<p>Except for Ramanujan, who was dirt-poor. And Gauss, who came up with the idea of telescoping series when his 1st grade teachers attempted to occupy the students with a time-intensive exercise of adding the first 100 numbers. Or von Neumann, who was multiplying and dividing 5 digit numbers in his head as a kid and who had a photographic memory. </p>
<p>I appreciate your civility in expressing your viewpoint, and believe me, I do get that socioeconomics can impact performance. However, I think you are underestimating that there are things which can’t be explained by that. For example, if someone is in the top 5 performers in the world in something, I would say that it is probable they are in the top 200 or 3000 in native talent <em>at least</em>. Or that there is a top X which I would assume they would be in.</p>
<p>Ha! I have been thinking of these examples but in a very different way… how many Ramanujans are born into circumstances so disadvantaged and desperate they never come to the public’s attention? For all I know, thousands of potential world changers never make it beyond early childhood - or end up providing for themselves and their families with jobs that don’t begin to take advantage of their abilities.</p>
<p>okay - take that a step further: What would Ramanujan have accomplished if poetgrl had been his mom? potentially more? or not?</p>
<p>I’m not sure why this is relevant. As a general rule, the members of the US IMO team go to HYPSM, even though some might label them as “textureless math grinds.” The same seems to be true for the members of the US IPhO and IOI teams (though some might go to CMU for cs), and Intel STS winners. It’s not like these people aren’t getting into to the top schools. At worst, they might get rejected by Harvard.</p>
<p>It’s relevant for the sake of argument. Some contest the notion that anyone can “earn” anything because everything is determined by socioeconomics anyway. All I’m saying is that there is some level of performance exhibited by X number of people which necessitates a certain level of <em>natural</em> talent only available to Y number of people. Sure Y > X. but some people act as if Y = 2.5 billion people or something.</p>
<p>^ I am not claiming to have any special ability, but when I was in the third grade in a small school in Hellhole, Texas, I received a similar assignment to the one Gauss received and came up with a similar solution in a couple of minutes. But when I showed my teacher my solution in Hellhole, she screamed at me and called me lazy and told me to do it the long way like the other children. If Gauss had grown up in a place like Hellhole, it’s quite possible we would never have heard of him.</p>
<p>I’m not actually underestimating this. What I am saying is: If a truly gifted child is born in to a family with the means to educate and feed them well, they will do well. If a truly gifted child is born into a family who is still stuck in the abyss, whether due to addiction on the part of the parents (a good reason for misery and poverty in those with native gifts), or whatever other factor, not attributable to the child, then as they grow, their opportuniities will be different and less than those of the other child.</p>
<p>So, Child A has tutors and music lessons and plays on a team or two, growing up, narrows his or her abilities and goes to schools with excellent teachers surrounded by other kids whose parents value education and have expectations: most class time is given over to instruction. When it comes time to take the standardized tests (which have been shown to have cultural and SES bias, anyway), they get prep work and they work at that prep work because they don’t have to go to work or babysit for siblings, etc…</p>
<p>child B, who has the same native gifts is never warm in the winter and sometimes the electricity is going out. There is never enough to eat and sometimes he/she has no idea when the parents will be home from work. They have siblings who need to be taken care of and they have to traverse a dangerous playground to even get to school. their peers in class are hungry and restless and half of them are only there for the free lunch program. After school, maybe they are on a team, or in the school orchestra, though, most likely they are trying to find work, or working or babysitting. Forget tutoring. Forget prep work for the standardized tests.</p>
<p>This is what I am talking about.</p>
<p>That’s all.</p>
<p>I don’t think this means that the kid A is less of a hard worker, I just mean that everything in his/her life revolves around making sure he/she gets the education, gets on the best team, gets the best lessons. The other kid is just hoping for some quiet time to get the homework done and a 10c raise at work.</p>
<p>So, Kid A gets a marginal return on his college education, but Kid B? It’s life altering.</p>
<p>This is borne out in the studies, and it is why it doesn’t matter how many times they come up with a new way to say, “Hey! My kid was gyped!” the institutions aren’t going to listen. Nobody benefits more than kid B. </p>
