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

California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 553 posts

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#211

Post by sangnoir »

polski-g wrote: post #176
foogazi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taking resources away from those who move society forward Do gifted students move society forward ? Where is society moving to ?

Generally yes. Bill Gates will eliminate polio for mankind within his lifetime. He has at least 140IQ.

There are so many confounding factors are at play that you're ignoring and attributing the achievement to high IQ (and that only).

The Guinea Worm is on the verge if eradication, mostly on the back of the multi-decade efforts of Jimmy Carter. I don't what his IQ is, but I'll assume it's below 140 and above whatever is the ballpark minimum required to enroll as a Navy Nuke.

I posit that you don't need to be a genius to eradicate a disease, just drive, a platform and the right resources and/or connections

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#212

Post by surgical_fire »

chimpanzee wrote: post #87
surgical_fire wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief I am not even white, but something there in your rationale does not make sense. If they all took the same test and white kids were on top, how is this a belief? Is there a word missing somewhere? Is the implication that the test was rigged? It is an honest question, I couldn't follow the rationale there.

you missed this relevant (albeit, unspecific) fragment when you extracted the quote: > with a millennia of discredited science to back it up

But you mentioned that a test was taken. Is the test somehow unscientific? Is it rigged to favor white kids? Are you speaking of a hypothetical test that doesn't exist and was never applied?

If a test was actually taken, and it is not rigged, how can it not be a sort of scientific evidence?

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#213

Post by dahfizz »

andrepd wrote: post #166
gowld wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine interpreting the parent comment for its clear face value -- that supporting outlier high achievers helps everyone in society? The inventor of a vaccine or a microchip or a sculpture doesn't hoard the invention for themself. Meanwhile, societies like USSR and Communist China, that persecuted their geniuses, collapsed their previously great societies.

You are equating "persecuting genius" with "supporting those from low-opportunity backgrounds". Classic mistake, especially considering that those kids could become """geniuses""" too if they had a chance to even try. Giving a decent shot at those from disadvantaged households will ironically probably do more towards improving the number of high achievers than allocating too many resources to the children of the rich…

How does removing gifted and talented programs support "those from low-opportunity backgrounds"?

"persecuting genius" is literally what is happening.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#214

Post by dogprez »

nostrademons wrote: post #113
dogprez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it. Almost every kid in America has access to the internet, a public library and a teacher. How many don't have access to any of those? That's a different problem.

The issue is time, attention and guidance. Well-off kids have parents who are usually well educated and who (if they arrange their priorities appropriately) can make time to spend with their kids. Poor kids do not have such parents; their parents usually wouldn't know where to begin, and even if they did, they don't have time to spend with their kids if they're working multiple jobs that they get fired from if they'r…

I appreciate what you are trying say. I'm having a hard time believing it because I was one of those kids. The only thing my parents gave me was access to books, technology, love and free time. They possessed zero experience in engineering or technology, gave zero guidance. In fact they told me I was wasting my time being on the computer so much. I think people like to inject themselves as some sort of necessary mentor but gifted kids are gifted.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#215

Post by vundercind »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #56
csa wrote: post #10

It’s not just California, but California may be one of the more egregious state neglecters. The push at the state level for policies that focus on equality of outcomes over equality of opportunities will not end well for the gifted and talented communities. Whenever I hear these people talk about their policies, I can’t help but recall Harrison Bergeron. Focusing on equality of outcomes in a society that structurally…

What we oughta do is make a system where state education funding is equally distributed (per student capita) to all the schools in a state. Local funding by property taxes, while not most of the funding for schools, also needs to go. We also oughta try and tackle the administrative bloat on a federal level to get more of that money going to things that directly help students. I agree equality of outcome is a hopeless…

Funding’s not the main reason for different outcomes in US schools, and probably not even a major reason. Considering all sources of funding, in some cities the struggling inner city schools have more money than a lot of the better-performing suburban schools (rural almost-always-poorly-performing schools, not so much)

Funding’s an easy target because it’s straightforward to fix, but we could even all that out (though, careful, or some struggling schools will lose funding if you simply level out who gets what) and the effect would be minimal.

