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.
ITA on things evening out. Just compare the number of "gifted" children to the number of gifted adults and you'll find yourself asking "Where did all the gifted children go?". Gifted often just means ahead of the curve but the rest of the pack, eventually, gets to where that child got early.
I'd like to add that behind the curve doesn't mean not capable either. I tracked behind the curve until I got to college. At 18, I was probably where most kids were at 16 but I kept developing and they stopped. I graduated high school in the bottom 10% but ended up in the top 5% in college.
Much of giftedness is just being on an accelerated curve but once you stop developing, others catch up. My dd was a gifted child but I don't see her becomming a gifted adult. She's smart and capable but she'll be more typical as an adult than she was as a child. That's just the way it works.
Gifted doesn't just mean smart and capable. Seriously, people have a totally skewed definition. It is true that kids are placed in g/t programs who are not truly gifted, but are academically above average, but that is not what gifted is in reality. It does not mean you learn the same things everyone else does, but learn it early.
Average kids do NOT catch up to truly gifted students because gifted students (like autistic students actually) think differently. Kids can be gifted in certain areas and not in others, of course. Some kids though are gifted in all academic areas.
Note - if you have a gifted athlete (say an Olympic gymnast), do you really think that average athletes are going to *catch up* to him or her? Nope. The same thing is true of gifted in academics, but we cannot get our heads around that.
Gifted doesn't just mean smart and capable. Seriously, people have a totally skewed definition. It is true that kids are placed in g/t programs who are not truly gifted, but are academically above average, but that is not what gifted is in reality. It does not mean you learn the same things everyone else does, but learn it early.
Average kids do NOT catch up to truly gifted students because gifted students (like autistic students actually) think differently. Kids can be gifted in certain areas and not in others, of course. Some kids though are gifted in all academic areas.
Note - if you have a gifted athlete (say an Olympic gymnast), do you really think that average athletes are going to *catch up* to him or her? Nope. The same thing is true of gifted in academics, but we cannot get our heads around that.
The, truely, gifted make up a very small segment of the population. Much smaller than the average G&T program. That's the point. For most of the "gifted" the rest just catch up in time. Few will remain standouts in adulthood.
No, I don't think other athletes will catch up to a gifted athlete becuase being a gifted athlete isn't developmental. You're comparing apples to oranges. What passes for giftedness is often just an accelerated development curve. What I think is that if a child learns to read early, other kids will just catch up later. If a child develops the ability to reason abstractly early, other kids will catch up to them later. All too often, "gifted" means early in education. The reason we see few gifted adults is that true giftedness is rare.
Case in point. My dd was writing music and performing on the piano at 6. At that point in time, she was considered gifted. Today, at 14, many of her peers have also taken lessons for years. She's no longer considered gifted. Jsut talented. Some of her peers who started playing and writing later have actually passed her by. Was she really gifted for playing and writing music at 6? Apparently not unless giftedness can fade in time. The only thing she seems to have walked away with here is perfect pitch.
And then there are people like me who are way behind the curve as teens but continue to develop in college and end up ahead of the curve. I'm definitely in the top 5% yet I wasn't even in the top half in high school. Too often we base a decision of giftedness on a developmental curve or a snapshot in time. Even thinking different for your age doesn't mean you'll still be different when you grow up. I couldn't pass algebra to save my soul in high school yet excelled at math in college. I just needed a couple of years to develop the ability to handle abstract logic.
Studies on gifted children have shown that their brains work more like an adults brain. Which begs the question, what happens when everyone is an adult??? THAT is when the distinction disappears for many. My dd is gifted (low end of giftedness. My dd is considered gifted because her developmental curve is appx. 1 year for every 9 months and has been since birth. From an early age she has been able to reason in ways her peers could not BUT now that her peers are getting older, more and more of them can think like she does. As time passes, she appears more normal because they are catching up. Yes, she got there first but that really doesn't matter in the end. As I told her, exactly, no one will care whether she graduates from high school at 15 or 17 in 10 years (she can choose to graduate at 15, transfer to a community college at 15 or take her time and graduate at 17 with her friends). While the first two look impressive now, none of this matters in the long run. Graduating from college early just means starting a career earlier and a couple years out, no one will care one iota because it means nothing.
