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.
It's quite acceptable to openly praise young Braydon's his running back skills, or basketball skills, but when it comes to academics it's suddenly unacceptable and boastful.
Perhaps it implies that students are expected to perform well enough in school, whereas, like I stated before, no one really expects every student to be a talented athlete or performer. Those are extracurricular activities, after all, which aren't core subjects needed to thrive in school and in life. But "smarts," there's a lot tied to smarts, doing well in school, getting into a decent college and getting a "good" job. We see this ALL the time in these forums and elsewhere. How learning for learning sake is only valuable and useful if it produces professional workers, otherwise, what's the point? Academics serve as a means to an end, and that end is simply a career path that opens the door for higher socioeconomic status.
The students who don't perform well enough miss out on these opportunities, and thus it is implied they "failed," aren't capable, or they're inadequate. I've even seen it implied that the learners who don't perform as well in school end up slotted for liberal arts majors, and who wants to be stuck stocking shelves at Wal-Mart!? (it's a myth, of course, but still perpetuated by those who champion anti-intellectualism). "If only you liberal arts graduates were smart enough to study STEM, or another professional field! You'd be doing so much better in life!"
My second daughter wants to study animals. Professional fields do not interest her. She's had a thing for cats, studying them, since she was four. And she loves drawing them. Her fascination grew to include birds. I really can't see her pursuing other fields that are designated "smart fields."
I've observed the differences between positive reception for academic vs. artistic abilities. Things like artistic talent may be met with more genuine positive reception than academic abilities. Interestingly, I think our older two appreciate the praise they receive for their artistic abilities and interests more than pure academics.
I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, I've heard plenty of snark about star athletes, from kids and parents alike. Terms like "jock" are not positive. Cheerleaders also come in for their share of mockery.
Re: the teal-there are a lot of threads on here about that, usually with many people disagreeing with such posters.
Perhaps you should inform her about veterinary medicine, or biology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
I noticed that too. I guess before high school, a genius kid is pretty rare and therefore out of the ordinary. So the parents react more strongly. While in high school, smarts, even genius-level, become somewhat normalized. High school is also when some "gifted" kids stop sticking out, because their peers catch up with them intelligence-wise, although at least trying honors classes isn't a bad idea, either. For example, a 4th grader talking about the atmosphere of Titan (Saturn's moon) is "OMG, wow! ". But an 11th grader talking about that is "OK, he must really like astronomy." Also, the "cute factor" of a child genius is all but completely gone by high school age. Hence, parents don't feel as compelled to brag.
My high school used to incentivize taking honors and AP classes. A good grade in an honors or an AP class would be worth more (have more influence over your GPA) than an good grade in a regular class. I think that's a great way to reward "gifted" kids, although it might not work below high school level.
I had my issue with "weighted grades", especially when a "B" in an AP course was considered the equivalent of an "A" in a regular class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
I was talking about more-or-less true geniuses. The types who know information years beyond their grade level, as opposed to just getting straight A's. But perhaps this is more complex a topic than I thought.
In high school, being smart is perceived as fairly normal, at least in decent schools. While smartness alone doesn't make you popular, it generally doesn't make people dislike you, either. Both are almost always due to other factors.
I have never met such a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
Or that you like to argue with me? Nothing that spectacular. It's simply you made a statement that connects with other statements made in this thread so I picked yours for illustration rather than quote them all. Yours just happened to be the shortest.
The reason I focused on that sentiment is what Metaphysique says below. I too have seen what he/she observes below that it's acceptable to brag about athletic and artistic ability but not acceptable to brag about academic ability. I ask the question of why the double standard?
If I were to say my daughter was captain of the soccer team, won a state during her career, got recruited by several colleges, most would think that's great and be happy.
On the other hand, if I were to say she was top 10% of her class, dean's list at an R1 university, coauthored several papers, most would consider that, first, bragging, and second, "Don't you mean a D1 university -- how'd their football team do?" Not just individuals, but even entire universities of tens of thousands of students are judged on how the football team did last season. That's the double standard I'm trying to understand.
