Have kids gotten smarter?

Stazy · Dec 1, 2009

If kids learn differently and have different skill sets than what past generations have, why aren't there new standardized tests to accommodate this? If the IQ test was developed for a different kind of student, wouldn't it make sense to develop one that is more applicable for today's students?

Originally Posted by imageWIS

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 completely irrelevant. It doesn't address wether kids have gotten smarter or if they are more coddled than in the past. Latin and Greek have very little application in todays world and that's why no one learns them anymore.

Fuuma · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by Thomas

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

That's not a solution, that's an observation.

globetrotter · Dec 1, 2009

here's my take on it.

I fell into the "gifted" catagory, but I am deslexic, and had some speach issues when I was a kid. so I had to have remedial reading and writting as well as speach therapy as a kid (first and second grade), on the other hand, I was popped up a grade and put into "gifted" programs.

I found a level that would get me comfortable grades, and basically did nothing else but that, and then found things that interested me outside of school. I decided, in 3rd grade, that I was smarter than my teachers and so I just had to be more or less polite to them, but not really respect them or listen to them. and I really did't have a great academice career.

I don't think that this was a good thing. I am not happy or proud about it.

when my son was 4, he was tested by his school district and found to have an extremly high IQ. while I was proud of it, I find this a huge challenge - basically its like a son who you know will grow up to be 6 foot 8 - while 6 foot 4 is a nice hieght, 6 8 offers more challenges than benifits in a lot of ways.

we were very concerned with how the school distict would handle it, and how we would get him into a framework where he would be challanged but still fit in socially. there were propffetionals who wanted us to pop him up a grade, others who suggested magnet schools.

we put him into a regular class, and have been very happy about it. in his grade there are about 75 kids. there are 4 who are very high achievers, as high as my son or higher. one is the daughter of two chinese immigrants - one is a proffesor and one is a doctor. two others are children of at least one proffesor. statistically, it would suggest that you wouldn't have 4 kids in this IQ range out of 75 kids, on the other hand, there are about 30 or more NorthWestern Proffesors with kids in the school, and a lot of lawyers. the other option is that they don't have an IQ that is quite so high, but they work harder and with more parental support. I don't know how it works, exactly.

but here is the flip side -there are maybe 20 kids in the grade who are illiterate in 2nd grade. there are plenty who aren't doing very well.

and we are in a good school - if you go 10 miles south, I am guessing that the number of funtioning illiterates grows dramitically.

so, maybe it is a self sorting thing - while, statistically there shouldn't be so many bright kids together, the parents move to locations that have more bright kids, or maybe parents self sort by how much support that they will give the kids. I don't know.

Thomas · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by Fuuma

That's not a solution, that's an observation.

Not all things can be solved by teachers, the educational system, or the government.

But wait - what exactly needs to be 'solved'? The very definition of 'average' means that 50% of your population sampled will be below the 'average' in the function you're testing. You can't evade that fact - but at the same time being below-average doesn't necessarily mean that you have no skills, or can't develop any. I have good friends who plaster drywall, turn wrenches, and work video cameras for a living, and decent ones at that.

Milhouse · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not all things can be solved by ... the government.

May god have mercy on us all!!!!

itsstillmatt · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by iammatt

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.
So, this is what she had to say on giftedness in general. It doesn't address all of the issues in the thread, but may be a helpful primer for some parents, or for other interested people.