So, what happened to my "gifted" child here? There is no doubt she was way ahead of the curve at 10. At 14, she's still a front runner but she's starting to get company. She's starting to actually fit in with some of the kids who are her age. That wasn't true just 4 years ago. What is happening is they are catching up to her. Developing abilities she developed years ago. They're more like her now. As I see her peers catching up, I'm thinking this nonsense of having her graduate from community college at 17 is just that. Nonsense.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-01-2012 at 03:38 PM..
The, truely, gifted make up a very small segment of the population. Much smaller than the average G&T program. That's the point. For most of the "gifted" the rest just catch up in time. Few will remain standouts in adulthood.
This is true.
No, I don't think other athletes will catch up to a gifted athlete becuase being a gifted athlete isn't developmental.
It's just as developmental as intelligence is
You're comparing apples to oranges. What passes for giftedness is often just an accelerated development curve. What I think is that if a child learns to read early, other kids will just catch up later. If a child develops the ability to reason abstractly early, other kids will catch up to them later. All too often, "gifted" means early in education. The reason we see few gifted adults is that true giftedness is rare.
Yes, what *passes* for giftedness, might be.
Case in point. My dd was writing music and performing on the piano at 6. At that point in time, she was considered gifted. Today, at 14, many of her peers have also taken lessons for years. She's no longer considered gifted. Jsut talented. Some of her peers who started playing and writing later have actually passed her by. Was she really gifted for playing and writing music at 6? Apparently not unless giftedness can fade in time. The only thing she seems to have walked away with here is perfect pitch.
Well, if she had actually been passionate about it, she might have still been writing music. Mozart was gifted in music.
And then there are people like me who are way behind the curve as teens but continue to develop in college and end up ahead of the curve. I'm definitely in the top 5% yet I wasn't even in the top half in high school. Too often we base a decision of giftedness on a developmental curve or a snapshot in time. Even thinking different for your age doesn't mean you'll still be different when you grow up. I couldn't pass algebra to save my soul in high school yet excelled at math in college. I just needed a couple of years to develop the ability to handle abstract logic.
I agree that behind the curve does not necessarily mean that a child won't end up at least average, but not always.
Studies on gifted children have shown that their brains work more like an adults brain. Which begs the question, what happens when everyone is an adult??? THAT is when the distinction disappears for many.
cite, please. I don't think that is true at all. My son's brain did not work like an adult's brain. He simply has an insight into math that most people don't have even other engineers.
My dd is gifted (low end of giftedness. My dd is considered gifted because her developmental curve is appx. 1 year for every 9 months and has been since birth. From an early age she has been able to reason in ways her peers could not BUT now that her peers are getting older, more and more of them can think like she does. As time passes, she appears more normal because they are catching up. Yes, she got there first but that really doesn't matter in the end. As I told her, exactly, no one will care whether she graduates from high school at 15 or 17 in 10 years (she can choose to graduate at 15, transfer to a community college at 15 or take her time and graduate at 17 with her friends). While the first two look impressive now, none of this matters in the long run. Graduating from college early just means starting a career earlier and a couple years out, no one will care one iota because it means nothing.
So, what happened to my "gifted" child here? There is no doubt she was way ahead of the curve at 10. At 14, she's still a front runner but she's starting to get company. She's starting to actually fit in with some of the kids who are her age. That wasn't true just 4 years ago. What is happening is they are catching up to her. Developing abilities she developed years ago. They're more like her now. As I see her peers catching up, I'm thinking this nonsense of having her graduate from community college at 17 is just that. Nonsense.
Ahead of the curve should not be classified as gifted. It is above average, but not necessarily gifted.
Gifted children who become gifted adults have original, unusual ideas and connect seemingly unrelated ideas.
They learn new things rapidly and grasp concepts readily.
They usually are passionate about things that their peers don't have a clue about. They may be highly sensitive.
They can see many sides of problems rather than the conventional one.