I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, I've heard plenty of snark about star athletes, from kids and parents alike. Terms like "jock" are not positive. Cheerleaders also come in for their share of mockery.
Snark can go both ways. I've observed plenty of snide remarks and attitudes toward nerds, geeks and bookish kids. Heck, reading the reviews of the high school my oldest's middle school funnels into centers around the "smart kids" dominating the school, and how it lacks the usual high school vibe and social dynamics because it's an academic school. It would be so much more fun if it weren't for the IB program. My second daughter gets teased for being nerdy and geeky and told it isn't cool, though she's quite athletic.
There's still a stigma associated with being a high achiever or nerd/geek in many circles.
I'm not sure what "evidence" you're referring to when this entire discussion is centers on individual observations, which vary from region/area, social circles, learning environments, etc.
Of course, you may have a different perception based on a multitude of factors and variables.
Quote:
Re: the teal-there are a lot of threads on here about that, usually with many people disagreeing with such posters.
From my perspective, I see far more of the opposite even on these boards. I can name the usual posters who don't champion STEM above all others, but for every five that challenge these tired myths about humanities grads, there are 10+ more that are unwavering in their convictions/biases and continue to perpetuate these assumptions and myths. There are a few active threads in the college sub-forum addressing the value/merit of humanities, or the point of college if it doesn't guarantee graduates a professional career/job, basically. Two of the threads have 300+ comments, and they definitely aren't mostly glowing praise for lib arts/humanities majors/grads.
Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not.
Quote:
Perhaps you should inform her about veterinary medicine, or biology.
Who said we haven't?
She's not interested in being a veterinarian/medicine. (I asked and my MIL brought it up in the past) We have regular conversations about her genuine interests and academic strengths. Biology is a subject we've discussed on several occasions, and combine that with her passion for animals, it gives us wildlife biology.
Ah...when exactly were NYS Regents exams for the "creme de la creme"? I was taking them in the 1960s, along with about half the school. Certainly half of a small town high school is not the "creme de la creme" (except for me, of course ).
Well, I was in high school from Fall of 1989 to June 1993 and, at that time, you only took them if you were in the most advanced classes that were not AP classes. Everyone else took the Regents Competency Tests, which were easier. You took the Regents as your final, so the instruction was accelerated since the teachers didn't know what would be covered on the exams (non-Regents courses had a teacher-written final) If you got credit for all the Regents courses you were required to take, you got a special endorsement on your diploma when you graduated.
There were two types of diplomas, Regents and "local." I ended up with the local, and just barely. You needed 2 years of science abd math for the local, and I had the Biology but failed Chemistry twice. I squeaked by with a 65 on the Earth Science Regents.
You also needed two 3-year sequences for Regents and you couldn't use English, Foreign Language or Social Studies, since you needed 4 years of English and SS, and 3 years of a language if it was the same one you took in 8th grade (also required), or 4 years if you started with a new foreign language in 9th grade. I had music for one sequence, so I needed 3 years of either math or science, and I didn't get either one. It took me THREE tries to pass Math Course I (Algebra), and I squeaked by in Course II, but completely failed Course III. I also failed Regents Economics, which was a half-year course (you took Participation in US Government the other half-year).
But I got 90's on the English and Global Studies Regents exams!! 80 for Spanish and 70 for American History.
I don't understand why the hell I was put in Regents anyway. Your 8th grade teachers made that decision, and my poor performance in math should have kept me out. I was put in 7-1 math in 6th grade (I was a good student in elementary school) and that's where it all started going downhill. Pre-Algebra in 8th grade was a disaster just as trig my senior year was.
It would be good to keep some sort of stats on the "outcome" of these programs. Of course, then people would say, "Who is to say what "successful" means?, etc". But if these programs aren't producing some big time results, I think they should be reassessed.
