Not even close to true. Going into a trade is a great way to get into a comfortable middle class life. And in those trades, you'll commonly find people who did horrible in school, and thought they were idiots because of it.

Yes, some trades pay way more, have more available jobs, and have better working conditions (work hours, etc) than PhDs in a variety of sciences.

Not everyone is cut out to be a plumber or an electrician.

The ultimate goal should be to provide better education for everyone so that all students have as many available options by the time they're ready to pick a career path.

Also, I hate these comments from white collar folks about blue collar jobs being the answer to everything. Yes we need them, but we also need to be honest that the average plumber is going to have a harder time working until 65 than an office worker.

I never said blue collar trade was the answer to everything. I said that the school system is not the answer to everything.

So you have to be in gifted to have a successful life?

IQ correlates extremely heavily with having a successful life by western civilization standards, yes.

So we should accept that 98 0+% of people can or gave a successful life, yet should support the gifted <10% in their journey to extract the world's wealth?

I don't want to spend my tax money educating future bankers.

If you're talking about the top 10% of kids, you're obviously not talking about [just] the hyper-elite future bank executives (who are probably what, the top 0.0001%?) The top 10% of students is quite large would include all manner of engineers, doctors, etc. People who play vital roles in keeping our civilization going, not just parasitically leeching off interest rates or whatever it is banking executives do.

Most of those future executives are probably in private schools right now anyway.

So you can't have a high IQ and not be in gifted?

any time you feel your hands touch your hips, and your sentence begins to start with the word "so", just stop what youre doing and go have a snickers.

At least my post is relevant to the topic, not just critiquing someone for being hangry

how are your hands both simultaneously on your hips and the keyboard at the same time?

Zing! keep em coming!

What?

You changed the subject from being in gifted to being gifted. You can exist outside of gifted and still have a high IQ and be a successful person. So, no.

That helps a lot but not necessarily required. If you require/aspire for radical social mobility being gifted is extreme help. If you're looking to have a modest life with family outside of expensive cities being gifted isn't much of a help.

As well, by definition, to be gifted you need to be an outlier. Most people get by and live a decent, if stressful, life.

In our present economy? Yes.

One need not be in a gifted program in school in order to achieve a stable middle class life. In fact, the vast majority of those with stable middle class lives didn't participate in gifted programs.

School is, gifted programs are not.

You used 'many' in your second part, which is the same 'not only'.

Qualitatively yes, but not quantitatively.

To me, "not only" can mean any quantity other than only. I have never heard it used any other way, though I fully admit you may have.

So to me, many and not only equate.