Re:17-year-old wins 100k for creating cancer-killing nanopar...
by ghurlman on Thursday December 08, 2011 @11:26AM
(#3329713)
Compared to the kids you're trying to take money from, the gifted kids will do just fine, thank you.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:17-year-old wins 100k for creating cancer-killing nanopar...
by franticpedantic on Thursday December 08, 2011 @01:29PM
(#3330379)
I'm sure they will do fine, but are we maximizing their potential? I don't think I was especially gifted, but I did feel like my school pandered overwhelmingly to the worst students. I had an interest in programming and made some QBasic games, but got stuck while transitioning to C and I lost interest until college where I got the mentorship I needed. My school's only computer class taught Microsoft Word. In college, I met people who had family in software or better schools and I can see how it helped them develop their interest better.
Now, I'm a professional programmer so of course I'm just fine. But I think I might be even more accomplished if I had a little more help in high school (today's internet might have also sufficed). I think the real super geniuses might not be held back, but I think there are lot of cases like me where you have less than genius but above average intelligence that could accomplish a lot more if challenged a little more.
Re:17-year-old wins 100k for creating cancer-killing nanopar...
by gujk on Thursday December 08, 2011 @02:53PM
(#3330815)
The description you give of yourself is by most common educational definitions not "gifted" (135 IQ or top 2% on standardized tests), so we are back to the point that "gifted" kids find their success just fine.
Everyone could achieve more with more investment. So, now what? Should gifted, advanced, mainstream, and disabled fight each other for funding, or maybe fight pure waste like Iraq War for funding?