Hacker News Reader

Comment by Y_Y | Hacker News Reader

But that's a different meaning of "need" to what's normally used. Gifted kids don't need special attention to get through school and life the same way the intellectually impaired do. It's much better in the sense, that if they will survive and probably not even cause a fuss if you treat them like the lowest common denominator. It's worse in the sense that you're unlikely to get a strong signal, but without special treatment they'll perform much worse than their potential (personal and economic) and are likely to end up with a psychological disorder. But that's not as bad as people who'll get in trouble with medical or legal issues, so it's not top of mind for legislators, educators , and caregivers. (References available on request)

View on HN

I don't think all gifted kids do just fine. I would be willing to bet a lot gifted kids get put on medication because they can't sit still in the classroom due to being painfully bored. The smartest people I've ever met are all pretty much ADHD or have some other ailment that requires medication. Not all of that would go away if they were raised in a challenging supportive environment suitable to their ability, but I would be a significant percentage would.

Also a lot of kids on the other end of "special needs" don't get the support they "need" and just get pushed through the system. 35% of high school seniors are reading at or above proficiency levels.

But even in that case, the argument isn't that "let's not add more G&T programs, those kids are doing fine", it's "let's remove G&T programs because we don't like the demographic makeup of the class".

I'll also add that we don't think that way about other groups. People in wheelchairs don't "need" to go to a concert, but most people still believe things like Americans with Disabilities Act is important. So I don't know why gifted children are different. We know what to do with them. Let them flourish, they will be better off, happier and more productive members of society.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/us-students-reading-math-s...

I certainly don't think (nor did I say) that gifted kids do fine. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

    Gifted kids don't need special attention to get 
    through school and life the same way the intellectually 
    impaired do.

This is very false in my experience.

I sometimes struggled in regular classes as a young kid, because it was so painfully boring to move at the same, slower speed as the other kids. It was like trying to watch a movie at 0.25x speed. I wasn't just "not reaching my potential", I was missing out on chunks of learning. I almost don't know what the counterargument is: we... shouldn't match education to a child's learning speed and other needs?

(And for the record, I wasn't crazy gifted in terms of IQ. More like top X%, not top 0.X%)

The ability to thrive and work with others who don't know as much about $FIELD as you do is, of course, an incredibly valuable life skill. Both socially and professionally. Whether you're a plumber or doctor or cashier then you by definition know more about your job than others. But I absolutely don't think forcing young kids to sit through learning at 0.25x or 0.5x or 0.75x their "natural" speed is the way to do it.

The worst thing about this is that these kids often get prescribed mind altering medication to have them sit still in class, just because we don't feel comfortable accepting that natural ability exists.

For what it's worth, I think my experience was similar to yours. That's why I'm drilling down on the definition of "need". I agree qwth what you say, my only point was that gifted students have a different, less urgent, kind of "need". Hence, as a mayter of institutional dynamics, we have the inadequate systems we have (for the gifted at least).

    That's why I'm drilling down on the definition of "need"

I like this train of thought. It leads to another great question or drilldown. If we're going to talk about needs we need to talk about it in relation to a goal. Is the goal...

1. To raise all childrens' education to some sort of minimally acceptable bar? (like the equivalent of a GED here in the USA)

2. To get as many kids as possible as close to their individual educational potential as possible, for humanistic and/or societal reasons?

3. Something else?

If it's the first option, then gifted children probably do not have a "need" as urgent as developmentally-challenged kids. If it's the second option, I think that gifted children do have an equally urgent need.

The second option is admittedly loftier, and to be frank, the first option aligns more closely with the way most laws function. But god damn, I think we really should be aiming for the second option.

Strictly agree with your question.. i think it's similar to, and at the same level of importance as, the classic trilemma of criminal justice: prevention, rehabilitation, or revenge.

> But that's a different meaning of "need" to what's normally used.

The novelty of applying the label differently, is refreshing to me.

> Gifted kids don't need special attention to get through school and life the same way the intellectually impaired do.

Need is being used subjectively here, but this is effectively a repeated sentiment.

As a gifted child, I was stunted by both public school and family (my father has literally apologized to me). It took me until my 20s to start my career, which was delayed by at least a half-decade. I am willing to consider that a different approach is worth trying, to achieve a different result. Maybe this will result in a better system and I think it's worth the benefit of the doubt.

It is certainly an alternative to other approaches that are popular in some areas, like banning books that mention trans individuals.

Gifted kids don't need special attention to get through school and life the same way the intellectually impaired do.

Isn't the Wozniak anecdote a counter argument? If a gifted kid is so bored they drop out or adopt anti-social behaviors, that's a problem.

Personal anecdote... when I was in 7th grade, the school trialed a math program where some of the GT students and some of the slow learners were placed in the same class. The class had an aide. But, at the end of the year, the GT students had effectively learned nothing - the teacher and aide spent 100% of their time getting the failing students closer to par, at the expense of everybody else.

Point being, there are ways to support GT students without completing disbanding GT programs. When I was in elementary school, that was a few hours per week of enrichment (pull us out of the main class periodically for extra instruction). Maybe there are reasons that doesn't work, but certainly my memory of that time is positive. It wasn't until middle school that we had fully separate "honors" classes (and then high school had AP).

It is better to empower 1 Noam Shazeer or Terence Tao than to prop up 10 million burger flippers.

Ms. Rand! I didn't know you were active here, nor that you were still alive. Makes sense though.

Better for whom?

The burger flippers (and society at large)

I'd love to see those references. Particularly the line "But that's not as bad as people who'll get in trouble with medical or legal issues". I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of intelligent people with legal and/or medical issues, so I'm curious where that comes from.

I'll add some once I'm back at my desk. I really mean that they cause issues for the people responsible for their education or care (rather than down the line), but I see that wasn't clear.

Good, clean, healthy food cost a lot of money. It cost more to buy a container of spinach, than it does to make cheeseburger macaroni. It cost more to buy products like Amy's, which supposedly have less highly processed ingredients, than it is to buy a can of Progresso. You're not wrong, but the healthy food companies are maximizing their profit, and riding on the healthy label and should be seen as contributing to the problem. This is putting healthier foods beyond the reach of the average person. Whole Foods is a classic example.

The average person absolutely can avail themselves to healthier options than they currently consume. Blaming the environment and forgetting that people have agency is very cynical.

If you’ve availed yourself to educating yourself about nutrition AND you have adjusted your priorities so that healthier food takes the place of other expenditures and you still can’t afford healthy options, then let’s talk. If you buy soda instead of drinking water that comes free from a tap and you’re complaining about lack of healthy food accessibility, you’re not taking sufficient responsibility to improve your and your family’s health.

This is somewhat for a dumb reason, which is that we heavily subsidize meat and dairy in this country (and especially beef). We could move those subsidies to healthier and more environmentally friendly foods, like fruit and vegetables, and their prices would drop down heavily and more people could also afford them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com