A must read...

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So, essentially, you would have us keep a system that is sub-optimal for finding a way to integrate those geniuses into society?

The argument isn't that the geniuses deserve better treatment, it's that society is better off if we can find ways to increase the chances of these geniuses becoming productive members of society. If we can find an environment for them that encourages them to engage in society rather than a system that essentially tells them, "you're smart, so you'll figure out how to put up with us screwing you over" (as we have now), then things will improve for everyone.

ZV

Is it sub-optimal? Yes. Could it be better? Absolutely. Is it a worthy goal to pursue correcting it? Certainly.

But when people blame it [education system] for their own failure at overcoming adversity it gets tired, really fast. I'm talking specifically to the "I dropped out/failed school because I was soooo bored, but I'm really the next Da Vinci/Goethe/Guass/whatever.". If they can't even stay in school, does that display any discipline or drive whatsoever on their part?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So, essentially, you would have us keep a system that is sub-optimal for finding a way to integrate those geniuses into society?

The argument isn't that the geniuses deserve better treatment, it's that society is better off if we can find ways to increase the chances of these geniuses becoming productive members of society. If we can find an environment for them that encourages them to engage in society rather than a system that essentially tells them, "you're smart, so you'll figure out how to put up with us screwing you over" (as we have now), then things will improve for everyone.

ZV

Is it sub-optimal? Yes. Could it be better? Absolutely. Is it a worthy goal to pursue correcting it? Certainly.

But when people blame it [education system] for their own failure at overcoming adversity it gets tired, really fast. I'm talking specifically to the "I dropped out/failed school because I was soooo bored, but I'm really the next Da Vinci/Goethe/Guass/whatever.". If they can't even stay in school, does that display any discipline or drive whatsoever on their part?

cue "Bill Gates dropped out of college" response in 3...2...

 

[Tsaico]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
There has to be some balance, frankly the girl in that article needs some modesty slapped into her. I took my first college class when I was 12 but I never had that attitude & someone would have smacked me if I did.

The public school system was an absolute waste of my time. I tested at a 7th grade reading level when I entered public schools for 2nd grade. Four school years later when I left (after 5th grade) I tested at 7th grade again.

The public education system HAS to cater to the common students, it's the place where the money does the most good. If parents decide that is not good enough for their child they have other options.

Viper GTS

But that isn't just what the article is talking about. It also covers how much we spend on people who are BELOW average in the billions, but the gifted education in the millions. It also talks about the dichotomy of how we treat our most intelligent people, which is pretty unfair. Instead of allowing people to be streched as far as they can, they base education descions on what the "general population" can do.

True, there are a lot of other factors that can come in, such as while a 10 year old can handle the coursework of college, can they handle the social interaction? But overall, unless you are disadvantaged, there is no help for your kind.

So the problem is this, we want to spend millions on children who can't formulate a cohesive sentence but are reluctant to spend hundreds on children who could have done it by age 2. That is how we are failing the geniuses.

As far as the "bored" genius, I agree, that is pretty lame. But the people I find intruiging were the ones that just "got it". I had a girl in my Physics class that seemed to have woken up and understood the laws of the universe. She was pretty normal in the sense that she didn't come across as a know it all, was modest, and fairly attractive. I don't know if she was a genius as far as an IQ test, but a professor at least recognized she was extraordinary and before she was finished with undergrad work, she was doing research and development with people who had earned PH.D's.

 

[Cogman]

But what would you spend money on for the gifted? A better Tuba? Yes I do think it is crazy how much we are spending on the less fortunate, but I don't think the answer is spend more on the gifted, rather I think we should be spending less time and money on keeping everyone equal and more on just teaching. I think it would almost be better if Elementary schools went back to the way they where in the old days, one class room with K-6 in the same room. (so to speak) If a kid does really well and math, then give him harder math. Don't keep them at the same level as everyone else. on the other hand, if a kid is generally dumb then give him dumb classes that still stretch him. Then let colleges decide who they take by the classes the kids took. Basically trying to keep everyone at a median GPA rather then a median intelligence.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: daveymark
cue "Bill Gates dropped out of college" response in 3...2...

What does that have to do with anything? He dropped out because the opportunity of a successful business presented itself. I would have done the same.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So, essentially, you would have us keep a system that is sub-optimal for finding a way to integrate those geniuses into society?

