←back to thread

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

(www.latimes.com)
412 points tafda | 5 comments | 26 Nov 24 16:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.752s | source
Show context
csa ◴[26 Nov 24 17:25 UTC] No.42247695[source]▶
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 does not afford equality of opportunities is a fool’s game that ends with Bergeron-esque levels of absurdity.

Imho, the only viable/main solution is to acknowledge that we all aren’t equal, we don’t all have access to the same opportunities, but as a country we can implement policies that lessen the imbalance.

Head Start is a good example.

Well-run gifted and talented programs in schools are also good examples.

Killing truly progressive programs for the purpose of virtue signaling is a loss for society.

replies(20): >>42247806 #>>42247816 #>>42247846 #>>42247879 #>>42247950 #>>42247987 #>>42248015 #>>42248175 #>>42248677 #>>42248849 #>>42249074 #>>42249151 #>>42249205 #>>42249364 #>>42250032 #>>42250676 #>>42250718 #>>42250987 #>>42252785 #>>42258523 #
phil21 ◴[26 Nov 24 17:36 UTC] No.42247816[source]▶
> 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 perhaps the sole political topic I will die on a hill for.

replies(14): >>42247998 #>>42248064 #>>42248069 #>>42248160 #>>42248699 #>>42248738 #>>42248928 #>>42249287 #>>42249345 #>>42250259 #>>42250885 #>>42251812 #>>42255394 #>>42262339 #
foogazi ◴[26 Nov 24 18:04 UTC] No.42248160[source]▶
> Taking resources away from those who move society forward

Do gifted students move society forward ?

Where is society moving to ?

replies(1): >>42249095 #
polski-g ◴[26 Nov 24 19:31 UTC] No.42249095[source]▶
Generally yes.

Bill Gates will eliminate polio for mankind within his lifetime. He has at least 140IQ.

replies(2): >>42249398 #>>42250696 #
1. sangnoir ◴[26 Nov 24 20:00 UTC] No.42249398[source]▶
There are so many confounding factors are at play that you're ignoring and attributing the achievement to high IQ (and that only).

The Guinea Worm is on the verge if eradication, mostly on the back of the multi-decade efforts of Jimmy Carter. I don't what his IQ is, but I'll assume it's below 140 and above whatever is the ballpark minimum required to enroll as a Navy Nuke.

I posit that you don't need to be a genius to eradicate a disease, just drive, a platform and the right resources and/or connections

replies(2): >>42249853 #>>42251806 #
2. ctoth ◴[26 Nov 24 20:42 UTC] No.42249853[source]▶
I was curious and so I looked.

Jimmy Carter: 145.

Not sure how credible that is but it sure did make me chuckle.

3. roenxi ◴[27 Nov 24 00:54 UTC] No.42251806[source]▶
You're speculating that a US president has a relatively average intelligence - why are you assuming that? The top job in a democracy is generally one of the most competitive positions in the world and US presidents are typically exceptional in multiple different ways. It'd be really surprising to have a US president with an IQ below something like 120 and I'd personally be assuming >140 for the average. As far as I can see a 140 IQ is around the 0.1-1% mark, it isn't that rare compared to presidents (<0.01%).
replies(1): >>42252208 #
4. sangnoir ◴[27 Nov 24 02:02 UTC] No.42252208[source]▶
> You're speculating that a US president has a relatively average intelligence - why are you assuming that

I am not assuming that: any range that has studying nuclear engineering as its floor is above average intelligence. I thought it was self-evident, but apparently not - perhaps not many people know what a "Navy Nuke officer" is. To be more explicit the range is between above average intelligence and "genius". Regardless, I will never be convinced that people with relatively average intelligence are precluded from greatness; so excuse my scepticism when fellow nerds pat themselves on the back for being the engine of the world without pointing at any research that bears this idea out.

replies(1): >>42253098 #
5. roenxi ◴[27 Nov 24 05:06 UTC] No.42253098{3}[source]▶
> To be more explicit the range is between above average intelligence and "genius".

You haven't made your point explicit. So what? What are you basing your argument on here? The existence of Navy Nuke officers may well have no bearing at all on Carter's intelligence. If Mr Carter was trying for jobs which required genius that suggests he was one.

> I will never be convinced that people with relatively average intelligence are precluded from greatness

Greatness is one thing, competition for US presidency is something else. I'm sure it is possible and happens on rare occasions, but an ordinary person cannot be reasonably expected make it through the scrum to become a US president. They usually have to have quite a few somethings to set them apart from the crowd - including great intelligence.