3 ms·

Not catering to the gifted is a dangerous game for society as an disproportionate amount of progress is made by gifted which are properly nurtured. > Gifted wi

Not catering to the gifted is a dangerous game for society as an disproportionate amount of progress is made by gifted which are properly nurtured. > Gifted will do well regardless whether we have special programs for them or not. This is very much not true. Only gifted with rich or caring parents will do well. Others might suffer a lot. Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school.

BeetleB 5y ago
> Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school. The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. They can still construct programs for people who are performing better in math. The discussion is about innate talent, not whether we treat people who do well in math differently.
- freemint 5y ago
  > The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. True. However the state can not provide this "regardless whether we have special programs for them or not". You migh not have intended to but >>> Gifted will do well regardless whether we have special programs for them or not. is a claim which has policy implications orthogonal to any discussion about the innateness of talent. It is in this component that i disagree with you. I couldn't care less whether people being good at something is being caused by something innate or taught as far as that is not relevant for pushing the being good at further.
- chongli 5y ago
  The discussion of innate vs learned talent is a distraction. When new students arrive in a teacher's classroom on the first day of classes the teacher must accept each student at face value. It doesn't matter how they reached their present level of math ability. It only matters where their new teacher takes them from that point on. Leaving the advanced students to fend for themselves is a dereliction of their duties as an educator. I have direct experience with this problem. I was labeled as a gifted student in elementary school but offered no opportunity to take enriched or accelerated classes. Out of boredom I quit trying and my grades collapsed. I dropped out of high school at age 16. Now I am an undergraduate student in mathematics, age 37, trying to put the pieces of my life back together. I have been forced to make friends with classmates half my age. All but 2 of my friends from elementary school have moved on.

BeetleB 5y ago

> Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school. The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. They can still construct programs for people who are performing better in math. The discussion is about innate talent, not whether we treat people who do well in math differently.

freemint 5y ago
> The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. True. However the state can not provide this "regardless whether we have special programs for them or not". You migh not have intended to but >>> Gifted will do well regardless whether we have special programs for them or not. is a claim which has policy implications orthogonal to any discussion about the innateness of talent. It is in this component that i disagree with you. I couldn't care less whether people being good at something is being caused by something innate or taught as far as that is not relevant for pushing the being good at further.
chongli 5y ago
The discussion of innate vs learned talent is a distraction. When new students arrive in a teacher's classroom on the first day of classes the teacher must accept each student at face value. It doesn't matter how they reached their present level of math ability. It only matters where their new teacher takes them from that point on. Leaving the advanced students to fend for themselves is a dereliction of their duties as an educator. I have direct experience with this problem. I was labeled as a gifted student in elementary school but offered no opportunity to take enriched or accelerated classes. Out of boredom I quit trying and my grades collapsed. I dropped out of high school at age 16. Now I am an undergraduate student in mathematics, age 37, trying to put the pieces of my life back together. I have been forced to make friends with classmates half my age. All but 2 of my friends from elementary school have moved on.