Staggering Genius

In the Sunday New York Times Magazine, from 20 November, 2005, the feature article was about the advances made to encourage the identification and development of "gifted children", (the preferred euphemisms of my childhood), or what they called "geniuses". I always have to laugh when I hear the word "genius" - it makes me think of the old Wile E. Coyote "super-genius" cartoon. The article itself aroused about very mixed feelings in me. On one hand, I agree that this type of intellectual capacity is a potential resource which should not be wasted in the name of some artificial standard of theoretical "equality". But I worry about how much of this "genius" is based on the needs and nature of the child alone, rather than the ego of the parents. Also, with big financial awards at stake, like the "Davidson Fellowships" mentioned in the article, will identifying and labeling prodigies help them find community, or will it just ratchet up the feeling of competition, either from within the young people themselves or from their parents, family and school?

On the face of it, the fact that intellectual gifts are identified and encouraged, rather than treated as a distraction, oddity or classroom burden represents progress, at least viewed from my elementary school days. In the village where I grew up "gifted education" was largely a foreign concept from the late 60's to mid 70's. Children who were quick learners were expected not to be disruptive, i.e. ask for more time or attention from the teachers. "Enrichment" consisted by and large of more of the usual homework, which counted for nothing and was often ungraded. Busywork, in other words. Tracking in certain classes like math and reading/language was supported through mandatory standardized tests (both SRA and Stanford-Binet, at my school). Later, there did seem to be an attempt to at least pay lip service to providing "gifted education" in grade 7. Unfortunately, the experiment ended in about three weeks when one of my "gifted" classmates set a science lab on fire. No more was said about being "gifted". If you were lucky, and teachers were cooperative/convinced you were less trouble out of their class, you might be able to go to a lower class and tutor or skip the class entirely (both happened to me).

Skipping classes - letting students advance to a grade level where the work was appropriately challenging - a standby of the pre-WW II educational establishment - had largely been abandoned in favor of keeping children at an "appropriate social level." Not just abandoned, but actively discouraged. Many of the adults I was close to, including my grandmother, older cousin and close family friend, had been allowed to advance, often 2-3 grades over the course of their education.The older folks I knew did not seem to have suffered socially from having had peers who were older and more advanced than they were. On the contrary, they were socially engaged people who said that learning to get along with older classmates gave them a useful skill. By the time I entered public school, this strategy was no longer possible and the rule seemed to be "the nail that sticks out gets beaten down". This seems to have changed now, and kids are able to "test into" university in a way that wasn't "possible" a few decades ago when I left high school and went directly to college at 15. That's a whole separate story, but it was the best decision I ever made - and I do mean "I", as my parents were supportive, but not directive.

As I have gotten older, it has been fun to run across others who did the same "impossible" thing. I always felt like we belonged to a secret society, and I personally never felt competitive with these other people who went to college at an early age, some even as young as 12 or 13. Some individuals did seem to have relished their outsider "genius" or "wunderkind" position. In my experience, these were usually guys who worked in math or science. Most of these "early achievers" focused closely on their studies, keeping their heads low, intent on feeding their intellectual curiosity in a more conducive climate. Some, like me, tried to pass and fit in with the other students. Even though I didn't look much different than the other students, I easily got into situations where it was hard to hang without outright lying. Being labeled "genius" would have killed any social aspirations I had, other than that of resident freak. So I wonder how it will be with these kids? Will they be able to parlay their label into something that will work for them? What is important for them as they go to college? Do they care about having friends at college and university who will look beyond the title and get to know them as individuals? Or is the social aspect unimportant, compared with the possibility to seek new opportunities to explore - and to be mentored?