Have kids gotten smarter? - Page 3

Morons have made it to all levels of society. Being an idiot is not a predictor of much outside of CE posting. Of course doing bad in school is but that's different and often link to socioeconomic factors (see shitload of studies linking communication and work strategies to socioeconomic class, etc).

Well, sure, but not lazy morons who can't pull themselves off their parents' couch. You can be of below-average intelligence and still do great things, by virtue of work ethic, persistence, or even luck. But even then: no parent wants to hear these things, so no teacher will ever say them. It's like an indictment of their genetics or parenting skills, to say that Johnny is below-average.

Put it this way: I know a 10-year old, in the third grade, who struggles to read. Even the simple stuff. Last grading period he got straight A's. I have no idea how that happened.

Spending my first thirteen years in a town of barely over 300 people, I was placed in a "gifted" class while I was in 4th and 5th grade. However, when my family moved to a school of over 8,000 people, I was then exposed as being severely deficient in math, along with fundamental skills on how to study. So, I think that all of our experiences are different in the type and degree of competition and challenges that we faced when we were growing up and learning our method to best acquire, retain, process, and apply knowledge.

Are children today better at doing these things? I don't think so. Based on how much we as humanity has learned since I was in elementary school in 1983, I don't think that children are yet taking algebra classes in 3rd grade. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, I feel strongly that text messaging, which all kids engage in, is not only compromising a child's ability to use correct grammar and sentence composition, but also is compromising their ability to think and communicate in a way that is as complex as the generation before text messaging.

What can we do about the Johnnies?

I think we are about the same age and probably had a similar schooling experience due to geographic proximity. Did your schools make no bones about "tracking"? My elementary school always had an "A" class and a "B" class. Smart kids in the "A." That got further subdivided into at least two groups. I remember, for instance, some reading lab stuff where you could progress at your own pace, in grades 4-7.

Then in high school...well first, we had two "tech schools" in the area, one county, one city. Then my high school was very explicitly into tracking. x3x courses for those expected to drop out at 16 or the remedial folks, x4x for those to graduate Grade 12 and either go to a manufacturing job or community college and x5x for those headed to Grade 13 and university.

So, I think what I'm saying is, things were more apparent in previous times.

My wife does psycho-educational testing for children, and talks about this phenomenon a lot. Maybe I'll get her to write a post tonight explaining some of what goes on in schools and with parents nowadays. The answer, in short, is that Fok is right. The answer, in long form, is that the "gifted" learning world leads to an incredible number of problems.

Why would we need to do something about the Johnnies? It's the parents that seem to be driving the problem. Johnny doesn't really care if he's gifted or not.

I think I was the only student in any of my math classes that used a TI89 Titanium... At the same time my math GPA was almost a perfect 4.0. Honestly, I really didn't need a calculator with that many functions, since I always made sure I was able to do the math by hand if need be. During exams however the calculator allowed me to work fast enough so I had time to double check my answers.

No kidding... the amount of students in college that I know get take home exams is unbelievable. I think the further back you go in American history the less coddle students were, yet they had far more to learn. In and around the Boston area in the late 1700's for example, those who were fortunate enough to go to school and perhaps to the local community college (Harvard) knew how to read in at least English and Latin, and very probably Greek. I bet the percentage of Harvard students today can read Latin and Greek is far less than the students 200 or 250 years ago.

This is an interesting point. In the SF Bay Area, there have to be forty schools for "gifted children" and only one requires an IQ test, with the same hurdle you mention, for entry. It is also the only private school in the area, at least that I know of, that is rigorous about transitioning kids out if they cannot "make the grade." On the other hand, IQ tests have actually been banned from San Francisco public schools, to the point that the district will not look at one if it is done by an outside psychologist and the parents present it at an IEP or similar meeting. San Francisco tends to be on the extreme with the matters you mention, but...

It is very easy to blame the schools, and the politics of self esteem, or whatever, but I'm not sure that is where the majority of the blame should go. The need for each parent to have a gifted child is a major driving force behind the problem, especially at private schools. It simply is not reasonable to assume that 60% of upper middle class to upper class children are "gifted," but in cities in the US, something around that percentage attends private school, and the parents, who drive curriculum in those places, want them all on the gifted track, which means that a large percentage of children are taking classes that are not suited for them, and they struggle mightily. Public schools generally need to offer the same classes, as competition for university becomes more and more intense, so in the long run, everybody gets to be gifted, and take gifted classes, but a large number of kids aren't leaning much at all.

Err, I meant how the educational system will help Johnny acquire some mad skillz yo.

My (sorta like junior high/high/etc) schools had IQ tests and expelled non-performing students, it's supposedly amazing and stuff but I still think, few exceptions aside and most related to drinking alcohol behind the bleachers, it sucked balls so meh. Being told you're "the elite" created a bunch of two-bit doctors couples and overweight, ex anorexic, lawyer girls who who ate too much ice cream while watching sex and the city. Keep in mind we're talking places that often top national/int. school charts. Sometimes I think all kids should stick together until college/vocational schools and the goal should be to learn a bunch of stuff everyone should know. You know, standard all citizens should aspire to? Of course I also think people should have citizen classes to be able to vote and participate in the political process so I'm a fascist.

Indeed.

I would say that it's a shortcoming. I can read long, dense, works, but I can also multi-task as well as Jon. My younger brother can't finish a book. Having a short attention span can be a real problem when it comes to analyzing anything in a critical light. I think the problem is probably worse in the younger generation, but not limited to it. I've had bosses that couldn't finish a 400 word email.

That said, I think it's a parent's job to make sure their kids develop in a balanced way. I love computers and gaming, but if I ever have kids, that stuff would be a reward for doing other stuff that actually develops their brains, and I would limit it. Same with the internet. I wouldn't want my kids to turn into vacuous zombies.

And I'm also pretty sure there have been studies that show that we are actually deluding ourselves that we become more efficient by multi-tasking. I would assume that this partly depends on the complexity of the things you are multi-tasking, but still..

Johnny haz to want the mad skillz. And his peepz ought to be on-board.