The argument isn't that the geniuses deserve better treatment, it's that society is better off if we can find ways to increase the chances of these geniuses becoming productive members of society. If we can find an environment for them that encourages them to engage in society rather than a system that essentially tells them, "you're smart, so you'll figure out how to put up with us screwing you over" (as we have now), then things will improve for everyone.

ZV

Is it sub-optimal? Yes. Could it be better? Absolutely. Is it a worthy goal to pursue correcting it? Certainly.

But when people blame it [education system] for their own failure at overcoming adversity it gets tired, really fast. I'm talking specifically to the "I dropped out/failed school because I was soooo bored, but I'm really the next Da Vinci/Goethe/Guass/whatever.". If they can't even stay in school, does that display any discipline or drive whatsoever on their part?

The fact that a few people try to blame their lack of success on the system is logically irrelevant to the topic at hand though. At best it's tangential, at worst is nothing more than base emotional reaction that ends up poisoning the well..

If we agree that they system is indeed sub-optimal and that it needs to be corrected, then there's no legitimate reason to bring a few bad apples into this. Bringing up the relatively few people who complain or try to blame the system does nothing but poison the well and impede any hope of making progress.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: daveymark
cue "Bill Gates dropped out of college" response in 3...2...

Gates dropped out of Harvard while maintaining passing grades (exceptional grades IIRC) to pursue a business venture that had extremely high probabilities for profit. He also came from a family that had money and had gone to one of the most elite private high schools in the country.

Anyone using him as an example of the system failing him and still being able to "make it" is a complete idiot. He is, however, a textbook example of the benefit that results from putting people of high intelligences in environments where they feel challenged and can grow.

ZV

 

[LukFilm]

I saw the cover page of TIME and I'll definitely read it. My son is 4.5 years old, speaks two languages, by age 2 he knew all his letters and numbers, currently he can read an entire (simple) book, is very inquisitive about everything and appears to be very smart. We are putting him into Montessori school this school year as it seems to be the best option for us. Hopefully in the future, he will be challenged more and more so he reaches his full potential.

 

[LukFilm]

Originally posted by: LukFilm
I saw the cover page of TIME and I'll definitely read it. My son is 4.5 years old, speaks two languages, by age 2 he knew all his letters and numbers, currently he can read an entire (simple) book, is very inquisitive about everything and appears to be very smart. We are putting him into Montessori school this school year as it seems to be the best option for us. Hopefully in the future, he will be challenged more and more so he reaches his full potential.

I just finished reading the article and the main theme of allowing grade-skipping is applied at Montessori where kids are allowed to learn at their own pace disregarding their age, so it seems like a good fit for my son. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but I'm very hopeful.

 

[Gunslinger08]

My tested IQ in elementary school was above 150. I feel like my school system handled me (and a few others that I know) very well. We had a gifted program that met several times a week, we had many opportunities to take "harder" classes, and several of us were moved ahead a year in math starting in 6th grade. We were given the opportunity to take the SAT in 7th grade to prepare for it later. We had access to many other resources such as academically-based clubs, the interweb, etc. I was given the option to skip grades but chose not to. I feel that staying in your age-designated grade (or at least within 1 or 2 grades) is important in the development of a child.

 

[Xylitol]

Who cares
I had an IQ somewhere on that level when I was 10 years old. At least she utilized her potential...

 

[The Lurker]

I think the article brings up an important issue. However, I think the problem is that everybody sees school as being a program where people have to work for a degree. In reality, school should be a system where people learn to utilize their inherent strengths and weaknesses. Gifted kids should be taught to enjoy learning (rather than getting jaded by being burdened with busy work). Less gifted students should learn what strengths they do have (such as athletics, art, etc.) and learn to excel in those. Instead we have a system that fits everyone into the same mold, and it's no wonder it is failing.

Also, am I the only one that is noticing a real elitist, exclusive vibe from the people who say "oh well people with high IQ should be left on their own"? Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they can deal with every challenge on their own.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: OdiN
Failing out of school, have a 99 Percentile IQ....yet you're getting all these degrees in college?

Shens.

Why? What does failing school have to do with intelligence? What does college have to do with high school?