I don't have any data to back this first comment up, but basically tons of parents think their smart kids are gifted probably because they don't understand brain development and child psychology. They're "amazed" and "in awe" of what their kids say and do when in actuality, they're probably doing some kind of developmental task that's totally normal. There's no research to support that children who speak early or develop anything early are any more intelligent than their peers over time. Brain development takes up to 21 to 25 years and there are spurts of development during that time, and everyone get's their spurts within the same range of time, usually, but sometimes people are early or late with absolutely no long-term affects once they are fully developed. And, even if some kid a a total genius, he's still only 4 or 5 and therefore can't understand deep or hidden context or relationships between characters in most mid-level books. Think: Frankenstein to a third grader is truly just a monster story and has little to do with the moral responsibility of scientists/engineers and probably nothing to do with the consequences of living beings without familial/genetic roots, which has over time turned into something quite real. They simply can't analyze as well as an average 20 year old simply because they lack experience and the much needed brain development. To be gifted per se, one must be two standard deviations (30 standard points) above the average IQ, which is, sad to say, only 100. The IQ must be obtained with a valid and reliable tool such as the WISC or the Stanford Binet. One's two standard deviations do not need to be in a full scale IQ because sometimes people who are truly gifted can't get the full scale up high enough due to other processing difficulties such as short-term memory, working-memory or processing speed, which are often hallmarks of ADHD and/or dyslexia (think: Einstein). But, the two standard deviations really do need to be in both Verbal IQ and Performance IQ, or you're just a regular smart person. For example, if Suzie Q has a Verbal IQ of 140, she's great with words and verbal reasoning, no doubt, but she may struggle with non-verbal reasoning and have a Performance IQ of 110 and therefore, just be smart. Why stick her in a group full of kids with Performance IQs of 135? She'll suffer. Likewise, another student may have a Verbal IQ of 135 and a Performance IQ of 150, and therefore be gifted, but he may also have Asberger's and, therefore, not be able to relate to people or have full relationships etc. Is that person gifted? Sharp, no doubt, but smart? I'd say smart comes from being able to analyze real information and people and make proper decisions and have charisma and all that good stuff. So, high IQ alone is not enough to make someone "gifted". Likewise, even though it's such a great tool, the Woodcock-Johnson is insufficient for measuring IQ mainly because it looks at way too many different areas of processing, so there are too many numbers to total into the General Intellectual Ability. I find at work that even those with WISC scores of Verbal 130+ or Performance 130+ rarely have corresponding WJ-III scores as high. There are too many timed tests and language-specific tests on the WJ-III for it to be considered reliable for an IQ. There are some recent studies available (one researcher I can think of is Carol Dweck at Stanford) that show parents who constantly praise their children, especially about intelligence, are actually doing more harm than good for their children. Her work shows that when kids are told over and over that they're gifted, since they're kids, they don't really get it, and even if they are gifted, they start to think that since they're so freaking smart everything needs to come to them easy and fast. So, when they are put in challenging situations, they tend to give up easily because they've been primed into thinking that effort is equivalent to failure, and they'd rather be seen as smart, so they avoid taking on challenges. Over time, this could mean that some really smart kids stop trying in school and therefore become less smart than those who were just normal kids to start with, but who work hard and eventually become the more successful children and/ adults. It's interesting to think about.

why · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by Stazy

Latin and Greek have very little application in todays world and that's why no one learns them anymore.
It's an exercise of the mind and a means to further learning and understanding, not the means to a paycheck. I haven't lived in any other generations, but I would assume based on a few select recollections from scholars that 'kids' are just as dumb (or smart) as ever. I think what's changed is the mentality of the idiots to feel just as smart as those who truly are more intelligent.

bigboy · Dec 1, 2009

I remember reading that 80% of "gifted" students go unrecognized.

Also, greek and lating are still alive and kicking. Our school offers a course on greek/latin scientific terminology; of course not the entire language (bases, prefixes, etc.) but it's quite helpful. Had it come in handy many a times during exams where I'd only have to translate one or two words and figure out the answer (MC of course).

why · Dec 1, 2009

Matt, I know your wife typed that and she isn't involved in this discussion or this forum, so don't take this the wrong way: I think I now understand another problem with education. To be gifted per se [sic], one must be two standard deviations (30 standard points) above the average IQ, which is, sad to say, only 100.

montecristo#4 · Dec 1, 2009

Kids have obviously gotten stupider (see Conne, CE, etc.). Luckily your son is one of the few that have managed to maintain the status quo pre-nanny nation.

HORNS · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by why

Matt, I know your wife typed that and she isn't involved in this discussion or this forum, so don't take this the wrong way: I think I now understand another problem with education.

To be gifted per se [sic], one must be two standard deviations (30 standard points) above the average IQ, which is, sad to say, only 100.

