<p>While I agree that fewer kids seek to truly excel in math than in sports, I totally disagree that there isn’t a significant genetic element. Take spatial perception, for example, which is important for geometry and comprehending graphs. One of my children is highly intelligent in most measures but has poor spatial perception and reasoning. He claims he would not have gotten through the math and science courses requiring lots of graphing without the help of his girlfriend. When he was younger he was completely unable to draw even simple objects like a football–a problem determined to be due to a perceptual weakness. My daughter has no such weakness and outscored him on the SAT despite having a significantly lower level of math preparation.</p>
<p>I am certain this problem is genetic, as my mother couldn’t find her way out of a paper bag and also couldn’t draw to save her life. I frequently can’t remember which way to turn when I exit a room, and could never do any of those “math” puzzles that involve imagining what a flat paper with dotted lines would look like folded up and assembled. Neither could my child.</p>
<p>Furthermore, good math problem solving requires a solid working memory that has the bandwidth to allow the mental manipulation of lots of facts and formulas all at once and multistep processes. That is something that my third child lacks. It has been proven on psychological testing.</p>
<p>I don’t believe in the genetic component at all. Especially after I’ve tutored many “terrible at math” to math superstars if they put in the time. These gifted math students have a component of love for the subject, appropriate teaching and plenty of practice. If there is a gene, find it and quantitatively prove it. I do have 2 kids in the same school with a wide gap of math skills. The math wiz kid is always working on math puzzles, math problems, and just loves it. The other kid had no interest beyond homework. No surprise the results are different.</p>
<p>^ Which came first, the chicken or the egg? People generally enjoy doing things they’re good at, and hence are willing to spend more time on practice of the aspects of that endeavor which are challenging.</p>
<p>I got around to looking up Richard Sherman, since barrk123 brought him up in connection with my statement that Stanford is not admitting anyone who just meets the NCAA minimum.</p>
<p>Sherman had a high school GPA of 4.2 and an SAT score of 990 (or possibly 960). I am not sure whether this is the total for 2 sections or 3. The NCAA eligibility requirement for a student with a high school GPA of 3.55 and up is 400 on the SAT CR + M. Sherman cleared the GPA bar handily, and it didn’t matter what he scored on the SAT, then.</p>
<p>Sherman’s parents were no less influential. His father, Kevin, rose daily at 4 a.m. to drive a garbage truck – and still does today. His mother, Beverly, works with disabled kids in the inner city and preached the value of education. She was happy to dole out a few dollars when her children – Branton and Richard have a younger sister, Kristyna – came home from school with A’s.</p>
<p>Sherman did just that, year after year after year. He took Advanced Placement classes, attended leadership seminars and was an extra-credit machine. If he finished his assignments before the bell rang, he’d help classmates finish theirs.</p>
<p>“It didn’t seem like Richard even lived in the inner city,” said Donerson, the Dominguez coach. “He read a lot. His vocabulary was totally different. He didn’t talk slang, and the other kids teased him about it.”</p>