Future career path of gifted youth can be predicted by age 13 | Hacker News Reader

Future career path of gifted youth can be predicted by age 13

sitemason.vanderbilt.edu

5 pointswhacked_new16 comments

Cut to the chase: "Overall, the creative potential of these participants was extraordinary. They earned a total of 817 patents and published 93 books. Of the 18 participants who later earned tenure-track positions in math/science fields at top-50 U.S. universities, their average age 13 SAT-M score was 697, and the lowest score among them was 580, a score greater than over 60 percent of all students who take the SAT."

Controversy time.

Open articleView on HN

"...which is a focus of the new $43 billion America Competes Act recently passed by Congress to enhance the United States' ability to compete globally."

I know a simpler way to do that for the same amount of money: pay a million kids $43,000 not to watch TV and spending 5-20 hours a week reading books that interest them.

I'd trust the SAT scores of 13 year olds more than the SAT scores of college applicants. Few if any in this sample would have been taking classes in how to beat the test.

I wouldn't, because the data point of students taking the SAT's in middle school is just a reflection of how affluent and/or educated the child's family is. I don't think that would reflect on the student's abilities very well, especially at 13.

In Wisconsin I took the SAT in seventh grade as part of a state competition, so it's not necessarily daddy cutting a check. Not to brag, but I got a free ice cream sandwich for my amazing score!

I experienced a 230 point increase just by learning how to pace myself to answer all the questions. I guess I'm not a good data point anyway since I didn't know English very well when I took the test, and even less so at 13.

Do many states have SAT's in middle school?

Many do. CTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Talented_Youth) serves 20 states; TIP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_Identification_Program) serves 17.

Pacing was very important for me too, especially coming from an educational background which did not emphasize test-taking (homeschooling).

I got a free course in Pascal!

Trust for what? For entrepreneurship, I'd almost think that the kid who took classes to boost his score has an advantage. He took pro-active steps to improve how he did, rather than just winning the genetic lottery.

When I took the SATs in 7th grade, I blitzed through the math section, having enough time for a full double-check and a spot triple-check. Elsewhere in this thread, Vlad mentions that he did very poorly until he learned how to pace himself and answer all the questions. Am I at an advantage because I have a knack for this stuff, or is Vlad because he actually learned techniques that work consistently?

What makes you believe you didn't take enough steps?

What I don't like about this article is that it doesn't describe the study's definition of success - a part from stupid sound bites that are almost useless.

"Individuals showing more ability in math had greater accomplishments in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, while those showing greatest ability on the verbal portion of the test went on to excel in the humanities"

who was the lead researcher - captain obvious?

"They earned a total of 817 patents and published 93 books."

Quantity does not equal quality.

"Of the 18 participants who later earned tenure-track positions in math/science fields at top-50 U.S. universities"

It's been pretty well known for years that academic tests are good predictors of future academic success (but it's not great for anything else)

I don't buy it. My SATs were in the top 1% at age 13, but they were only a couple hundred points higher when I took them again to apply to college. According to this I should be more likely to succeed than someone who would be able to trounce me if we both took the test again today. What sense does that make?

If someone's gifted at X at 13, they will likely continue in X after high school. This finding is obvious, and may or may not apply to kids in general.

My school experience indicates that the career path that can be predicted for gifted youth at age 13 is: burnout.

Hopefully things have improved since then.

Does this study have a control group? I followed the link at the bottom of the article, but I couldn't find anything about a control group.

So... people who tend to be smart tend to achieve more? How is this news?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com