A world in which the profoundly gifted are supported might be a world in which the American Dream has to die, replaced instead with a reverence for the value that gifted people bring.
It’s certainly a better idea than subsidising the bottom 25% for existing. And society could also provide incentives for mothers to bear more high-IQ children, as such an investment can also have a decent ROI.
Singapore has such a program, picking up the tab for all its gifted kids' education through post-grad. In return, they must accept a government position for several years if called upon. Which most, surprisingly, aren't.
China's 'program' is scary strong: an extended clan (one has 90 million members) will get behind a gifted youngster, ensuring that he or she gets every break possible.
Then 100-million Party members are always looking to hand out scholarships to gifted youngsters. Many leading officials were first noticed in this way, President Hu being one. He was from a poor family, but gifted, so the Party sent him all the way to Tsinghua, where he captained the ballroom dancing club, was president of the students' union, and a straight-A engineering student.
Genius is sacrificed upon the alter of “equality” in the Western world. It is impossible to raise everyone up to the highest level—however that is defined—but infinitely easier to reduce everyone downward to the lowest common denominator. Here in the USA, programs for the gifted are not just being underfunded, they are being defunded and eliminated.
In my poorish city, we had *one* public HS school for the “relatively” gifted. Faculty at my university sent their children there, as did I. The school gleaned the best of the city’s gifted students and were subsequently ranked over the years in the top ten HS’s in the nation. As the politics and district school board changed, they decided that this admissions policy was “biased and unfair” as it drew students from the better grade schools, many—but not all—in the richer sections of the city (who’d have thought…). A new policy was implemented that students would henceforth be drawn from the top,10% of the students in *all* the grade schools.
Of course, not a thought was given to the obvious flaw that not all feeder schools were equal in the excellence of their student populations. These new enrollees were woefully inadequate to the success of a school for the gifted, as they simply were at best of average scholastic ability. The inevitable result was that within a few short years, this HS vanished from the national rankings.
And then there was none…and that was the whole idea.
I am not sure that IQ measures anything as remarkably complex as intelligence, but it may still be useful as one signal among many of a gifted child. Other signals were alluded to in the article: a preference for learning on one’s own at a perceived accelerated pace, the refusal to do meaningless work or take meaningless tests, not completely understanding that the key to always getting a good grade is sufficiently assuaging the professor’s ego, not mastering the subject matter, and, perhaps the most telling, a desire to avoid trite conversation.
America's Old Republic, which we transitioned away from between 1933 and 1964 was in policy design and implementation far superior to what we've had since and what we've had since is essentially the enactment of this ideal. The trading for democratic governance for Expert Management. But somehow it never seems to be quite expert, it never gets any big thing right, and it has far more corruption. Also, when poked and prodded, many of those we're told are cognitive superiors end up just being arrogant mediocrities....
"In a sane world, Hairer would long ago have been given a healthy grant or a generous basic income, as well as a majestic set of lodgings wherever he so desired. Perhaps he would’ve become the Queen’s Royal Mathematician and lead a school of elite young students who would apply from all over the world for a chance to spend a few hours breathing the same air as the alien-brained professor."
I am unsure that wouldn't have blunted his mind, though. "Ad astra per aspera"...
In general, and with the "Ad astra per aspera" big caveat, I subscribe to the thesis this post is centered on. I'd mitigate it, however: remove financial worries from their life, but no "royal" stuff whatsoever.
No, no, no you see! We must sacrifice the great in favor of the mediocre. Our social-liberal democracies hinges on making even the most gifted dependent on state services and as such converted to socialist.
It’s certainly a better idea than subsidising the bottom 25% for existing. And society could also provide incentives for mothers to bear more high-IQ children, as such an investment can also have a decent ROI.
Good stuff!
Singapore has such a program, picking up the tab for all its gifted kids' education through post-grad. In return, they must accept a government position for several years if called upon. Which most, surprisingly, aren't.
China's 'program' is scary strong: an extended clan (one has 90 million members) will get behind a gifted youngster, ensuring that he or she gets every break possible.
Then 100-million Party members are always looking to hand out scholarships to gifted youngsters. Many leading officials were first noticed in this way, President Hu being one. He was from a poor family, but gifted, so the Party sent him all the way to Tsinghua, where he captained the ballroom dancing club, was president of the students' union, and a straight-A engineering student.
Genius is sacrificed upon the alter of “equality” in the Western world. It is impossible to raise everyone up to the highest level—however that is defined—but infinitely easier to reduce everyone downward to the lowest common denominator. Here in the USA, programs for the gifted are not just being underfunded, they are being defunded and eliminated.
In my poorish city, we had *one* public HS school for the “relatively” gifted. Faculty at my university sent their children there, as did I. The school gleaned the best of the city’s gifted students and were subsequently ranked over the years in the top ten HS’s in the nation. As the politics and district school board changed, they decided that this admissions policy was “biased and unfair” as it drew students from the better grade schools, many—but not all—in the richer sections of the city (who’d have thought…). A new policy was implemented that students would henceforth be drawn from the top,10% of the students in *all* the grade schools.
Of course, not a thought was given to the obvious flaw that not all feeder schools were equal in the excellence of their student populations. These new enrollees were woefully inadequate to the success of a school for the gifted, as they simply were at best of average scholastic ability. The inevitable result was that within a few short years, this HS vanished from the national rankings.
And then there was none…and that was the whole idea.
Great piece. Well reasoned.
I am not sure that IQ measures anything as remarkably complex as intelligence, but it may still be useful as one signal among many of a gifted child. Other signals were alluded to in the article: a preference for learning on one’s own at a perceived accelerated pace, the refusal to do meaningless work or take meaningless tests, not completely understanding that the key to always getting a good grade is sufficiently assuaging the professor’s ego, not mastering the subject matter, and, perhaps the most telling, a desire to avoid trite conversation.
America's Old Republic, which we transitioned away from between 1933 and 1964 was in policy design and implementation far superior to what we've had since and what we've had since is essentially the enactment of this ideal. The trading for democratic governance for Expert Management. But somehow it never seems to be quite expert, it never gets any big thing right, and it has far more corruption. Also, when poked and prodded, many of those we're told are cognitive superiors end up just being arrogant mediocrities....
"In a sane world, Hairer would long ago have been given a healthy grant or a generous basic income, as well as a majestic set of lodgings wherever he so desired. Perhaps he would’ve become the Queen’s Royal Mathematician and lead a school of elite young students who would apply from all over the world for a chance to spend a few hours breathing the same air as the alien-brained professor."
I am unsure that wouldn't have blunted his mind, though. "Ad astra per aspera"...
In general, and with the "Ad astra per aspera" big caveat, I subscribe to the thesis this post is centered on. I'd mitigate it, however: remove financial worries from their life, but no "royal" stuff whatsoever.
No, no, no you see! We must sacrifice the great in favor of the mediocre. Our social-liberal democracies hinges on making even the most gifted dependent on state services and as such converted to socialist.
Another great argument for socialism, thank you Aporia.
Nothing to dispute here. Double down on the winners. Pedestalize the smart fractions. Bow before Elite Human Capital.