And there's so many qualities that constitute "gifted" that are either unmeasurable or are underappreciated. I'm thinking, specifically, about creative/artistic intelligence as well as leadership. The leadership quality that I am referring to is especially vague, but it is ultimately manifested in the workforce after the child is out of school and is an adult, but it is still a very a very important quality at a time when all of the person's schooling is supposed to culminate. You often see such an "intelligence", during a child's schooling, in the arena of sport activities - which of course is outside of the classroom. A child that takes upon themselves leadership roles in organized sports show a confidence and a capability to work well with other people to attain a common goal, and I think that people interviewing candidates for whatever (sales job, law firm, surgical residency, etc.) would pragmatically favor an applicant who obviously has such qualities.

why · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by HORNS

And there's so many qualities that constitute "gifted" that are either unmeasurable or are underappreciated. I'm thinking, specifically, about creative/artistic intelligence as well as leadership. The leadership quality that I am referring to is especially vague, but it is ultimately manifested in the workforce after the child is out of school and is an adult, but it is still a very a very important quality at a time when all of the person's schooling is supposed to culminate. You often see such an "intelligence", during a child's schooling, in the arena of sport activities - which of course is outside of the classroom. A child that takes upon themselves leadership roles in organized sports show a confidence and a capability to work well with other people to attain a common goal, and I think that people interviewing candidates for whatever (sales job, law firm, surgical residency, etc.) would pragmatically favor an applicant who obviously has such qualities.
Not really what I was getting at, and I can't even say I agree at all. These demarcations are by their nature impositions and do little more than redraw boundaries depending on what categories of 'intelligence' the author feels like drawing up. And really, using Freud as the model for my point, where does the id end and the ego begin? It may sound like sophistry, but there are no strict delineations between the different parts of the human geist. This lack of a comprehensive or accepted stratification of intelligence is something Matt's wife alluded to but didn't seem to focus on.

HORNS · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by why

Not really what I was getting at, and I can't even say I agree at all. These demarcations are by their nature impositions and do little more than redraw boundaries depending on what categories of 'intelligence' the author feels like drawing up. And really, using Freud as the model for my point, where does the id end and the ego begin? It may sound like sophistry, but there are no strict delineations between the different parts of the human geist.

This lack of a comprehensive or accepted stratification of intelligence is something Matt's wife alluded to but didn't seem to focus on.

I know that's not what you were getting at, because I would waste time rephrasing what you did say. I was simply taking your point about using the criteria of "two standard deviations above 100 IQ" and then throwing my two cents in. Also, I don't feel that I'm redrawing the lines, but am pointing out something that I consider one of the inherent flaws in what educators determine to be "gifted" or "intelligent".

LA Guy · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by HORNS

And there's so many qualities that constitute "gifted" that are either unmeasurable or are underappreciated. I'm thinking, specifically, about creative/artistic intelligence as well as leadership. The leadership quality that I am referring to is especially vague, but it is ultimately manifested in the workforce after the child is out of school and is an adult, but it is still a very a very important quality at a time when all of the person's schooling is supposed to culminate. You often see such an "intelligence", during a child's schooling, in the arena of sport activities - which of course is outside of the classroom. A child that takes upon themselves leadership roles in organized sports show a confidence and a capability to work well with other people to attain a common goal, and I think that people interviewing candidates for whatever (sales job, law firm, surgical residency, etc.) would pragmatically favor an applicant who obviously has such qualities.

We all know this. You are broadening the definition of "intelligence" so much that it loses any useful meaning. I hate phrases like "football intelligence", or "street smarts."

LA Guy · Dec 1, 2009

Originally Posted by Fuuma

What can we do about the Johnnies?

Tell them that they are stupid. I did this the other day, to a gifted child who was actually dumb as a pile of rocks.

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

Kids have obviously gotten stupider (see Conne, CE, etc.). Luckily your son is one of the few that have managed to maintain the status quo pre-nanny nation.

I must be stupid, because I don't understand WTF you are trying to say here

I'm not able to parse "managed to maintain the status quo pre-nanny nation" at all.

Have kids gotten smarter?

Distinguished Member

Franchouillard Modasse

Stylish Dinosaur

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

The Liberator

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Opposite Santa

Opposite Santa

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: