<p>Epiphanyi
What exactly is your professional experience? You’ve written many posts alluding to it but I can’t remember if you’ve said what it was. I know QM is a physics (or maybe chemistry) professor. it might put your opinion here in some sort of.context. Otherwise I don’t know why you mention it.</p>
<p>I think we have people talking past each other here. Epiphany is talking about the “intellectually gifted” and her point is this group generally requires less time to complete a given task. I have no trouble accepting that as true.</p>
<p>Others were talking about the “intellectually curious.” That’s a horse of a different color. There are many intellectually gifted people who have not the least bit of intellectual curiosity. And by the same token, there are lots of people who have intellectual curiosity, but may not be the most intellectually gifted. </p>
<p>The truly rare specimen is the person is who simultaneously intellectually gifted and intellectually curious. That’s the student who will take the time to carry the assignment the extra mile and do the painstaking original work, instead of simply breezing through and shutting down as soon as she’s done enough to get the “A.” The gifted-but-uncurious are the ones who are always in a hurry to finish the assignment so they can get on with the business of checking off more boxes on the accomplishment list. And I agree with those who say the admissions selection criteria at too many elite colleges now favor this group.</p>
<p>I think it’s in college that the truly intellectually curious get separated from the herd of the merely gifted. They’re the ones who do the most interesting and most original work in college, and they’re the ones who, historically, have gravitated toward Ph.D. programs. Very few people will go through the rigors of a Ph.D. program just to check off a box. They don’t have the patience for it; nor do they have the deep intellectual curiosity that would drive them to pursue and execute a painstaking, lonely, time-consuming original research project of the kind that merits a Ph.D. Unfortunately, though, the academic job prospects are now so bleak in so many fields that a Ph.D. is no longer an attractive option for many.</p>
<p>“I think it’s in college that the truly intellectually curious get separated from the herd of the merely gifted. They’re the ones who do the most interesting and most original work in college, and they’re the ones who, historically, have gravitated toward Ph.D. programs. Very few people will go through the rigors of a Ph.D. program just to check off a box. They don’t have the patience for it; nor do they have the deep intellectual curiosity that would drive them to pursue and execute a painstaking, lonely, time-consuming original research project of the kind that merits a Ph.D.”</p>
<p>Truer words were never spoken… I have seen this quality in those students at my DS’s UG college who are now working in top PhD programs.</p>
<p>I agree for the most part bclintonk. I’m actually talking about that intersection between intellectually gifted and intellectually curious and I continue to maintain that this person doesn’t necessarily work faster. I do agree with epiphany that there is a different and greater capacity for thought in an intellectually gifted person but it doesn’t follow that all tasks are done more quickly which is exactly what started this discussion (“intellectually gifted spend less time on it [given assignment].” Gifted folks come in all stripes and colors and there are those who work efficiently and those who work dreamily but end with a result that leaves everyone else openmouthed. Moreover there are tasks, like problem sets, that lend themselves to faster completion by the gifted person and there are tasks like research, that don’t. There are labs that can be completed easily and quickly and those that require extended work. </p>
<p>I completely agree that the intellectually curious separate themselves in college and go on to the PhD programs that most others don’t have the patience or temperament to pursue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I got to witness this at the far extreme when my younger son decided to both graduate high school in 3 years and apply to tippy-top colleges. He juggled as many as 12 classes at one time between high school classes, college classes and online classes, then had to fit in leadership roles in multiple ECs and community service. It took two years of 7 days a week of work, including holidays and vacations to get it done. The only way he managed to get everything done was because different classes and activities had different deadlines.</p>
<p>In the short run, such an extreme makes one incredibly time efficient, like being “in the zone” continuously for months. But by the middle of the second year he was seriously burned out and spent the first few weeks after graduation sleeping 12-14 hour per night.</p>
<p>I am willing to believe that a gifted student, generally speaking, can complete work of any specified quality faster than the average student. </p>
<p>In university level courses, the speed advantage is quite obvious. I often have a course scheduled so that there is no class in the room in the time period immediately after us (so that students have less time pressure for exams), but there is a class in the same room during the period after the next. I have students who complete the in-class exams in my courses quite well, and about 3 times as fast as the students who take the longest. We have to collect the exams from the group of students who take the longest because the class-after-the-next-period needs the room. </p>
<p>My point, which I don’t think epiphany really dealt with, concerns the nature of assignments at the pre-college level. I think these have morphed since I was in school–or else the local schools in my area are quite different from most other schools out there. The assignments from elementary school through high school tended to be quite open-ended. This meant that a more intelligent person would probably think more about the assignment and would wind up taking <em>longer</em> to complete it. </p>
<p>For example, one of the summer assignments ahead of AP Lit called for students to read Crime and Punishment, and take notes on the plot development, characterization, setting, symbolism, imagery, diction, and (I forget what else, but there was a detailed list). The “sample” was a brief excerpt from a previous year’s student’s work. It had two paragraph-long comments on a single page of the novel. The gifted student can read the book faster, almost certainly. However, the gifted student is likely to identify many more symbols, interesting choice of diction, images, . . . than average. Imagine how a Ph.D. student in Russian literature would approach annotating Crime and Punishment! That student would certainly spend longer on it than the average rising high school senior. Now, no one around here went so far as to read the novel in Russian–though one could imagine that would have been an even better approach–but the time spent on the assignment varied a lot. The better students did not finish faster, by any means.</p>
