<p>Just musing over threads of the last few days, and thinking about the fall/winter application/admissions season ahead. There is a concept that I have come to put some stock in as I read the stories and stories and stories about kids with varying academic and achievement attributes. It looks as though many kids who find their ways to the most selective colleges and universities, or who win huge merit awards at the next level of selectivity, are early bloomers. They are early bloomers either in their sheer energy and drive - meaning they run organizations, they start organizations, they travel to faraway places without institutional support, they pursue causes etc. - or early bloomers in their intellectual affinity for a certain discipline - math, physics, creative writing. But what I see, and I am sure it is colored by my own parenting experience, is that there are many many highly able childen who simply bloom late. Many of whom, of course, are boys.</p>
<p>So as we enter this next season of applications and admissions and, unfortunately, rejections, I will myself be adding a filter of early and late blooming as I read and try to understand the outcomes. Even the outcomes of kids who do prevail in the highly selective admissions process, and then do not gain traction and have to take another route. Maybe they just went too far too fast. There has to be room in this world for those who bloom late. And my assumption is that many many late bloomers in many many universities, state universities, LACs, whatever, are getting ready for their day. Which, when it comes, if the process of the arrival is supported and managed half as well as all the folders of college literature and application deadlines, can be a day as glorious as any in store for the graduates of the most selective schools. And maybe even if it isn't managed, just supported, or at least not mourned or disdained.</p>
<p>I read your similar comment on another thread and I'm glad you started this thread. I think your point is excellent, and I hope you will add a comment here (or paste your earlier comment) discussing the differences in how your children are "blooming".</p>
<p>DJR4, Thank you and of course. This is obviously a topic near and dear to me. With my daughter, I had to find a term of love to understand her driven behaviour, evident BTW from the age of about 6 weeks. I called her my little wolverine:). For my son, as you can see from the below, it is about finding a different term of love to support him in becoming his own self and his own type of adult. Here is my earlier comment.
[quote]
As a parent of one shot from a cannon and one still lazing in a metaphorical clear pool in a metaphorical green and sparkling meadow, let me be clear. Some bloom early. Enjoy it and support it. Some bloom late. Enjoy it and support it. There is nowhere anywhere any data I know of that says that one type of kid has a better type of life than the other type of kid - by the time they both get to be 28. Or 35. Or 50.
<p>Alumother, I think you've hit on a very important factor. S1 was always very driven, like your daughter, from birth. Raising him wasn't easy -- he was quiet but stubborn and driven, and very difficult to persuade or dissuade. My younger son is just as capable intellectually, but has a somewhat more thoughtful nature, which makes him difficult in different ways! S1 was driven to achieve external measures of success -- grades, test scores, college acceptances etc. S2 definitely has more of a "life of the mind" and questions the value of such external measures of success. Sometimes, I think he just wants to be different from his brother. But, as I tell S2, slow and steady wins the race. Whether one is a turtle or a hare, they end up at the same finish line. I think the important thing is to nurture and encourage the individual child, and help him/her (usually HIM!) to find activities that capture his interest. I will say that whatever S2 ends up pursuing, I just know he'll have an impact on those around him. I've never met another teenager with more interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. I just hope others see that.</p>
<p>Alumother, I love this post. It articulates my own experience working at a college where many of the students were non-traditional students. Many of the most interesting and driven students were those who had been "slackers" in High School and then grew into their capabilities. For some it was a maturity issue, for many of the low-income minority males it was simply that there was no social currency in being an academic or community driven superstar while they were younger. </p>
<p>One of my favorites was a friend of my daughters. He was a low income, first generation Latino who I'm sure had an undiagnosed learning disablility but was still a very bright, gifted writer and one of the all time best and most charming bull******* I've ever met. He was an avid reader who found books to be his primary intellectual stimulation, but only when no one was looking. When he was only one of three Commended Students at the school up there with the Val and Sal, people just shook their heads and said "How?" as he was ranked below 250. He only took the test because the school forced him to. Two weeks after I met him I bluntly told him, you are either going to be President of the United or a Drug Lord but either way, you are going to be running something. My only goal was to get him to go to college with enough hours each semester to not lose momentum so when he finally did decide to use his abilities, college wouldn't seem out of his reach. Something finally clicked and he is a College Senior this year majoring in Philosophy and the darling of that Department. </p>
