5 ms·

I have taught a few tens of gifted students. I could identify them based on a short test from grade 1 (5-6 years old) onwards. I could even identify some just b

I have taught a few tens of gifted students. I could identify them based on a short test from grade 1 (5-6 years old) onwards. I could even identify some just by a short conversation. All of them went on to become successful in college (only a few have graduated so far). They consist of medical students in top medical schools in the country, one International Physics Olympiad gold medalist (currently at MIT), one International Chemistry Olympiad gold medalist (currently at U of Tokyo). All of them from a 200k-people city in a developing country and I only taught math to a few classes of these students (for about 4 years) before moving on to another education venture. I would say it is highly likely most of these students would go on to have very good careers. We still do not know whether they will achieve great things but their trajectory is much brighter than average kids. I agree that putting young kids in remedial classes could be problematic, but gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education.

spraak 9y ago
But what if you'd given the non-gifted students the same experience? This sounds like selection bias. And it'd be helpful if you explained more about the test, as just claiming that you can isn't evidence that what you did was by any means valid.
- nopinsight 9y ago
  There were some kids their parents tried to push them into our gifted class (as a tutoring center, we had regular classes too), and they got borderline scores, so we let them in. They could not follow after a while. I would say they did alright in later schooling but not to the same level of academic success as those in gifted classes. There are few Academic Olympiad gold medalists from the city. In fact, I only know of these two who were my own students so far and another bronze medalist many years previously. (From his later scholarship--he is now a math professor--I think he would have earned a gold medal had he have gifted education back then.) That said, it was not a controlled experiment so you can think of it as a case study but not gold-standard randomized controlled trial. The test was a set of challenge-style math problems for primary kids. Solving them would require more creativity and facility with thought than regular math problems.
yelloweyes 9y ago
there's nothing "gifted" about going to medical school in a top university or winning a math competition
- nopinsight 9y ago
  I followed the standard definition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Characteristics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Char...
kahnjw 9y ago
>gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education If you show me that other students don't benefit from suitable gifted education, then you'll have an argument. Claiming that treating children with gifted education increases their chance of success is obvious, but misses the point, does it not? I can specifically remember back to when the TAG Math students (Talented and Gifted) were learning what negative numbers were. I kept hearing about them. I imagined what they might mean, how you use them. When I was finally introduced one year later, I was disappointed, you mean it's literally just subtraction? I could have done that one year ago. And same with all the other students in the normal math course, if they had the same level of attention and care. The worst part was this: the students in TAG math had a student:teacher ratio of 10:1, while the normal math students had a ratio of 20:1. The remedial students had a ratio of 10:1, but the remedial teacher was from the special ed department, not a specialized math teacher that the TAG and normal students got. The TAG program at my school was praised, and the teacher acted as if she was doing God's work. Of course, she had children who were students at the school, and of course, they were in all of her classes. Now, looking back on it, I realize how broken this frame of thinking is. Yes, students will benefit if you put them in an elite math course with more resources than other children. Other students will bare the cost. I think a better allocation of our time and money would be to spread resources evenly. If you really want to get ahead by one or two years, take summer classes in middle or high school. That way, the students bares the cost of the additional time and effort, and we can still evenly allocate resources so every eight year old gets the same opportunity. EDITS: spelling bear -> bare
- nopinsight 9y ago
  The issue of resource allocation is complex and would take much research to get close to a proper direction. I was just responding to this paragraph: > Needless to say, I am also very skeptical of identifying gifted students at a young age. IMO society over-values so called natural talent, and trying to find that talent in an 8 year old is silly, with rare exception.
- epmaybe 9y ago
  That reminds me of my own story regarding negative numbers. I was super young, maybe second grade (7, 8 yrs old?). Family friends had dinner with us, and their kids who were maybe 5 years older than me were talking about "negative" numbers. I was so disappointed when I realized the same thing you did.

spraak 9y ago

But what if you'd given the non-gifted students the same experience? This sounds like selection bias. And it'd be helpful if you explained more about the test, as just claiming that you can isn't evidence that what you did was by any means valid.

nopinsight 9y ago
There were some kids their parents tried to push them into our gifted class (as a tutoring center, we had regular classes too), and they got borderline scores, so we let them in. They could not follow after a while. I would say they did alright in later schooling but not to the same level of academic success as those in gifted classes. There are few Academic Olympiad gold medalists from the city. In fact, I only know of these two who were my own students so far and another bronze medalist many years previously. (From his later scholarship--he is now a math professor--I think he would have earned a gold medal had he have gifted education back then.) That said, it was not a controlled experiment so you can think of it as a case study but not gold-standard randomized controlled trial. The test was a set of challenge-style math problems for primary kids. Solving them would require more creativity and facility with thought than regular math problems.

yelloweyes 9y ago

there's nothing "gifted" about going to medical school in a top university or winning a math competition

nopinsight 9y ago
I followed the standard definition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Characteristics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Char...

kahnjw 9y ago

>gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education If you show me that other students don't benefit from suitable gifted education, then you'll have an argument. Claiming that treating children with gifted education increases their chance of success is obvious, but misses the point, does it not? I can specifically remember back to when the TAG Math students (Talented and Gifted) were learning what negative numbers were. I kept hearing about them. I imagined what they might mean, how you use them. When I was finally introduced one year later, I was disappointed, you mean it's literally just subtraction? I could have done that one year ago. And same with all the other students in the normal math course, if they had the same level of attention and care. The worst part was this: the students in TAG math had a student:teacher ratio of 10:1, while the normal math students had a ratio of 20:1. The remedial students had a ratio of 10:1, but the remedial teacher was from the special ed department, not a specialized math teacher that the TAG and normal students got. The TAG program at my school was praised, and the teacher acted as if she was doing God's work. Of course, she had children who were students at the school, and of course, they were in all of her classes. Now, looking back on it, I realize how broken this frame of thinking is. Yes, students will benefit if you put them in an elite math course with more resources than other children. Other students will bare the cost. I think a better allocation of our time and money would be to spread resources evenly. If you really want to get ahead by one or two years, take summer classes in middle or high school. That way, the students bares the cost of the additional time and effort, and we can still evenly allocate resources so every eight year old gets the same opportunity. EDITS: spelling bear -> bare

nopinsight 9y ago
The issue of resource allocation is complex and would take much research to get close to a proper direction. I was just responding to this paragraph: > Needless to say, I am also very skeptical of identifying gifted students at a young age. IMO society over-values so called natural talent, and trying to find that talent in an 8 year old is silly, with rare exception.
epmaybe 9y ago
That reminds me of my own story regarding negative numbers. I was super young, maybe second grade (7, 8 yrs old?). Family friends had dinner with us, and their kids who were maybe 5 years older than me were talking about "negative" numbers. I was so disappointed when I realized the same thing you did.