They are often perfectionistic and set high standards for themselves and for others (they don't suffer fools easily).
They are more curious than other people which is why they learn so much.
They often question authority and don't accept what they are told.
They thrive on challenge.
They persevere when things are difficult.
Ahead of the curve should not be classified as gifted. It is above average, but not necessarily gifted.
Gifted children who become gifted adults have original, unusual ideas and connect seemingly unrelated ideas.
They learn new things rapidly and grasp concepts readily.
They usually are passionate about things that their peers don't have a clue about. They may be highly sensitive.
They can see many sides of problems rather than the conventional one.
They are often perfectionistic and set high standards for themselves and for others (they don't suffer fools easily).
They are more curious than other people which is why they learn so much.
They often question authority and don't accept what they are told.
They thrive on challenge.
They persevere when things are difficult.
No. Athletic talent is not developmental like, say, abstract reasoning is. Kids who are not athletically inclined at 8 don't grow into being athletically inclined at 12, whereas, most kids start out at gestault (sp?) thinkers and end up able to reason abstractly after they've developed. So a child who can reason abstractly at 10, like my dd, will have plenty of company when her peers are about 17. The athlete won't.
As I said, the truely gifted are very rare. The vast majority of kids labeled as gifted are just ahead of the curve and, in time, the pack catches up.
I'm not sure what you think you're proving with your list here. Every bit of that can also apply to a child who is just ahead of the curve whose peers will catch up in time.
I'm curious if schools in question test students for GT. Both of my kids are in GT, but only after exhaustive IQ testing. They were referred by classroom teachers and I had to sign permission for the IQ testing. I was shocked at the rigor of the tests....both kids came home exhausted and in tears because is was so difficult, lengthy, etc. The tests didn't stop until they had answered 10 questions incorrectly (questions I have no idea the answer to, I might add).
The schools actually gave me details about the type of test they administered and how my kids scored, with interpretation information as well. There were categories like Mildly Gifted, Moderately Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted and Profoundly Gifted. Our schools only admits the top 2 categories, that encompass 2% of a general student population.
But we DO have a different "track" of challenge classes that Highly Gifted students can test into as well.
No. Athletic talent is not developmental like, say, abstract reasoning is. Kids who are not athletically inclined at 8 don't grow into being athletically inclined at 12, whereas, most kids start out at gestault (sp?) thinkers and end up able to reason abstractly after they've developed. So a child who can reason abstractly at 10, like my dd, will have plenty of company when her peers are about 17. The athlete won't.
Actually this is not entirely correct. My son was not athletically talented at 14 he was short fat and uncoordinated. Now at 16, he is an athlete. He has caught up and passed many of his friends who were athletically talented at 14. The stellar athletes amongst his friends at 14 are still top athletes, but they are no longer the stand out best. Just one of th e best. At least in some cases, they do even out. (Most generalizations aabout everyone in a group usually turn out to be untrue). Likewise the same son was doing high school math in 5th grade. However in high school he struggled withthe same math he was doing in 5th grade. Not sure why.
At 14 or so, my wife was a "gifted" swimmer. She held several reocrds for her age group in New England in breathstroke (possibly still does). They were grooming her for the olympics. After a few years, she lost interst and drive and by high school she was just a good breaststroker, nothing remarkable. By college she was not even swimming and became a dance major instead.
As I said, the truely gifted are very rare. The vast majority of kids labeled as gifted are just ahead of the curve and, in time, the pack catches up.
Very rare as in there might be one in any given state, maybe. It is etremely likey that anyone reading this does not know a truely "gifted" child. Smart, above average, talented, certinaly. Gifted however connotates an extremely unusual trait (not 1/3 of the school like they tend to lable as "gifted"). However you will never convince anyone. Parents want to have "gifted' children. For many it is the most ciritcal part oftheir being. Once they decide their kid is "gifted" in some way, they will not ever believe that he or she is just a kid. Even if the kid moves on to something else and does nothing with the "giftedness" or becomes merely talented in that field, the parents will never believe that their child was not truely "gifted" They will blame a teacher or coach or someo other outside influence. Unfortunately many parents believe their kid is "gifted" and will not let it go, they push and push them and mess up their kid. I see it frequently. An otherwise exemplary kid becomes anti social, suicidal or completely unmotivated. Parents who cannot accept "not gifted" sometimes get mad at the kid. Too many people find their fullfillment, or purpose in life throught he acoomplishments of their children. That is why I think it is a mistake to start lableing kids "gifted" It just feeds the psychotic parent frenzy.