Even Einstein struggled in school. Grades aren't given for intelligence, or knowledge, or ability. They're given for following rules, attendance, attitude, and achievement. If you yourself enrolled today in a 6th grade remedial math course you would fail if you didn't go to class, or didn't do your homework. It's just that simple.

Similarly high school and college classes are NOTHING alike. High school is social cliques, rule following, attendance based, homework oriented, geared towards the average, etc. College is independent, free-form, knowledge based, project oriented, geared towards maximizing potential, etc. People of certain personality types do better in the first, while others do better in the second.

If you carefully read the article it illustrates perfectly everything I'm talking about here, and supports that it is ABSOLUTELY happening much more than you'd imagine.

I'm very intelligent as well. While I did not like the fact that in HS you had to do homework instead of just learning in your own way, and had to follow certain rules, that was what was required so that was what was done. If you don't do homework or show up to class just because you don't want to or feel you don't need to, and fail, then that's your own fault.

Many professors in college had attendance and homework requirements as well. I still didn't like it, but that's what was required so that's what was done.

Wailing about crying that you're too smart for homework so you don't do it then complaining about failing and saying that you failed because you're so intelligent is ridiculous.

Maybe you aren't intelligent. Maybe you're just smart.

Never said it wasn't my fault, just said that the existing system is incapable of dealing with exceptional intelligences in a useful way. When I made the switch from high school to college my gpa went from .012 to 3.8+ in one quarter. Why? Because suddenly I was allowed to do things my way, and the material was instantly more in-line with my level of skill and knowledge than what I was getting in high school. When I saw this it caused an instant change in my attitude and dedication to school which has resulted in me being able to succeed as well as I have.

I was offered the 'grade skip' thing at the end of 5th grade. They suggested a 1yr intensive high school prep instead of middle school (6, 7, 8 grades). I felt that would have caused serious issues because I wouldn't have had any friends left, and would have been an obvious freak being the only 11 1/2 year old freshman at my school. I knew skipping grades wasn't the answer, and all of my subsequent research supports that theory. I mean, in college they didn't offer to let me skip my sophomore year just because I blew all the curves in my first year. Instead they suggested harder classes, higher credit loads, honors programs, research assistant positions, etc. They found a way to allow me to reach my maximum potential. Had the public school system been properly set up to deal with gifted students it is very probable that I wouldn't have failed out. I don't really regret what happened, but I'm saddened by the waste of it now that I know it could have been different.

Again, don't take my word for it. National journalism is now covering exactly what I'm saying.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Cogman
lol, people that say the are intelligent and the proceed to fail in college, school. are really unintelligent if you ask me. Who freaking cares if you can memorize everything you read in an instant if you arn't smart enough to mark b on your homework because it is "tedious".

Honestly, I don't by into the "I have a high IQ therefor I'm Smarter then all ya all" Intelligences isn't the ability to score high on a test, it is the ability to apply the knowledge that you have if you can't do that then you have no right to claim a superior intelligence.

One of my roommates in college told me something like "Yeah I'm a freaking genius and I got bad grades in High school just because I didn't really care. Now Ive filled my schedule with easy classes so that I can get a scholarship to pay for school." Well, I had a much more demanding schedule then he did, and guess who ended up with better grades? In fact he ended up complaining about how hard his history class was and that the teachers where ridiculous. Well, its always someone else's fault when you don't do well, isn't it.

One last note, I know that intelligence is not always reflected by grades. In my calculus class the only other kid that took it at the time did better in the class then I did. However, he was always asking me how to do stuff and how to figure things out. In the end, I knew how to do calculus (scored a 4 on the AB exam thing at the end) and he got a good grade (he scored a 2). I fall into the lazy intelligent genre, but man I can't stand people that fail just because they can't motivate themselves enough to do a tedious task. Guess what, in real life and real jobs a lot of the times you will have to do things that are really tedious and it doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't do it then you get fired. There are very few jobs out there that have an exception to this.

That's because you're confusing intelligence with wisdom, dedication, social acclimation, etc. Those things have nothing to do with intelligence. What you claim is real life is merely your own opinion, without significant basis in fact. We are all allowed to decide what truly matters in life.

