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

491–500 of 553 posts

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

#491

Post by reducesuffering »

roguecoder wrote: post #297

The whole point of "gifted" was that these are kids who are disproportionally likely to drop out of school, engage in risky behavior, get pregnant, get bad grades, etc. The problem is that A. they called it "gifted" so people thought it was something you _wanted_ your kids to be and B. the screening test they used was the IQ test, which you can massively improve your score on by studying for it. So parents were deter…

This sounds like immense cope for not getting into the gifted program.

As a 1 of 3 children in the gifted program in primary school, I can assure you that none of us studied for it and solved all the year's math within the first couple months, that's why they needed it for us. We landed some of the highest paying jobs in the US, one graduated CalTech Physics, nothing to do with "getting pregnant" or "bad grades."

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

#492

Post by soco »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #295
soco wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was that simple I'm sure we would have seen it already. I imagine any gifted program, and you can imagine it in any way you like, will inevitably promote a majority from a certain group, thus by definition will be a target for every discrimination complaint - because basically it will be supporting and pumping more money to an already privileged group. So somebody has to decide: either targeted to constant fuss…

In the past, in many states entry into gifted education classes required a professionally administered IQ test. Many locations needed 130+. Those requirements have gone away but I feel it wasn’t discriminatory. Can it really be criticized as such?

The IQ test is heavily influenced by where and how you grew up. So yes, it can be criticized as such. Did I mention it's a very difficult, impossible even, task to balance all arguments?

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

#493

Post by leoedin »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #243
K0balt wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is good for a society and what feels just are often disparate things. But it is not unjust on a human scale that some people are born with lower potential than others. It’s just an unfortunate fact of life. What is just then? To whom is it just to invest 2x the resources into a person that will never likely tinder a significant benefit to society? To whom is it just to -not- invest in people who are particularly…

> invest 2x the resources into a person that will never likely tinder a significant benefit to society? So you would rather have the cleaning lady, the garbage collector, the truck driver,... not got proper read/write/calculate/economics... education and increase their chances of ending on the side where they fall for addiction instead?

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that teaching basic literacy - reading, writing, practical maths etc - is a huge societal benefit. Nobody is advocating for not doing that.

What is maybe less clear is the benefit of extending formal academic education to 18 and beyond for everyone. If someone is not academically gifted, why make them waste years of their life struggling through an academic education. What's the point?

The relationship between education and achievement for a given person probably follows an S curve. More education has an impact in the steep part of the slope, but eventually the limiting factor is natural ability, and achievement flatlines. The problem with education today is that people looked at that curve when it was in the steep part, thought "more education means better outcomes" and just kept blindly throwing education at people.

Most people would be far better served by vocational learning after a certain point. Effectively every career is a form of vocational learning, we've just delayed it further and further in the name of academic education which has limited benefit.

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

#494

Post by andrepd »

dahfizz wrote: post #213
andrepd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about this lol, of course removing gifted programs is a stupid idea. I'm talking about your position.

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

#495

Post by thrance »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #336
thrance wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the parent's socioeconomic status is a much better predictor of IQ than "race".

But that never shows up in the data? Seriously, people always like to bring this idea up like it's not been studied to hell and back. Socioeconomic is not a stronger factor.

Then why do you suppose IQ is correlated to race? Are black people's brains really different from jewish people's?

Or is it that black people are on average raised in poorer communities, with poorer schools, less educated parents and less access to cultural material?

The issue with you presenting that data as is, like there is a natural hierarchy of races, is that you are omitting the real reason we observe those discrepancies. Socioeconomic status, or place of birth or whatever else.

Seeing how a lot of people in the country are resurrecting some terrible ideologies of the past to justify mass deportation, I really don't see how that helps anything.

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

#496

Post by tim333 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #183
bobfromsf wrote: post #90

As a father with a son with IQ over 160, I can tell you unequivocally that California thinks gifted kids are the enemy. Gifted children, especially profoundly gifted kids like mine are special needs. He can’t function in a regular class because he would become bored and would act out and constantly get in trouble. Since my kid was a toddler we have had to completely rely on ourselves to figure everything out and we w…

In Seattle there is a strong movement to ban gifted education. The prospect of that becoming fully implemented has caused many politically progressive parents I know to move out to suburbs in some cases and red states in others. Even without bans there has been a tangible dumbing down of the rigor of schooling. And the forced introduction of weird political curriculums like ethnic studies in math ( https://www.king5.…

Your link didn't work. Something like this maybe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuU4KM9htf0

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

#497

Post by exe34 »

aspenmayer wrote: post #342
exe34 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or indeed, it's possible that neither you nor the virtue signallers understand why they're doing it.

Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons. For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.

> For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.

if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.

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

#498

Post by nuancebydefault »

imron wrote: post #252
nuancebydefault wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invest 2x the resources into a person that will never likely tinder a significant benefit to society? So you would rather have the cleaning lady, the garbage collector, the truck driver,... not got proper read/write/calculate/economics... education and increase their chances of ending on the side where they fall for addiction instead?

I expect better from someone whose user name is nuance bydefault

You are right, thanks for pointing this out. My comment was not very nuanced. I feel polarization happens easily with some topics. Well the benefit is, I got replies that are food for thought.

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

#499

Post by nuancebydefault »

leoedin wrote: post #493
nuancebydefault wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invest 2x the resources into a person that will never likely tinder a significant benefit to society? So you would rather have the cleaning lady, the garbage collector, the truck driver,... not got proper read/write/calculate/economics... education and increase their chances of ending on the side where they fall for addiction instead?

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that teaching basic literacy - reading, writing, practical maths etc - is a huge societal benefit. Nobody is advocating for not doing that. What is maybe less clear is the benefit of extending formal academic education to 18 and beyond for everyone. If someone is not academically gifted, why make them waste years of their life struggling through an academic education. What's the…

I totally agree. I must have misread parent's comment.

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

#500

Post by raxxorraxor »

phil21 wrote: post #32
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…

> Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society It's not just a loss for society. It's society-killing. Taking resources away from those who move society forward and spending them on those who are unlikely to "pay it back" is a way your culture dies. Conquerers in the past used this strategy to win massive empires for themselves. It's a ridiculous self-own. This is perha…

Disagreed. Public school should target the broadest possible audience. Gifted pupils are rarely held back in school and special needs people need additional effort.

Of course you cannot really teach them together in the same environment, it is not the task of gifted students to drag everyone with them, it is on teachers to provide necessities. But as long as school doesn't hold them back, they will be fine.

Post reply on HN