Unfortunately, effective approaches to making real progress on that have little to do with schools at all. Stronger social safety nets and support, stronger worker protections, justice system reform, that kind of stuff. Hard stuff, where we lag behind much of the rest of the OECD and closing that gap at all is controversial. And many of the measures might take years and years to show up in improved test scores or what have you.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#216

Post by insane_dreamer »

hintymad wrote: post #162
laidoffamazon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really strange that you have such emotional reactions to the concept of equity while my Indian middle class IIT educated dad who experienced Indian institutional failure in the 70s and 80s never really cared about if me or my sibling were in the G&T program. What separates you from the people that didn’t make it out?

I don't care about G&T program per se, either. Nor did my country have it when I grew up. I do care about education. I guess my fundamental assumption is that when everyone maximizes their full potential, the outcome will naturally be different. So, pushing students to realize their potential will be against equity, but will be the best way to minimize the equity gap. Now the nuances for us in the US specifically: th…

> The most talented get access to all kinds of free yet prestigious programs and camps, excellent books in local libraries, and professors in colleges.

I agree with this part

> The least talented are carefully looked after, and they don't necessarily have much pressure to get into a college, and rightly so.

This has nothing to do with talent. The poorest in society do receive subsidies (medicaid, food stamps) that the middle class do not qualify for. But that has nothing to do with talent. It's also not "carefully looked after" -- they're just not starving.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#217

Post by Animats »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #196
Animats wrote: post #191

> But others said the admissions exam and additional application requirements are inherently unfair to students of color who face socioeconomic disadvantages. Elaine Waldman, whose daughter is enrolled in Reed’s IHP, said the test is “elitist and exclusionary,” and hoped dropping it would improve the diversity of the program. Recognizing gifted students is inherently discriminatory. Because these are the numbers: Ave…

You are not supposed to talk about this.

Exactly. Which is why it is a problem.

In the 1950s, gifted education was pushed hard, because the US seemed to be losing against Russia. Sputnik was a big wake-up call for the US.

Today, the US seems to be losing against China. Maybe it's time for a wake-up call again.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#218

Post by teractiveodular »

r00fus wrote: post #210
gowld wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine interpreting the parent comment for its clear face value -- that supporting outlier high achievers helps everyone in society? The inventor of a vaccine or a microchip or a sculpture doesn't hoard the invention for themself. Meanwhile, societies like USSR and Communist China, that persecuted their geniuses, collapsed their previously great societies.

> Meanwhile, societies like USSR and Communist China, that persecuted their geniuses, collapsed their previously great societies. China is doing fine. In fact they're probably going to eclipse the US soon in terms of scientific output. USSR fell for the trap of trusting the West and consequently they suffered a lot in the 90s.

Mao's policies including the persecution of intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution killed millions and set China back by decades.

Re: California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones

#220

Post by cloverich »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #51
philipov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I may have sympathy for your more substantive points, anytime I hear someone mention virtue signalling, it makes it sound like they're virtue signalling. Better to just not bring up that dog whistle.

I have to agree. It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument. Even if this were the rare valid application of it, it's so overused as a low effort attack that the comment is no better off for using it. Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and…

> It's distracting because it's a low signal quip that asserts that your opponents have no substance behind their views beyond looking good. Just make your argument.

That is the argument.

> Finally, we have to contend with the fact that people earnestly believe in the things they say and do. If it were just for optics and they didn't actually hold their positions, these issues would be far easier to deal with.

The point of the argument isn't that people don't genuinely believe these issues. Its that they participate in these views in earnest because of social conformity as opposed to a genuine understanding of, and commonly without any intention of helping resolve them. The symptom then is blindly electing leaders with no real plan (or worse) and the result is predictably poor outcomes. Its used as a battering ram in discussions; I thought it was a dog whistle too before moving out to the West coast by my god it really is everywhere here, and it really does stifle discussion. Its a real issue.

Post reply on HN