In my own case I spent my days in high school having sex with pretty girls, spending time with my friends, and seeing what the world had to offer me. I wouldn't trade it for anything. In my opinion anyone who would waste time sitting in a classroom when they could be getting a blowjob while watching the sunset over the pacific ocean is the stupid one.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be either/or. There are ways to fix the system and make it work better for everyone.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
It's not very intelligent to say you're intelligent and fail out of college.

Who said they're intelligent and failed out of college? And also remember that grades aren't intelligence, and vice versa, as already demonstrated. Maybe not wise to do it, but intelligence is something else entirely.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
There has to be some balance, frankly the girl in that article needs some modesty slapped into her. I took my first college class when I was 12 but I never had that attitude & someone would have smacked me if I did.

The public school system was an absolute waste of my time. I tested at a 7th grade reading level when I entered public schools for 2nd grade. Four school years later when I left (after 5th grade) I tested at 7th grade again.

The public education system HAS to cater to the common students, it's the place where the money does the most good. If parents decide that is not good enough for their child they have other options.

Viper GTS

No. That is EXACTLY where the failure lies. You can service all students to rise to their maximum potential, and everyone benefits as a result. It's not about cost, or at least not totally. The problem with our thinking is that we see money as the answer to all ills. It's not. The answer is to learn, be rational in our decisions, and not let petty worthless things like politics, social mores, and money interfere with with those decisions.

I'll be making the same wage as every other teacher but because I've spent time learning how to deal with gifted kids I'll be able to do so. Because I believe in doing what's right and not what the system tells me I'll have the backbone to tell the administration to flake off if they tell me to act in a manner damaging to any particular group, including the gifted. As long as I don't tend one demographic more than another, and as long as I do my job, then all is well. If you want to fix the problems don't throw money at it, fix it. Make gifted theory required learning for all teacher programs. Let gifted advocates help direct national education policy. Then without any real costs you will have improvement. Once you do those exceptional students will help influence classrooms in a positive way and you will have even more improvement. This is the cycle of success that will bring us up from where we have so far existed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daveymark
just another article about kids who have "potential" and others who blame the lack of success on everyone but the kid. meh.

I weep for your ignorance, short-sightedness, and lack of comprehension. Absolutely nothing of the kind was said in that article.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't have much respect for someone who has the means and ability to succced in school on their own then blames the system for their own personal failure.

Exactly.

If they have the means and ability, I would hope they don't lack the gall to Get It Done. That is ultimately what separates those that do and accomplish (inventors, discoverers, etc.) and those who "could have but weren't cuddled enough". If they can't help themselves what is to say they ever will in the future?

The cream rises to the top. Look at how many successful Nobel laureates, major scientists, inventors and other people who have gone through the public school system (albeit in yesteryear, but still at a pace that coddles the lowest common denominator). Intelligence finds a way--either through the nuturing of their own parents or through their own means and investigations into the world outside of the classroom (Richard Feynman went to learn calculus on his own using library books at a young age of around 12 or 13 IIRC).

Potential is worthless without drive, and that comes from within.

So, essentially, you would have us keep a system that is sub-optimal for finding a way to integrate those geniuses into society?

The argument isn't that the geniuses deserve better treatment, it's that society is better off if we can find ways to increase the chances of these geniuses becoming productive members of society. If we can find an environment for them that encourages them to engage in society rather than a system that essentially tells them, "you're smart, so you'll figure out how to put up with us screwing you over" (as we have now), then things will improve for everyone.

ZV

I would amend that to say that geniuses deserve the SAME treatment as averages, and special education students. Not better, just equal for them. That means having options available for those kids so that they get the same challenges as averages. The point is for everyone to be challenged to THEIR level, and raised to THEIR maximum potential...and not to some bar of average arbitrarily established by people too average to conceive of anything else.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So, essentially, you would have us keep a system that is sub-optimal for finding a way to integrate those geniuses into society?

The argument isn't that the geniuses deserve better treatment, it's that society is better off if we can find ways to increase the chances of these geniuses becoming productive members of society. If we can find an environment for them that encourages them to engage in society rather than a system that essentially tells them, "you're smart, so you'll figure out how to put up with us screwing you over" (as we have now), then things will improve for everyone.

ZV

Is it sub-optimal? Yes. Could it be better? Absolutely. Is it a worthy goal to pursue correcting it? Certainly.