Should we hold other programs (ELL, SpEd, music, art) in public schools to the same standard, or just gifted programs? Gifted programs are like others, if they're implemented well they can add great opportunities and value to students' lives, even if these students do not go on to cure cancer or design novel means for space travel.
Well, I was in high school from Fall of 1989 to June 1993 and, at that time, you only took them if you were in the most advanced classes that were not AP classes. Everyone else took the Regents Competency Tests, which were easier. You took the Regents as your final, so the instruction was accelerated since the teachers didn't know what would be covered on the exams (non-Regents courses had a teacher-written final) If you got credit for all the Regents courses you were required to take, you got a special endorsement on your diploma when you graduated.
There were two types of diplomas, Regents and "local." I ended up with the local, and just barely. You needed 2 years of science abd math for the local, and I had the Biology but failed Chemistry twice. I squeaked by with a 65 on the Earth Science Regents.
You also needed two 3-year sequences for Regents and you couldn't use English, Foreign Language or Social Studies, since you needed 4 years of English and SS, and 3 years of a language if it was the same one you took in 8th grade (also required), or 4 years if you started with a new foreign language in 9th grade. I had music for one sequence, so I needed 3 years of either math or science, and I didn't get either one. It took me THREE tries to pass Math Course I (Algebra), and I squeaked by in Course II, but completely failed Course III. I also failed Regents Economics, which was a half-year course (you took Participation in US Government the other half-year).
But I got 90's on the English and Global Studies Regents exams!! 80 for Spanish and 70 for American History.
I don't understand why the hell I was put in Regents anyway. Your 8th grade teachers made that decision, and my poor performance in math should have kept me out. I was put in 7-1 math in 6th grade (I was a good student in elementary school) and that's where it all started going downhill. Pre-Algebra in 8th grade was a disaster just as trig my senior year was.
Interesting for a couple of reasons. I beat you on the earth science Regents...I got a 67! And ended up being an earth science teacher!
Yes, in my time you also got a special endorsement on your diploma for a Regents diploma.
It wasn't hard back then to figure out basically what was going to be on the Regents exams. There were study books that were nothing but old Regents exams. The first half of each Regents everyone taking the exam took. But on the second half, there were (I have forgotten exactly) about 7 sections, and the student could pick 5 to do. Mr. Eckburg was annoyed at me later because I had picked a section that he hadn't really taught, but one that I was particularly interested in and thought I could do well on. If I hadn't have picked it, I might very well have ended up under 65.
I actually went a 5th year to high school to get the Regents endorsement, which was pretty much a guarantee that you could get into a state college.
If they are getting the "side eye" there is probably a reason for that. If I were getting side-eye, I'd wonder if my own behavior somehow contributed to this.
The reason for the parents getting the side eye is simply for having a student in the TAG program, period. For some people that's all it takes, just look at this thread for evidence.
The reason for the parents getting the side eye is simply for having a student in the TAG program, period. For some people that's all it takes, just look at this thread for evidence.
It sounds like these parents of children in special programs want to go around believing everyone is "jealous" of them.
Not from what I've seen, most parents claim their young child has a genius level IQ. They can't be that uncommon or rare. Apparently, they are as common as mud. So either the parents are not telling the truth, or they are exaggerating.
I wonder if it's neighborhood specific, or something. In nearly 15 years of parenting, I can't think of one time that I've heard someone claim their kid has "a genius level IQ". Not once. Maybe they implied it and I just didn't catch it. And certainly I've heard many many parents talk about how smart their kids are. But "genius level IQ"? Nope. And what's really weird about that, is that I know a handful or two of kids who probably do have genius level IQs.
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.
". But an 11th grader talking about that is "OK, he must really like astronomy." Also, the "cute factor" of a child genius is all but completely gone by high school age. Hence, parents don't feel as compelled to brag. 
Nothing that spectacular. It's simply you made a statement that connects with other statements made in this thread so I picked yours for illustration rather than quote them all. Yours just happened to be the shortest. 