Colleges for the "Brilliant Underachiever"?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmm. That brilliant researcher has to write grant proposals (boring..). That same researcher must deal with the inane comments (in his brilliant mind) of the reviews of his manuscripts in order to get published in order to prove his brilliance to the world.</p>

<p>My disdain for these underachievers comes from the observation that their so called genius is too often just lazyness or disdain for the rather ordinary things all of us must do as part of life. Very few of these under performing geniuses go on to do anything significant because very few of them ever make the realization that much of success is just plain hard work. It is not all fun and games, not all just “doing what I’m best at.”</p>

<p>“brilliant” researchers spend most of their time just working hard on ordinary things, perhaps with an occasional flash of brilliance.</p>

<p>This is why there are many smart people but not so many successful smart people, and few people of any kind who are really stars.</p>

62

<p>This is a great thread on an issue I have contemplated several times in the context of our family. First, we’re not talking here about the students who are brilliant and high achievers (can they really overachieve?). Adcoms look first for these kids–they will do well and don’t need the wisdom of the CC Parents’ Forum. Their only risk is being too one-dimensional (i.e. academic).</p>

<p>The real question is which is better of these two types—the student who is brilliant (as measured by standardized tests, I presume) but underachieves (as defined by GPA) or the student who is bright (lower SATs) but overachieves (higher GPA). </p>

<p>In my own experience, I’ve seen both types be equally successful in college and beyond (i.e. have careers at the top of their profession.) Success in college should not be defined simply as graduating with the highest possible GPA, then going on to grad school, etc.</p>

<p>35 years ago, my wife and I, both bright and high achievers, worked hard in all subjects, and showed our profs that we knew how to get good grades. We attended an ivy, did very well as undergrads (read GPA) and then stayed on to complete PhDs at the same school.</p>

<p>Switch to 2008. Our son, now in college at his first choice school, is brilliant (again, based on tests and other factors), but has very different priorities. He is certainly not “lazy” (where I define lazy as wasting time in non-productive ways), but rather has enormous intellectual curiosity and, unlike our generation 35 years ago, has huge amounts of knowledge at his fingertips, just a few clicks away. He finds himself severely time-limited, and chooses to spend this limited time on the things that interest him most. He is enthusiastic and does very well in the courses that interest him (those in his major), but less well in those courses that he sees as less relevant to his career path and interests. He has always spent much time pursuing his passions, attended RSI while in high school.</p>

<p>My wife and I have worried often about him. Why can’t he just be more like us? Why can’t he work hard and get straight A’s in all subjects? It finally dawned on us that he’s just different—much more entrepreneurial, much more spontaneous—and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. While I’ve slogged away working for one large company my entire career, he is far more creative, outspoken, willing to question, to take risks, and let’s face it, likely to change the world. Me, I’m really good at doing what is asked of me—always have been. Which is better? The world needs both types. Colleges need both types.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Hear. Hear.</p>

64

<p>I, too, feel emphathy for the underachieving brilliant which is why earlier if forced to make the decision I’d probably go that way. I too have a true appreciatation for all types of kids and enjoy young people immensely. My sibling was an underchieving brilliant. We used to pick on him endlessly when he was young. I think he even got a D in one high school class if memory serves me well. I was definitely more the “grind” type. My sibling’s mind was just like an explosion. All over the place. Never took the easiest path from one point to another…his mind would meander all over which is not what secondary education is about. It’s about the homework, the papers, the correct mathmatical work, vocab, memorization, practice and drilling. Everyone is focused on measuring, quantifying, and ranking. I have one scatterbrain like that now. In high school thought homework was silly, called it “busy work” and would have rather just taken the test…but alas, secondary education at many schools means 30% or more of the grade is turning in the daily homework. But my sibling is absolutely stinking brilliant and my kid, while not stinking brilliant like my sibling, has great critical thinking skills and a true intellectual curiosity and is really “digging” college where there is far less emphasis on busywork and far more emphasis on critical thinking. He came through his first fall with actually stronger grades than he had in high school. My sibling is inventing things that some of us would never dream of. Me, I’m making sure that those stinking brilliants are staying on point. Sort of like the publisher and the writer. Takes both to make a book for others to enjoy. It takes all kinds to make a society and thank goodness colleges, universities and companies understand this. “Slacker” really has no place in the comparison and is a totally different concept than a brilliant B or C and a nose to the grindstone A. They both have their place in life and in the colleges and universities. Neither my sibling nor I could have changed our lots in life and we both deserved and earned our educations. We were both born from the collection of DNA from an engineer and an artist. I can always hold my high school class rank, GPA and SAT scores over my siblings head and he can hold his post high school patents and research grants over mine.</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>My disdain for these overachievers comes from the observation that their so called hard work is too often just a dependence upon the system due to a lack of intellectuality/freethinking. Very few of these overachieving drones go on to do anything significant because very few of them ever make the realization that much of success is personally and subjectively defined. Its not all grades and merits, not all just “killing myself for the A, for the college, for the future employer, for everyone else but me.”</p>

66

<p>“Why can’t we all just get along?” Tear rolls down cheek.</p>

<p>It began with hunters and skinners, and today, many thousands of years later, we still need everyone…just to do different things.</p>

67

<p>

Maybe you’re just trying to get a rise out of someone. But this seems a bit extreme. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking that things like cancer cures come from brilliant, dedicated, and persistent super-achievers.</p>

<p>But you’re right, they don’t make a lot of money, or achieve a lot of fame, so might not be “successful” by some definitions.</p>

