<p>One popular theory of giftedness is that of Joseph Renzulli, director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (at least he used to be the director there). He suggests that giftedness occurs at the locus where three interlocking clusters merge – above average ability, task commitment and creativity. A lot of schools use his model to identify gifted kids -- and high IQ scores alone don't work. </p>
<p>If it's true that the "that high IQ does not ensure greatness" and "No accepted measure of innate or basic intelligence, whether IQ or other metrics, reliably predicts that a person will develop extraordinary ability" (the study that calmom quotes from), then I have to wonder about the elite schools' slowly rising average SAT scores. Going back to the original purpose of this now extremely long thread, I wonder if MIT would find more creative students if it started looking closer at kids who score in the 600s rather than the 700s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder if MIT would find more creative students if it started looking closer at kids who score in the 600s rather than the 700s.
[/quote]
I think when schools focus too much on very high end SAT scores, they end up building a class that lacks intellectual diversity. In other words, they end up with a class full of students who all think exactly alike. It's not that they would want a class made up entirely of artsy/creative out-of-the-box, zany thinkers either -- but a greater number of unconventional thinkers added into the mix would stimulate discussion and thought all around.</p>
<p>Is there research that shows that students with SATs in the 600s are more creative/artsy, out-of-the-box, zany thinkers and that students who score in the 700s are not? Do we know that top colleges automatically discount students who score in the 600s?</p>
<p>There are a lot of unsupported assumptions in the post above. Since the thread opened with the a discussion of the views of the MIT Dean of Admissions, it should be acknowledged that MIT has admitted/produced a large number of artsy/creative, out-of-the-box, zany thinkers. Some are engaged in the pranks that MIT is famous for, some worked in Building 20, some now work in the Media Lab.</p>
<p>One should also be careful of other unsupported assumptions (generalizations) about the supposed people-skills (or lack thereof) of gifteds. (Mentioned a few times on this thread.) Those of us who work with them & know them well have often watched quite the reverse, actually -- in that often it's others who don't know how to relate to people who are not like themselves, and the truly gifted are very much in the category of "different." This is why I said earlier that the most beneficial thing for them is often to be taught by someone who is also gifted: that tends to promote self-understanding, self-recognition, greater comfort "in one's own skin," and thereby greater ease in relating to others overall. (This is more an indirect process, but it's important.)</p>
<p>Like some other posters in previous pages, I have my own "stories to tell" regarding marginalized & even abused gifteds in school. One of them overlaps with the earlier example of someone who was beaten at school (while not beaten at home later), & mocked by the teacher because of the boy's sheer intelligence. He was far more intelligent than the teacher, which enraged the male teacher. That boy, who grew up with me, became a well-known conductor whose name I will not share.</p>
<p>I think to some extent we are "zero-tolerancing" the creativity out of children. Kindergarteners get suspended for hugging; high school students get expelled for pranks that, had we done them, our teachers would have had a hard time keeping a straight face while they scolded us. It's hard to expect a kid to be a zany, spontaneous, out-of-the-box thinker in college, if we've punished him for it the previous 18 years of his life.</p>
<p>LOL, "suspended for hugging." Important points, conyat. On the latter, though, it might relate more to the adult overreaction and inappropriate application of "sexual harrassment" regulations -- and particularly the unenlightened enmeshment of very young children into adult sexual concerns. But yes, points well taken.</p>
<p>My point was also, that we tend to focus a great deal on the education of gifted children, sometimes to the exclusion of nurturing who they are as people and helping them navigate a world that may be hostile. We are horrified when they are bullied by teachers and students because they are gifted (oh, please, if not that, they would be bullied for something else...no, it's not right, but, boy, is it middle school!) Well, sorry, guys, that's life. My eighth grader is in a similar situation. He is a very sensitive, extremely bright, out-of-the -box thinker (like his dad who finds Silicon Valley a veritable candy store). Although he has a high EQ and knows how to present so that people like him,(with a smile, he tells me), he still feels the pain of coming up against stupid teachers and typical jerky kids. Instead of trying to create a perfect bubble for him to exist in, I have decided to help him gain skills to deal with these people. Having him taught by gifted teachers in the exclusive company of other gifteds would not help him navigate a world in which there are a variety of people, some on them nice, some mean, some heinous and some stupid. Gifteds, like everyone else, have to learn to exist with everyone. When they get out of school, they will have to work in environments with lots of different people. We would do them a disservice to keep them in a bubble that would not prepare them for such a world.</p>
