielding boys who urge each other to stick their spears "right up the ass" of the animal), LOTF might not exactly be up the alley of a profoundly gifted reader, and that alone might make acceleration difficult for parents, teachers, fellow students, and the child him- or herself. I'm using LOTF as an example text, but obviously there are others which present similar problems: how would a teacher deal with explaining the sexuality in Romeo and Juliet to an eight-year-old? How about the racial hatred in Othello? Compounding the problem is that the intelligence of PG kids makes it possible for them to comprehend much of the content (that is, not much gets lost, not even innuendo or double-entendres). In some senses, they "hover" between being their chronological age and being their intellectual age. It's hard to find a text which speaks appropriately to a happy medium.
That said, though, I'm still not quite sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that only kids gifted in math and science should be accelerated? If I'm misunderstanding you, please chalk it up to my lack of coffee.
I'm not necessarily sure I see your point. I'm not trying to sound snarky when I ask whether greater proficiency in math and science over social science isn't naturally to be expected of a gifted child; however, I see several reasons for this:
That said, though, I'm still not quite sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that only kids gifted in math and science should be accelerated? If I'm misunderstanding you, please chalk it up to my lack of coffee.
Well, go get a cup of coffee and then come back, LOL! What I'm saying is that I think it's easier to accelerate a kid in math, science, and perhaps languages b/c these subjects don't require as much insight as interpreting literature and social issues. In other words, it's easier to understand e = mc(2), than the implications of the Communist Manifesto. These kids are still kids, developmentally.
Well, go get a cup of coffee and then come back, LOL! What I'm saying is that I think it's easier to accelerate a kid in math, science, and perhaps languages b/c these subjects don't require as much insight as interpreting literature and social issues. In other words, it's easier to understand e = mc(2), than the implications of the Communist Manifesto. These kids are still kids, developmentally.
Okay, then I think I did get your point. It's very difficult. I'm wondering how the Chois handled that issue with their child - specifically, did he take SATs to get in to college? How were his admissions handled?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm saying is that I think it's easier to accelerate a kid in math, science, and perhaps languages b/c these subjects don't require as much insight as interpreting literature and social issues. In other words, it's easier to understand e = mc(2), than the implications of the Communist Manifesto. These kids are still kids, developmentally.