68

<p>I don’t have distain for either end of the spectrum. I’m sure that there parents (like me) who secretly wish their intellectually freewheeling kids would put their nose-to-the grindstone and get the daily homework done and I’m sure there are parents who secretly wish their perfectionist nose-to-the grandstone types were more intellectually freewheeling. Ah but if that were true we’d raise a pretty homogenous bunch of kids.</p>

69

<p>brilliant underachiever:
When S was in kindergarten, I decided that one of his friends was brilliant. Even at that age, he had a real gift for the gab. Throughout k-10, he was the most witty person I knew, including grown-ups and could have have everyone rolling on the floor laughing within minutes of opening his mouth. He was also one of the most underachieving kids in his class. He suddenly woke up in junior year and did great in AP classes. He’s now in a top art college. I predict a great future for him, very likely in the entertainment industry.</p>

70

<p>As a hardworking overachiever (or one of “those drones”), I can only hope that I won’t be penalized in the world for actually trying at life. I find most of these posts highly annoying. Sorry.</p>

71

<p>

I feel you , dog. Rage against the machine. I do know of a college that would serve someone well who cares not a whit about doing the required work for high school grades. Check it out here, and remember “Give Beef a chance.” Chow. [Hamburger</a> University](<a href=“http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hamburger_university.html]Hamburger”>http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hamburger_university.html)</p>

72

<p>Hey, even Hamburger U has standards. Folks who go there need to have people skills!</p>

73

<p>lol @ all 7 of the above posts.</p>

<p>i was merely offering a contrast to newmassdad’s biased and irrational rhetoric. i dont actually feel disdain for anyone. maybe someone noticed i wrote in the model of newmassdad? satire anyone?</p>

<p>im slightly offended that when newsmassdad offered his equivalently outrageous statements about brilliant underachievers, no one jumped on him quite like i have been jumped on for my facetious statements about overachievers.</p>

<p>the point is this: the difference between overachievers and underachievers is often just a difference in personality. the world needs all types of people, and to suggest otherwise is to be a nazi. [/thread]</p>

74

<p>Whatismouse, point taken. </p>

<p>To be honest, I have the utmost respect for HU. I worked at McD’s all through high school & it was a terrific experience. I knew several wonderful people who were HU grads. So my comment is tongue in cheek.</p>

75

<p>whatismouse, I’m glad you can laugh. It’s a great talent. It will serve you well. (And yes. I knew what you were doing.)</p>

76

<p>Ouch! That one hit close to home. Bored while home for Christmas vacation my freshman year in college, I decided to take a job at McDonald’s under the guise of being unsure about returning to college. After the first week, the manager approached me and confided “You’re a fast learner. We think you’re management material”, and handed me a brochure to Hamburger University. A week later I left and returned to college, but for that one brief shining moment I saw myself in an entirely different light.</p>

<p>Whatismouse does have a valid point and presents the opposite viewpoint from that of newmassdad. But neither should disdain people who are different from themselves.</p>

77

<p>newmassdad wrote: “That brilliant researcher has to write grant proposals (boring..). That same researcher must deal with the inane comments (in his brilliant mind) of the reviews of his manuscripts in order to get published in order to prove his brilliance to the world.”</p>

<p>Only because some (possibly the high achievers who can only see the world their way) set it up that way. There are organizations that value differences and make a concerted effort to pair the brilliant researcher with the brilliant writer, etc. </p>

<p>nmd continues: "My disdain for these underachievers comes from the observation that their so called genius is too often just lazyness or disdain for the rather ordinary things all of us must do as part of life. Very few of these under performing geniuses go on to do anything significant because very few of them ever make the realization that much of success is just plain hard work. It is not all fun and games, not all just “doing what I’m best at.”</p>

<p>Your disdain comes through loud and clear. Perhaps your disdain is a result of jealousy or envy - perhaps it bothers you that some do not have to go through the “ordinary steps”. Some have vision. Some have discipline. Why do you believe your way is the only way. Instead of disdain, why not set up an organization that capitalizes on each persons strengths - let the idea people come up with brilliant ideas, let the high achievers develop the products from these ideas, manage the company, etc. Why not build on strengths instead of making everyone a clone of procedure? What a waste of human potential!</p>

<p>Nmd continues"“brilliant” researchers spend most of their time just working hard on ordinary things, perhaps with an occasional flash of brilliance."</p>

<p>Not necessarily. For some this ordinary work leads to flashes of brilliance. For others it is draining. Compare Edison and Einstein. In fact, many of the world changing ideas and concepts were made by dreamers. Some keep tinkering, some dream. There is room in the world for both. </p>

<p>nmd continues: “This is why there are many smart people but not so many successful smart people, and few people of any kind who are really stars.”</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because too many expect everyone to work correcting their weaknesses rather than building their strengths.</p>

78

<p>So what colleges are recommended for the “brilliant underachiever,” however you define that term? Are any colleges looking for that kind of student?</p>

79

<p>^^
Bard might be one…</p>

80

<p>tokenadult:</p>

<p>Some of the brilliant underachievers, like my S’s friends, are students who find their passion outside of the purely academic pursuits. They are not necessarily couch potatoes munching popcorn in front of the TV, but pursuing their passions outside the classroom. I would not be surprised if my S’s friend, the incredibly witty kid, would make a career writing scripts for TV. At any rate, he is in an art school which, presumably, does not put as much emphasis on GPAs and scoreboards as different examples of creativity.</p>