***
Yes. The all the schools I am aware of do test the kids extensively for IQ and academic prowess in order to lable them GT. Incidetally, IQ tests have issues as well. Many times a kid will test off the charts genius one year and then five years later merely above average. Did they get dumber?
We have a friend who was adamant that her kid was "gifted" even when she was a baby. By about three years old, she was playing mutiple instruments at a performance level, speaking several languages, reading and could do math. By ten she was in the super duper exemplary gifted category. By high school she was an above average student with a lot of social and psychological problems. She no longer plays the violin, speaks only two languages conversationally and resents her mother. She is going to an ordinary college on an ordinary program (she has quite a few scholarships, but nothing out of the ordinary - mo full ride to a top 10 schol or anything). Her test schores are high (I think 30 or 31 on ACT), but not amazing. At the same time, I know at lest two other kids who were pretty average until high school, and then merely above average in high school, who got higher score on the ACT, have equal or better scholarships, etcetera. I would venture that 99.9% of the "gifted" kids are merely above average and either self motivated because they are excessively competitve, or exciessively pushed by a parent frantic to achieve self fulfillment through a child's accomplishments.
Note - if you have a gifted athlete (say an Olympic gymnast), do you really think that average athletes are going to *catch up* to him or her? Nope. The same thing is true of gifted in academics, but we cannot get our heads around that.
Thank you for saying this. Some kids really are cognitively gifted well beyond others. They aren't just smart and capable. They can have the same issues as any other kid but kids who are gifted really do see the world differently than other children their age.
Now cognitively gifted does not always translate into financially successful, but that is a very different issue. Gifted kids are different, not just ahead of the curve. Now-schools may err and pub some kids into gifted classes that are ahead of the curve, but that doesn't mean gifted kids do not exist.
No. Athletic talent is not developmental like, say, abstract reasoning is. Kids who are not athletically inclined at 8 don't grow into being athletically inclined at 12, whereas, most kids start out at gestault (sp?) thinkers and end up able to reason abstractly after they've developed. So a child who can reason abstractly at 10, like my dd, will have plenty of company when her peers are about 17. The athlete won't.
As I said, the truely gifted are very rare. The vast majority of kids labeled as gifted are just ahead of the curve and, in time, the pack catches up.
I'm not sure what you think you're proving with your list here. Every bit of that can also apply to a child who is just ahead of the curve whose peers will catch up in time.
Not true about athletes. Athleticism is certainly developmental. It might be even more developmental than it is in academic areas, especially in sports where size and strength are of paramount importance.
I have a supposedly highly gifted kid. He has a 140 iq according to the testing his doctor put him through. I knew he was bright but we were actually at the psychiatrist for a ADHD diagnosis. When the doctor had him repeating sequences of numbers backwards that my husband and I couldn't follow it was pretty nuts. Our son had just turned 5.
So differences between him and my typical 7yr old. He's passionate about math, as in asks me to do worksheets instead of playing, I hear him in his room at night adding and the subtracting. He needs to know how everything works, when he was 3 he asked me to explain radio signals. He taught himself how to read at 3. He builds crazy stuff with Legos that have moving parts. He's also socially a little awkward but has a few good friends. He's shy but also super hyper and always into something. He asks a million questions, many of which I can't answer.
So does his giftedness translate into success? No, I doubt it. I think it just means he has a different learning style and maybe different needs.
I agree with hml1976 that gifted doesn't always translate into success. I think this book has a long study of how being identified as gifted impacts the gifted adult (and note - gifted kids do become gifted adults, but not all kids identified by our schools as gifted really are gifted). Ime, gifted people in general tend to be passionate about learning.
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.
Tested?
