Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

psycnet.apa.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 195 posts

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#31

Post by DuskStar »

taneq wrote: post #15
enchiridion wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. How do we change it?

Fund education sufficiently that "No Child Left Behind" doesn't turn into "No Child Allowed Ahead".

And why do you assume that this is the sort of problem that can be solved with funding? Maybe we'd be better off with average classes of 60 plus putting students with others matching their skill levels, or some other orthogonal move.

If I'm remembering correctly, school performance by state is basically uncorrelated with spending.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#32

Post by alasdair_ »

> “elite science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate students (N = 478) identified in 1992. Their educational histories were assessed at age 25 and they were followed up at age 50 using the same psychological assessments.”

One thing to consider is the fact that America during the period 1992 to 2020, has seen a vast societal shift from nerds being seen as social outcasts to being seen as the thing a huge portion of the people at the top of society claim to be.

As a counterpoint, I wonder if the exact same study, when conducted in an anti-intellectual society (say Nazi Germany in the late 1930’s) would still return the same results, or if the people that were “held back” would end up better off psychologically.

I strongly suspect the huge change in how cool it is to be nerdy today is a significant factor in today’s wellbeing.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#33

Post by barry-cotter »

taneq wrote: post #15
enchiridion wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. How do we change it?

Fund education sufficiently that "No Child Left Behind" doesn't turn into "No Child Allowed Ahead".

In the US spending per student on K-12 education has tripled since 1970. Achievement has been flat[1]. There’s no shortage of money. Practically unlimited education funding has limited effects on results[2]. It’s structural change that’s needed, like acceleration for all.

[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/school-funding-system-not-broken-i...

[2] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-c...

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#34

Post by zjs »

beaner wrote: post #22
enchiridion wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. How do we change it?

You can start with supporting charter schools. They're public schools that are allowed to push out of typical restrictions and teach children in new ways. Overall, they're an excellent investment and the data shows that they work. They face many strong and sad political challenges. There's a recent book called Charter Schools and their Enemies that is a good read about the story of them.

> Overall, they're an excellent investment and the data shows that they work.

Searching, I'm finding mixed results. It seems like some studies show that they have worked in specific situations, whereas others show that they have not worked on other specific situations. I wasn't able to find a comprehensive survey that drew overall conclusions. Are you aware of one?

I'm also finding little research on the impact of a charter school on students of the public schools which they would otherwise have attended.

Are these topics that the book addresses?

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#35

Post by xzel »

fatjokes wrote: post #19
brianberns wrote: post #13

Here's my data point to the contrary: I entered college a few weeks short of my 17th birthday in the early 1980's. I was about 1.5 years younger than others in my class, on average. I made many good friends, but my relative lack of maturity still had a huge impact on my emotional well-being (especially when it came to dating). I'm now in my 50's and still dealing with the psychological repercussions of my parents' de…

1.5 years isn't even that much? I mean you can probably find that variance within any cohort so I doubt it was the acceleration that caused any psychological repercussions.

The development of 1.5 during those years is huge. The difference between interacting with a 16 and 18 year old are night and day in experience and maturity. But I agree with you this would be incredibly difficult to accurately measure differences with a lack of accelerated students and subjective questions/answers.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#36

Post by apsec112 »

dang wrote: post #28

I wonder if they lack good ways of measuring this. I skipped a few grades and started university at 15. It took years to catch up socially and in many ways I never did. I wouldn't recommend it. In retrospect, I'd say a better thing to do with a smart kid is to convince them that they should work on things they're not as good at. Nobody's good at everything. However, that would have required individual attention of a…

I was forced to not skip grades, and it took me years to catch up socially afterwards, because everyone was so hostile and school was such an oppressive, totalitarian environment that it made me unable to trust anyone.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#37

Post by brianberns »

fatjokes wrote: post #19
brianberns wrote: post #13

Here's my data point to the contrary: I entered college a few weeks short of my 17th birthday in the early 1980's. I was about 1.5 years younger than others in my class, on average. I made many good friends, but my relative lack of maturity still had a huge impact on my emotional well-being (especially when it came to dating). I'm now in my 50's and still dealing with the psychological repercussions of my parents' de…

1.5 years isn't even that much? I mean you can probably find that variance within any cohort so I doubt it was the acceleration that caused any psychological repercussions.

I'll never know for sure, since I can't run the counterfactual. It's certainly possible that the outcome might have been similar if I hadn't been accelerated.

That said, girls tend to mature faster than boys, and I can assure you that most 18 year old females are not very interested romantically in younger males (in that era and place, at least). A year makes a huge difference in that regard. I suspect the study in question didn't account for this.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#38

Post by avs733 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #2

There is no argument against academic acceleration beyond that it increases inequality of achievement. If the school system was about education more than childcare acceleration would be the norm for bright children and we’d have 14 year olds starting their Bachelor’s level studies in every school and 20 year olds who already had doctorates in every city of any size. Instead we waste their time, to their detriment and…

another perspective would be the education is about more than just cognitive development...

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#39

Post by avalys »

Meh. I skipped 7th grade, after being in the youngest cohort in my class already (birthday in July). I've done fine I guess - went to MIT, did some startups, got paid plenty of money, and I'm pretty happy today (COVID transient aside).

I thought it was cool at the time, and I was in a hurry to get out of high school, get to college, and get on with my life, so I certainly didn't object when my parents and teachers suggested it.

But looking back, it was weird. I couldn't drive until almost the end of high school. Couldn't legally drink until I had already graduated college. And while the adults at the time thought I was emotionally mature for my age - one teacher memorably called me an "old soul" - the truth is I was just a smart kid who didn't cause trouble. In retrospect, I still had a lot of growing up to do, and I wish I had the time to do a little bit more of it before entering college and having to make decisions that really mattered.

Re: Academic acceleration in gifted youth: a 35-year longitudinal study

#40

Post by aaronbrethorst »

DuskStar wrote: post #30
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the book you mention is a fan of the current, utterly disastrous Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. That's an instant write-off to me.

Maybe it should be a prompt to look at DeVos with a fresh mind, instead? I've heard very little about her actual actions or policies beyond revoking the "Dear Colleague" letter.

Nah, pass.

Before joining the Trump administration, [DeVos]...had a strong hand in the spread of for-profit charter schools in her home state of Michigan, which saw a dramatic drop in average school performances after her pet policies were enacted. As secretary of education, she's consistently sidelined student civil rights and worked to make debt relief harder than ever.

https://www.gq.com/story/betsy-devos-is-the-worst

Even Trump overruled her on plans to gut the Special Olympics

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/betsy-devos-...

in response to a question about whether guns belonged in schools, she referred to a school in Wyoming and said, “I would imagine that there is probably a gun in the schools to protect from potential grizzlies.”

DeVos was confirmed by the Senate — but only, for the first time in U.S. history, after a vice president had to vote to break a tie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/25/betsy-de...

Post reply on HN