<p>Thanks, psych. I have a lot of disabled friends, including one who is intellectually disabled, and I want to use the correct terms.</p>
<p>My pleasure! One other note–some people (and all academic writing) believe very strongly that person first language (people with disabilities v. disabled people) should be used at all times. (Personally, as someone with a physical disability, I don’t care, but a lot of people do care very much). Just FYI. :)</p>
<p>Thanks again, psych.</p>
<p>Actually, thats not quite right. While the DSM IV still has the "Mild/Moderate MR terminology in it, its not been revised in quite some time (thats still a work in progress)The newer test materials (eg the WAIS IV, the WISC IV) use the descriptor “extremely low” for an IQ score of 69 or below, and there is a general trend towards using statistical descriptors (standard scores, Z scores, T scores, cumulative percentiles, base rates, etc) to describe a person’s scores/abilities. Hope that helps.</p>
<p>jym, what are T and and Z scores, if it isn’t too complicated to explain?</p>
<p>Those are statistical measurements (standard scores) based on a normal distribution.</p>
<p>NPR used “intellectual disability” this morning. I am not certain I had ever heard the phrase used before, but this thread made me feel up-to-date.</p>
<p>In the social services world, whose margins I sometimes inhabit, one still hears the phrase “MH/MR” a lot, as well as “developmental disability” (to describe the condition f/k/a mental retardation).</p>
<p>Here’s a nice descriptor from the CDC about the categories of Developmental Disabilities, Intellectual Disabilities being one of the subsets [Developmental</a> Disabilities, NCBDDD, CDC](<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/default.htm]Developmental”>Developmental Disabilities, Redirect, NCBDDD, CDC)</p>
<p>^
Yes, subset–not complete defination! Even people in the disability/disability psych field sometimes use the term incorrectly, much to my great annoyance.</p>
<p>JHS, states are beginning to revise their terminology to eliminate the use of MR. Also, the definition of “developmental disability” can vary by state to be more restrictive than the federal definition–my state, for example, requires “qualifying” DDs to present with low IQ/cognitive impairment, which my boss (from a state with a much more “normal” definition) couldn’t believe.</p>
<p>jym, didn’t know that about the WAIS et al–thanks for the info!</p>
<p>In sum, disability services/disability psych has incredible issues with terminology! This further causes issues in the literature because everyone defines “disability” differently, making it difficult to compare results from different studies…</p>
<p>The problem with creativity and measuring it against the IQ spectrum is that that assumes that somehow creativity is not shaped by environment; my take is that if creativity shows little correlation between intelligence and creativity it may be more about a leveling effect of environment then a real correlation. I do know that there are strong correlations between those measured out as gifted and above (>2 percentiles above the average on an IQ style test) and the shown propensity to do things their own way, to work things out for themselves, which may or may not be measured as creative or not, but to me is; I also know that this tendency gets people like that into trouble, that despite all the talk about wanting to encourage creativity, much of life, between schooling and later the workforce, emphasizes learning to do things certain ways (the whole crap in corporate america about “thinking outside the box” is a meaningless slogan for the most part, the last thing encouraged there is original thinking with some few small examples). As a result, the hyper intelligent and those at all ends of the spectrum learn to do things the ‘right way’, simply because it is the path towards not being the outsider or having to right, so if people at all ends of the spectrum show equal levels of creativity, I suspect some of that is the leveling effect of society…something statistical studies like this would not be able to clear out (now perhaps if they found a group of young children, early in their school careers, before assembly line schools had gotten them, and did the measurement, I would be more likely to believe that there is no correlation between intelligence and creativity).</p>
<p>Creativity is not something that simply is, and like with intelligence unless nurtured doesn’t lead to spectacular results. Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers makes this point, that what someone does is not about being ‘gifted’, but rather having the right environment to bring out whatever a person has. A young musician, no matter how talented (especially in the classical realm) will not do squat unless they have the right environment; a Bill Gates raised in the wrong environment would probably end up as a drone someplace rather then the founder of Microsoft. </p>
<p>As far as the essay goes, I found it to be quite funny and sardonic, a refreshing take from most college admission essays that are all so earnest about saving the world and convincing the reader they are the one going to do it; like high school graduation speeches, it is refreshing to hear someone who breaks from the mold and dares to be funny and witty. As far as being inappropriate, the only place this might be inappropriate would be in social climbs where putting cucumber and tomato on the same plate is considered taboo for sexual innuendo.</p>
<p>In case anybody is interested and hasn’t seen this already, UChicagoPSAC posted this on the UChicago forum:
</p>
<p>Thanks SecretAsianMan: I hope that “meghnasridhar” read your posting #191.</p>
<p>SecretAsianMan: Can you post same info (post #191) in Thread titled “Should U Chicago’s admissions dean have sent this essay around or am I too strict?”/ College Essays.</p>
<p>It could help other students. Thanks.</p>
<p>
Agreed. Socioeconomic factors definitely play a role. I know somebody who taught storytelling to gifted privileged and underprivileged elementary school kids (separately-- the programs were in two different neighborhoods), and she tells me there’s a clear difference in their facility with words, mental quickness, and creative thinking when coming up with a story. Knowing them extensively, she attributes this gap to the level of stimulation they get in their schools and at home (the former group being in a wealthy suburb and the latter in an inner-city neighborhood). Gifted programs can stimulate only so much… much of learning has to come from the parents and peers. She also finds problematic how society defines brilliance. The thinking styles of the privileged group are more commonly seen as “smart” since they allude to certain popular academic references, when in fact the underprivileged kids simply had different values to work with. She said it was easy to tell the kids of the privileged kids had parents/guardians feeding them certain kinds of knowledge/instilling in them certain tastes.</p>
<p>IQ is also shaped by the environment, but that is a discussion best kept for a separate thread.</p>
<p>To judge creativity in the admissions process, admissions officers should be well-aware of socioeconomic and other environmental factors that affect how that creativity is cultivated. Some admissions offices are better at doing this than others. Same with intellectuality. Just because you know about Kierkegaard or Plato doesn’t mean you’re an intellectual.</p>
<p>Aie, I haven’t been to this thread in a while, but I just saw what Secret Asian Man/UChicagoPSAC posted, and I’m amazed at how news in CC travels so quickly right to the universities themselves! It’s amazing to get a clarification from the dean of admissions himself, and I feel much better now. I’ve submitted my UoC app now, and am crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. This is good news!</p>
<p>Just saw the Times had a little read on the kerfuffle; apologies if it’s already been linked elsewhere: </p>
<p>[University</a> Gets an Earful Over a Cheeky Essay - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/education/01chicago.html?hp]University”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/education/01chicago.html?hp)</p>
<p>Must be pretty quiet over at The Times today! I hope they’re not going to report on the status of my New Year’s housecleaning effort or anything.</p>
<p>^And they even mentioned College Confidential in the article!</p>
<p>
</p>