<p>As for the rare true genius? the truly best in the world in math and science probably lives in India, for one thing. But, if he/she is in the US? They will find their way to the top, no matter even if they start at the local community college.</p>
<p>Studies have repeatedly found that the SAT is not biased against blacks or low-income students in the sense of underpredicting their college grades. A recent study from the College Board, available online, is “The Validity of the SAT for Predicting Cumulative Grade Point Average by College Major”. Russell K. Nieli, in “The Underperformance Problem”, summarizes the research finding that blacks actually underperform their test scores:</p>
<p>‘Less well known is what in the scholarly literature is called “the underperformance problem.” Once in college blacks with the same entering SAT scores as whites and Asians earn substantially lower grades over their college careers and wind up with substantially lower class rankings.’ </p>
<p>Nieli is the author of a forthcoming book, “Wounds That Will Not Heal: Affirmative Action and Our Continuing Racial Divide”.</p>
<p>Well, my kid’s black roommate at an Ivy was absolutely brilliant and works at Goldman now and certainly never seemed to be mismatched at college. My younger one’s black roommate is the dynamo of the four girls. She hardly seems to be floundering. Not buying it. At least for highly selective schools, the kids who get in – whatever race – have what it takes.</p>
<p>@Beliavsky, I’m going to need to see some peer reviewed studies before I have any interest in your claim that SAT is not racially biased. You can access the Harvard study from 2010 from this article, if you are that interested in reading on the subject</p>
<p>The Asian/white/Hispanic/black ordering is generally found in </p>
<p>IQ tests
state achievement tests mandated by NCLB
the NAEP
the SAT
the ACT
SAT subject tests
AP exams
high school graduation rates
college graduation rates</p>
<p>Funny how all these measures are biased the same way.</p>
<p>I’m not going to go along with the “natural order of things” argument. I don’t think it is a natural corollary from assuming that there is a strong genetic component to success.</p>
<p>However, I do feel like any argument which feeds a sacred cow is taken as gospel, no matter how erroneous it is. Keep in mind that an argument may appear to support a sacred cow, but it can support, feed a lot of other things too. You may have thrown that not-quite-right argument in the pen for your sacred cow to eat, but it may end up feeding a foul-smelling pig.</p>
<p>Can you say what the sacred cow is here, collegealum314? The X of truly exceptional people is, of course, smaller than 2.5 billion people. Really, who doesn’t get that? The example of Ramanujan doesn’t disprove the general case that environment and socioeconomic status can have a significant effect on intelligence and achievement. That doesn’t tell the whole story; I agree with you on that.</p>
<p>By the way, despite all the hoo-ha about Texas education, lots of interesting, accomplished kids from there, including at poor and rural schools.</p>
<p>If you think I think the way we run our post-secondary education in this country is a sacred cow to me, you would be sadly mistaken. I, in fact, believe a state university education should be included in our taxes and provided to all students who want one and can stay “in good standing”</p>
<p>I understand the reality, right now, is that we have chosen to expend our money on the older generation and encumber the younger with increasing debt loads, but in my opinion, college has become what high school was during the wwII era, and most true learners go on to grad degrees. And I believe a state university education should be available to all at a very minimal cost. </p>
<p>"‘Once in college blacks with the same entering SAT scores as whites and Asians earn substantially lower grades over their college careers and wind up with substantially lower class rankings.’"</p>
<p>Which is part of the reason that I don’t believe that SES-based affirmative action is enough. Being black in America carries its own burden quite separate from economic disadvantage. Yes, the kids of black doctors and lawyers have to live with these pressures and assumptions. You can’t buy white privilege with any amount of money.</p>
<p>“The Asian/white/Hispanic/black ordering is generally found in”</p>
<p>You forgot to mention American Indians. In terms of heritage, they are overwhelmingly Asian and white. But they were and are at the bottom of the social totem pole in America. They were subjected to all kinds of genocidal policies for 500 years, different from but as catastrophic as those African-Americans dealt with. The result is that their kids struggle the way black kids do. This pattern says a lot about how societal forces cause “racial” differences.</p>