But when people blame it [education system] for their own failure at overcoming adversity it gets tired, really fast. I'm talking specifically to the "I dropped out/failed school because I was soooo bored, but I'm really the next Da Vinci/Goethe/Guass/whatever.". If they can't even stay in school, does that display any discipline or drive whatsoever on their part?

You have no inkling of how development and educational growth occurs. The ONLY reason averages stay in school (when they do) is because the system is geared to help them do so. The system is designed to help, nurture, and guide averages. When people realized lower iq's needed a different system to do the same thing they created the special education programs which are growing every year to be better acclimated to help those students. I don't hear many complaints about that. Now we're asking for the same care and treatment of gifted students. Not special treatment, just equal. Let's face it: special ed students may brighten our futures by reminding us of love, and wonders...but they're not going to expand our consciousness through their advanced research and thinking...that is the province of the gifted. Why wouldn't you want to provide every opportunity to someone who might cure cancer in a brainstorm later in life?

Yes, dedication and discipline are necessary, but they're traits that are taught depending on the individual, and not according to a 'one size fits all' average curriculum. Furthermore I don't care how many tens of thousands of dedicated morons you throw in a room; they'll never conquer advanced science and theory. Dedication only gets you so far without a brain.

 

[PrinceofWands]

HAHAHAHAH. Just looked at my string of responses...and was reminded just how dedicated someone can be when it's a subject they're passionate about.

I've been feeling a bit burned out lately honestly. Seeing that article in TIME motivated me...re-dedicated me to my chosen task. It's exactly that kind of simple acknowledgment that will eventually be used to help kids succeed in school.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You have no inkling of how development and educational growth occurs. The ONLY reason averages stay in school (when they do) is because the system is geared to help them do so. The system is designed to help, nurture, and guide averages. When people realized lower iq's needed a different system to do the same thing they created the special education programs which are growing every year to be better acclimated to help those students. I don't hear many complaints about that. Now we're asking for the same care and treatment of gifted students. Not special treatment, just equal. Let's face it: special ed students may brighten our futures by reminding us of love, and wonders...but they're not going to expand our consciousness through their advanced research and thinking...that is the province of the gifted. Why wouldn't you want to provide every opportunity to someone who might cure cancer in a brainstorm later in life?

Yes, dedication and discipline are necessary, but they're traits that are taught depending on the individual, and not according to a 'one size fits all' average curriculum. Furthermore I don't care how many tens of thousands of dedicated morons you throw in a room; they'll never conquer advanced science and theory. Dedication only gets you so far without a brain.

"The province of the gifted" ???

Do you have any conclusive peer-reviewed and journaled studies that show "gifted" students can make such contributions above smart & dedicated students? (I'm not doubting you, just asking because you are very well-researched on this and you'd likely have some evidence you can shore up).

I'd be more appreciative of them, I suppose, if studies have conclusively shown that coddled "gifted" students far and clear make more important contributions, both in original thought and application when compared to their paltry "smart and dedicated" counterparts. Marilyn vos Savant comes to mind--having claimed the highest living IQ, but with no outstanding original thought or application. The pursuit of knowledge and a rich intelligence for its own sake is a beautiful thing (IMO), but the taxpayers pay for an education system that produces workers who act as cogs in the greater machine.

I'm interested in learning what more you know about this topic.

 

[vi edit]

What I have to say will go over like a bag of hammers...just as a warning.

But I really don't care about the micro percent of "genius" kids out there. I really don't. They will bubble to top one way or another and will likely find a respectable way to survive. Is it the right attitude? No. But it really does come down to simple numbers and statistics.

The real students that get screwed are the ones that simply aren't cut out for higher learning or really have no interest in it. It's that group of society that has trouble finding meaningful and productive ways to provide for themselves. We try to force history and science and math down their throats, but instead we should be focusing on vocations and actual life skills instead of booting them out blind at the age of 18. But we don't do that because skilled trades like plumbing, electricians, and carpentry aren't "cool" jobs. The number of students that get dumped into the workforce unprepared and uneducated in how to care for themselves far, far, far outweighs the number of brain children that are suppressed by the shackles of conventional schooling.