<p>Two things you said really stood out to me. "Even the outcomes of kids who do prevail in the highly selective admissions process, and then do not gain traction and have to take another route. Maybe they just went too far too fast." I think this happens far more than parents and administrators care to admit and is a real danger for many high achieving kids. When this happens, the psychological crisis created for these young adults can be quite debilitating without tremedous support and acceptance for who they are now, not who they were in High School. </p>
<p>And secondly "With my daughter, I had to find a term of love to understand her driven behaviour, evident BTW from the age of about 6 weeks. I called her my little wolverine.". I too have had to come to terms with excessively internally driven kids. Most parental advice is given for motivating, loving, understanding and accepting those kids who just don't gauge or value accomplishment in the same way as the rest of society. I don't see many articles on how to love, understand, support and balance your internally driven child.</p>
<p>One term I learned while reading up on gifted children is "asynchronous development." It is entirely possible for a kid to be able to solve simple equations but not know how to tie his own shoes. That's why I reacted negatively to comments on another thread that a bright kid ought to be able to do simple things.</p>
<p>Anyway, people who are extremely precocious intellectually may behave at age-level otherwise, but their intelligence often leads other to expect them to behave with greater maturity. This happened to a 17 year-old who joined my H's graduate research team, made up at that point of men (the were all males) who were not only around 25 but many of whom were already married. As well, his parents probably let him develop his intellectual talents and did not do much to cultivate his social skills. Things eventually righted themselves. Time has a way of doing so.</p>
<p>One of the wonderful things about our higher education system is that it accomodates such a wide range of kids AND gives so many second and third chances:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>I know of a single mother, living with the father of her son, who is starting her second year at Columbia (not the Columbia in Chicago). She's in her twenties. </p></li>
<li><p>Look at the enrollment at top grad and prof school programs anywhere. Then ask yourself how many of their students came from non-elite colleges?</p></li>
<li><p>look at transfer stats...</p></li>
<li><p>finally, look at happy adults. How many of those were "Late bloomers?"</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Alumother, excellent post. However, I don't think it's just late-blooming vs. early-blooming, or male vs. female, as much as it is about basic differences in personality types. </p>
<p>My daughter is very bright, but has always moved at her own zig-zaggy pace. Eventually, she gets where she's going, but she likes to see a lot of familar faces along the way. In looking at schools, she was instinctually attracted to ones where it seemed she could start off at a comfortable pace, and yet have room to grow as she moved along.</p>
<p>My son, on the other hand, has always -- yes, from birth -- marched to a much faster internal tempo. He doesn't like hand-holding, gets bored easily, and loves intellectual competition. His college search will be less about finding support and nuturing and more about finding a school where he can jump in feet first and start running. :) </p>
<p>It was telling to me that within an hour of walking around D's campus, Son turned to me and said, "This school is SO like her! Very homey and welcoming. But it's definitely NOT for me." On the other hand, he loved our visit to the U of Wisconsin the next day, but D. told me "Wow! I would DIE here!," and that only reconfirmed the choice she'd made for herself.</p>
<p>I do think this is a very important consideration in the college match-up. Some kids thrive in high-speed, competitive environments. They're ready to go the moment the whistle blows. Others need a bit more time to warm up and get in the race. Put either in the right environment, and the chances are good they'll thrive. Put either in the wrong environment, and the chances are good they'll wilt.</p>
<p>I always say that "the first to ripen is the first to rot." </p>
<p>Not in everything, but sometimes the kid who has it all (especially with sports and popularity) in middle school or high school doesn't feel the need to excel at the next level. How many ex-jocks have met that at forty are still talking about the "the big game?"</p>
<p>Roy Crock didn't sart McDonald's until he was in his late forties.</p>
<p>I wanted to add one more thought. It took me a long time to realize that there are many different types of brilliance. Unfortunately, our society - and the college admissions process - tends to recognize and applaud only a certain type of brilliance and achievement. </p>