<p>This is just one example, but it is reasonably representative. At least it was not a construction project of the type the students had in earlier grades!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quant, it’s interesting that you should mention Crime and Punishment because my son loved the book but spent forever writing his winter-break paper, looking for just the perfect quotes, linking-jumping all over Google in search of unusual facts, and trying to put a unique spin on the topic that was totally unnecessary but so very him – if it looked liked anyone else in the class might have written it, he didn’t want to turn it in.</p>
<p>During that same break college apps were due. Because of Porfiry Petrovich, my son never got around to finishing his apps to Stanford and Cornell. ;-)</p>
<p>Just another reason to dislike Porfiry! :)</p>
<p>Having one child who is particularly curious and one that is not the reason I see the curious one spending more time on his assignments is simply because he loves to learn, and enjoys the success that comes with doing an assignment well–no different than the basketball player who spends endless hours on the basketball court does it because he loves to play ball, and enjoys beating those that he plays against.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny you should mention this sm. Way back in the day I was rejected by Harvard. I remember my interview - in some hotel or office building with a panel of three serious gentlemen - I sort of had the feeling afterwards I wouldn’t need a lot of space in my mailbox for a thick envelope. In retrospect, although I probably had the better objective “stats” I think the fellow from my high school they did admit was probably more of an intellectual than myself. Well, he’s a professor there now so apparently they like him in Cambridge.</p>
<p>It’s ironic, I guess because of my test scores or something my school did I was called and “inteviewed” by local alum from Princeton and Yale - two places I didn’t apply to. Those interviews were a lot more “shoot the breeze” and “tell us about yourself”. Maybe that’s because they weren’t official. Just as well I didn’t apply there, or I’d likely have three rejections to whine about years later rather than just one.</p>
<p>Thanks, Quant Mech. That’s very well said and it helped to distill my thinking on the subject. I think you’ve captured it. </p>
<p>I’ve got to laugh about those construction projects though. I used to dread them and one of my daughters lived for them. Talk about spending excessive hours on homework assignments…</p>
<p>I’m going to get a bad rep but I can’t help myself. Bovertine, I know you are speaking lightly but you’re selling yourself short. I’m sure it’s clear already that one of my (many, too many) pet peeves is this notion that schools like Harvard and Yale are looking for true intellects. They are not. </p>
<p>I can’t complain though. The real benefit to the crazy admissions process is that those with intellectual curiosity and considerable intellectual gifts are increasingly distributed among institutions of higher learning. As long as the high achieving student population stays fixed on the notion that these few schools are the havens for the best and the brightest, it makes the process much more sane and much more rewarding for my own kids. :)</p>
<p>Thanks 3G3C. It’s not often I’m accused of selling myself short. :)</p>
<p>@epiphany, you said,</p>
<p>post 150
</p>
<p>post 154
</p>
<p>So, your argument is that all the students admitted to Harvard are intellectually gifted, walk on water, and don’t need to spend as much time on academic pursuits as the, ah, “entitled gifted?”</p>
<p>Do you really want to stand by that opinion? Because in that case, one would have to conclude, they’re naturally gifted, but morally corrupt.</p>
<p>At least 50% of them.</p>
<p>Why would you assume that the naturally intellectually gifted are more or less likely to be morally corrupt than anybody else?</p>
<p>I’m not comparing the naturally intellectually gifted to anyone else. Denise Pope, Senior Lecturer at Stanford, was quoted in a SFGate article as follows:
[Everybody</a> Does It - SFGate](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Everybody-Does-It-2523376.php#ixzz25WAS2IwH]Everybody”>http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Everybody-Does-It-2523376.php#ixzz25WAS2IwH)</p>
<p>50% of the students who sat this exam are accused of cheating. If they’re able to do everything well all the time, why did they feel the need to cheat? The Crimson posted parts of the exam in question. It shouldn’t be a difficult exam for the very best college students in the nation.</p>
<p>Did they learn the behavior at Harvard? Or (more likely in my opinion), did they learn this behavior over the course of their high school career, before college?</p>
<p>By the way, I am very impressed by the university’s courage in tackling the issue.</p>
<p>Here are the parts of the exam Periwinkle referred to:</p>
<p>[“Introduction</a> to Congress” Final Exam | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/gallery/2012/8/30/intro-congress-exam-gallery/]"Introduction”>"Introduction to Congress" Final Exam | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why are you challenging me? You’re setting up multiple false dichotomies, as Hunt just correctly pointed out. </p>
<p>And why do you keep bringing up Denise Pope, off-topic? Here’s the subjec of this thread:</p>
<p>“125 Harvard Students Suspected of Cheating”</p>
<p>The topic of this thread, not to mention my own responses to this topic, is NOT:</p>
<p>Denise Pope
Stanford University
Intellectual giftedness = moral corruption
The admissions process is morally corrupt and a sham
The admissions process deliberately or accidentally misses the “true” intellectually curious [translation: my or my best friend’s superior S/D] :rolleyes: while admitting cheaters, low-lifes, admissions gamers, “activity stars.”</p>
<p>Some of you have the most superficial and uninformed understanding of the entire admissions process, not to mention the aptitudes of this generation, not to mention what colleges do and do not look for in the whole realm of extracurriculars.</p>
<p>And some of you also have a VERY poor understanding of what giftedness is and is not, but as one who has a specialty in this facet of education, that is not surprising. It is not, in itself, “high achievement.” It often results in that, but the formula is not an equation.</p>
<p>Perwinkle,
As the parent of a “truly” gifted student, who did not need to cheat and furthermore would be be intellectually and morally offended at the idea that 50% of gifted students with cheat [ and he went to school with many truly gifted students] , and as a long time Bay area resident, it would be a cold day in Hell before I would take as “factual” anything written in the SF Chronicle these days- It is now nothing more than fish wrap.</p>
<p>I expected better cheating skills from them, honestly… I mean, some of them have honed their cheating skills their entire lives just to get into Harvard!</p>