<p>PS. Exceptionally bright kids often do have problems socially because they cannot find other people who understand them or share their interests. It can be extremely isolating for them, which can compound the existing problem. IMHO, parents need to make sure that socializing these kids is as high on their list of priorities as finding them the appropriate math classes.</p>
<p>I don't think I advocated teaching in a "bubble," or being self-segregated into a homogeneous group ("exclusive company") -- although there are some educators who believe that that can be beneficial as a temporary situation. (I have never been one to support life-long gifted-only schools; I'm with you there, symphonymom, & for the reasons you mention.) Often, before one can successfully navigate & resist the bullies, the marginalizers, the ones unwilling to tolerate differences in others & who feel threatened by that, it's important merely to recognize what one is. That recognition is more efficient when one has at least a few mirrors. The reinforcement (or even revealing) of identity, both via a competent, caring teacher (& yes, certainly parents), as well as via at least some peers, is in itself a strengthening process which aids in relating well to others. (That's all I meant.) :)</p>
<p>Okay, guys. I'm starting to get creeped out by the use of the term "Gifteds" here. There are a lot of different gifts: academic, social, musical, physical, emotional... and all of us have them in varying degrees. Calling talented individuals "Gifteds" makes them sound like an Uber-race, living within our society of "Normals". Can y'all change that nomenclature? Because it's just..... creepy. :)</p>
<p>Hey, Epiphany, actually yours wasn't the message I was responding to. I agree with you as usual...a competent caring teacher can make ALL the difference (as can sympathetic peers). I wish there were more teachers like that...
I just spoke with my son's math teacher (Sunday morning, 10 am... she called...I have high hopes for her being one of those caring competent types). His English teacher, however, is one of the heinous...threatened, insecure, young, young, young things who wants to hang with the socially popular thirteen-year old girls...she doesn't like the smart kids at all. I resent her, especially since my son has had her two years in a row, but she is teaching him a valuable if painful lesson of navigating around such road blocks. I had a heinous boss for my first job...threatened, insecure, young, young, young...and sometimes learning lessons in navigation stands one in good stead.
Have a good day, Epiphany!</p>
<p>Sure, anxious, I don't care what we call them...although probably any label is going to creep someone out. We can call them (those-who-learn-quickly:)<br>
Yes, there are a lot of different gifteds out there...should we call them talented?</p>
<p>anxiousmom, I hear what you're saying, but you may be misinterpreting the term. Rather than engage in extensive expose, data-sharing, etc. on this thread -- which LOL has meandered --in a nutshell I would say that differentiation (vs. "superiority") is a better classification of giftedness, & it is the way I believe that others on this thread see it, too. Let me tell you, giftedness, which can overlap (intellectual + artistic, for example), can be a blessing & a curse, & sometimes more of the latter than the former. This is a common subject of discussion among support groups for parents of gifteds. While the research suggests a qualitative difference (again, not in the sense of "better" but in the sense of different orientation, different way of learning & of viewing self & world, etc.), the research does not support that those who are demonstrably intellectually gifted (as opposed to merely high-achieving) are, for example, morally superior to those who are not, nor (as others have discussed on this thread) are necessarily more inclined to success in the real world -- in terms of career satisfaction, finances, and personal relationships. Definitely NOT an uber-race question, i.m.o. "Above," no. Different, yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder if MIT would find more creative students if it started looking closer at kids who score in the 600s rather than the 700s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p> Huh?? Mit is chock filled with creative scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, artists and musicians, economists etc etc. The campus is buzzing with creative activities.</p>
<p>I dare say that if you looked at students grouped by any given SAT score you'd find a cross section of ""creative"" vs. ""uncreative""</p>
<p>And talk about shooting the messenger. Marilee Jones speaks up about what we all know is a stressful time - college admissions for this current generation - and she is the one who gets trashed! I've heard her speak in person and was fully convinced that she cares deeply about whereof she speaks.</p>
<p>andi, what you quoted was in response to comments in the article from Jones that faculty had complaints about students lacking in creativity in the classroom. That's not an exact quote but if you go back and read the article that's linked at the beginning of the thread you can see where that came from.</p>
<p>Don't want to change topic of thread but I'll just say that he LOVES it there! He's in his element. Spent 5 days at Yellowstone for pre-orientation. Very active in music and involved in a special year-long study program dealing with the Mississippi R. and the Gulf coast and will be going there in the spring. Stays up till all hours studying and talking with the kids on his hallway. Jogs along the Charles. A good fit!</p>