<p>My son has wonderful grades, test scores, and succeeds at nearly everything he tries. Perhaps he'll end up as a CEO, or President of the U.S., or a noble prize winner some day. But, in all honesty, he lacks the emotional intelligence my daughter has. She is brilliant at recognizing, empathizing with, and affecting those around her who are lost, who need help, who are lonely. She may never be a CEO, or President of the U.S., but if I had to place my bets, I'd say she'll end up quietly making whatever corner of the world she ends up in a much better and saner place to be than my son will. Some might consider my daughter a "late-bloomer" academically, and if they didn't know about the behind-the-scenes contributions she's made at her school and in our community, might tag her as being under-achieving compared to her brother's public successes. But, I could say the same about my son in terms of his compassion and empathy for others. My daughter is the self-starter there, my son the late-bloomer.</p>
<p>Comparing my children's wonderful talents and abilities - or terming one "a late bloomer" and the other "a self-starter" based solely on one aspect or another - does both a disservice, because, in truth, they each have very different talents and a brillance that is all their own. Perhaps, as parents, the key is to look for that individual brillance in each child, wherever it might lie, instead of measuring each against the other.</p>
<p>The world needs many different types of people. Otherwise, it would be a terribly sterile place. :)</p>
<p>I suppose I point out the timing issue because the college application process happens at a certain point in time, ready or not. </p>
<p>Different kids will clearly experience this in different ways. The gifted kids who can't tie their shoes, but are brilliant in a field that is covered in middle school and high school, i.e. math or english, tend to do OK in admissions - if they get some logistical support from mom and dad - because their brains have bloomed even if their common sense hasn't:). The gifted kids who are extroverted leader types, i.e. shot out of a cannon, they will also do OK. But I think on reflection that the gifted kids who tend towards economics or politics or neuroscience, if they are late bloomers, if they are a little introverted, the admissions process may not reveal who they are as they aren't who they are yet:). Those fields are as much about wisdom and a body of knowledge as a raw talent, require more active searching for resources outside the visible academic system, and to my mind talents in those areas are usually not visible as early.</p>
<p>So I would add I guess a certain next level of distinction in terms of which kids this late blooming most affects in the application process.</p>
<p>Caroline, I agree that there are people who are just different and it's nothing to do with timing. I agree it's not about boys and girls per se. But, I hold out the belief that for some people, it's timing rather than pure difference in nature. In part of course from watching my son's growth and maturing pattern...And of course there should be room for those who bloom, if we call it that, in a completely different pattern. I'm talking about a very specific issue, not the broader issue of the value of all types of people, which of course I support.</p>
<p>And BTW, keepmesane, I swear there was a child-reading book popular 19 years ago about intense kids. What on earth was it called? Hmmm. Aging memory or lack thereof strikes again. Google to the rescue. "Your Spirited Child". A nice term of love.</p>
I've heard this before, but it's a good reminder. I do think that some of the most intellectually accelerated kids may lack common sense/emotional intelligence. That doesn't mean they're not good/nice people, just that they may not always pick up on social cues as quickly as other kids. Actually, the best thing that happened to my older son this year is in the area of social relationships. He ended up at a school where he is one among many -- he truly found a wonderful peer group, and we were thrilled to meet his girlfriend. I never worried about his academic or career success, but I'll always believe that true happiness comes from relationships in one's life. So I'll give up a little anxiety about the GPA if he continues to build friendships.</p>
<p>Alumother, should your daughter have life time benefits that your son doesn't have because she was an early bloomer and attends Princeton while your son is a late bloomer?</p>
<p>Here are some specific things I have seen with my own kids and or other kids...
* the elementary school art shows....where all the kids in each of the grades
display their work... and you can see not just genuine artistic abilities, but also, maturity...especially in the younger grades, where you have some kids whose parents held them back, often their art work was light years ahead of other kids....
* if you have more than one child, then you saw them learn how to read. I was big on reading (still am) and spent a lot of time with books with my first child, and one day he couldn't read, and the next day he could. There was not anything significant that had changed, except he was ready!!