The cold hard reality is that a majority of us really are in the range of "kinda dumb to kinda smart". On each end we have the true mentally handicapped and the uber intelligent. But both of those groups make up single digit percents of our society. It's just not very practical to try and retool the entire education system to accommodate such a small number of students.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You have no inkling of how development and educational growth occurs. The ONLY reason averages stay in school (when they do) is because the system is geared to help them do so. The system is designed to help, nurture, and guide averages. When people realized lower iq's needed a different system to do the same thing they created the special education programs which are growing every year to be better acclimated to help those students. I don't hear many complaints about that. Now we're asking for the same care and treatment of gifted students. Not special treatment, just equal. Let's face it: special ed students may brighten our futures by reminding us of love, and wonders...but they're not going to expand our consciousness through their advanced research and thinking...that is the province of the gifted. Why wouldn't you want to provide every opportunity to someone who might cure cancer in a brainstorm later in life?

Yes, dedication and discipline are necessary, but they're traits that are taught depending on the individual, and not according to a 'one size fits all' average curriculum. Furthermore I don't care how many tens of thousands of dedicated morons you throw in a room; they'll never conquer advanced science and theory. Dedication only gets you so far without a brain.

"The province of the gifted" ???

Do you have any conclusive peer-reviewed and journaled studies that show "gifted" students can make such contributions above smart & dedicated students? (I'm not doubting you, just asking because you are very well-researched on this and you'd likely have some evidence you can shore up).

I'd be more appreciative of them, I suppose, if studies have conclusively shown that coddled "gifted" students far and clear make more important contributions, both in original thought and application when compared to their paltry "smart and dedicated" counterparts. Marilyn vos Savant comes to mind--having claimed the highest living IQ, but with no outstanding original thought or application. The pursuit of knowledge and a rich intelligence for its own sake is a beautiful thing (IMO), but the taxpayers pay for an education system that produces workers who act as cogs in the greater machine.

I'm interested in learning what more you know about this topic.

I'm out in a few but I'll provide some info when I have more time tomorrow. At the most basic level I'd simply ask you to name some of the larger contributors and then ask yourself if they were geniuses, or merely dedicated. Gates, Einstein, DaVinci, Aristotle, etc.

I am scared to the core by your statement, "the taxpayers pay for an education system that produces workers who act as cogs in the greater machine" however. That's not what I pay for at all. I pay taxes to have a functioning, evolving society, and so that all individuals can realize their own maximum potential. That happens because people are educated, not because they go to work every day at wal-mart. School exists to provide a basic shared body of knowledge and to help individuals learn to think and reason. The entire concept of socializing a bunch of worker bees is abhorrent.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
What I have to say will go over like a bag of hammers...just as a warning.

But I really don't care about the micro percent of "genius" kids out there. I really don't. They will bubble to top one way or another and will likely find a respectable way to survive. Is it the right attitude? No. But it really does come down to simple numbers and statistics.

The real students that get screwed are the ones that simply aren't cut out for higher learning or really have no interest in it. It's that group of society that has trouble finding meaningful and productive ways to provide for themselves. We try to force history and science and math down their throats, but instead we should be focusing on vocations and actual life skills instead of booting them out blind at the age of 18. But we don't do that because skilled trades like plumbing, electricians, and carpentry aren't "cool" jobs. The number of students that get dumped into the workforce unprepared and uneducated in how to care for themselves far, far, far outweighs the number of brain children that are suppressed by the shackles of conventional schooling.

The cold hard reality is that a majority of us really are in the range of "kinda dumb to kinda smart". On each end we have the true mentally handicapped and the uber intelligent. But both of those groups make up single digit percents of our society. It's just not very practical to try and retool the entire education system to accommodate such a small number of students.

I totally agree with the middle part, about vocational options and such. I'm all for it. But that also would require a re-tooling of our education system, and in the end the vast majority won't go that route. We produce about the worst average students in the world, our geniuses are ignored, and our vocational workers are left out to dry...seems like maybe only the handicapped get any kind of meaningful education right now. So, let's go ahead and retool the education system since it's not working for very many anyway. Instead of lots of little changes, first for one group, then another, let's just have one big change that addresses the core of the problem instead of the symptoms.

 

[Journer]

she has genius written all over her face :laugh: :laugh:

Text