* there have been articles in the press lately about maturation of brains and I have tried to use that approach with my own kids forever... remember when that seemed so hard to do, and now how easy it is....approach to any task or assignment....</p>
<p>I certainly know my oldest procrastinated a lot until junior year in HS... I like to believe that his prior behavior/maturity had not done him any damage... he was fortunate because when he hit his stride, he really hit it... and every once in a while I observe him reaching a new plateau....and try to discuss it without becoming all preachy.... he has a few more levels to reach to really be successful in life (self-sufficiency is my definition of success) but, he is well on his way to climbing alone.....which frees us up for S2 focus!!</p>
<p>I think velcro shoes were invented for all our above-average kids. :)</p>
<p>I also think that, on the whole, the individuals who are "people persons" are more likely to become CEOs and managers. The bright loners are more likely to work in back offices.</p>
<p>Alumother, your post is so on the money, it almost teared me up.
I struggle weekly with my son who is the most wonderfully charming, personable kid you could imagine, interested in soccer and genocide in Rwanda and Native American dance costumes, and totally uninterested in anything that remotely resembles effort - particularly in school! I have fussed, cajoled, worried and fretted about this kid who is daily amazed by why some kids don't seem to understand what the teacher is talking about, but yet personally is unable to rise above a 78-81 average. He needs a small LAC, he will only rate community college (unless he really improves).</p>
<p>I read the other thread about having contrasting children, and almost posted because one of the reponders described our situation to a T - bright, organized hard working older child, and unmotivated younger child - girl older, boy younger. My prayer is that in 2 more years, those wonderful small LACs will grow so hungry for boys that they will overlook those Cs, and we have the stomach to take a chance on him, and be prepared to pay what it will cost. I gotta love him, can't send him back!</p>
<p>Son #2 could NOT tie his shoes until 5th grade. Made me nuts and his teachers trying over and over. His sis had the job each day during lunch to make sure they were tied. For his last two years of high school his favorite shoes (bought by my mother!) were slip-on tennies. Wore them everywhere.</p>
<p>At first they were bought just so he could slip off his cleats and into those quickly on the field after practice and a game. But then, slowly but surely he wore them to school everyday! I tried throwing them out 2 weeks ago and the little monster (ok big monster) went and dug them out and they are back up in his closet. UGH!</p>
<p>Late bloomer, early bloomer...nah, he lives on a different planet in some other universe!</p>
<p>Kat
(I absolutely WILL NOT allow him to take those awful, awful shoes to Princeton)</p>
<p>cangel - I guess I think there's a chance that your beloved son and all our other beloved late bloomers may wind up either being the boss of some early bloomers or saving the early bloomers from disease via their research or entertaining the early bloomers in iPod downloads some day.;)</p>
<p>kat - hey let him take the shoes. My daughter ruined her good sneakers freshman year - just had to fork out $$$ for new New Balances:. Lotta rain in New Jersey.</p>
<p>dstark. It's not fair or unfair for my daughter to get the lifetime benefit of a Princeton education because she bloomed early. It just is what it is. My son may bloom in the next two years. Or not. If yes, maybe he too will go to Princeton. If not, going to Princeton would not have been a lifelong benefit to him but a disservice. If he doesn't bloom in the next two years, better he goes someplace else with a few quiet places in the stream to finish his maturing rather than get thrown into the rushing stream. If he has the raw material to catch up later, there are other platforms than an Ivy League university.</p>
<p>I guess that's what I'm getting at. That fine line between supporting your kid, scaffolding their growth, vs. pushing them when they just aren't ready. It's tough, because as a parent you have to set some clear expectations. But, as a parent, the price to pay for unrealistic expectations can be high. And recognizing that sometimes, sometimes, it's not correction your kid needs. Just a little more time to mature.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That fine line between supporting your kid, scaffolding their growth, vs. pushing them when they just aren't ready.
[/quote]
I would question whether or not it's really possible to push kids. I would have to say that I have been singularly unsuccessful in pushing my kids to do anything. The only thing I've been able to do is to present opportunities and support interests. As soon as I push in a particular direction, the walls go up -- there's just no way either one will do something once they feel it's not their idea. Life in our house became easier once I realized how little control I have over their performance in any endeavor. And I'd rather preserve the relationship than argue to get them to do something because I think it will help them in the future. I've only been able to present the logical case and give them the right to make the decision.</p>