I’d say the real world doesn’t reward being actually gifted.
School rewards obedience and memorization. If you’re aggressively mediocre, but sufficiently agreeable and willing/able to memorize a bunch of bullshit, chances are, you’ll get pretty good grades. I know several people with very good grades who are simply not very intelligent.
Universities also reward memorization. If you’re good at learning facts and writing bullshit like the prof wants to read it, chances are, you’ll get good grades in at least some areas (business, psychology , medicine, and as a CS graduate, even CS to a frighteningly high degree).
If you’re gifted (like I’m actually certified to be, whatever that means), you’re often bored at school, you won’t learn because you don’t really need to, and you don’t really want to play ball with all the bullshit. You can see through it, and especially for teenagers, that’s extremely frustrating.
In the “real world” being gifted isn’t really a huge benefit either. I’m good at what I’m doing and what’s the result? I’m now de facto managing other people at doing what I’m good at. I can’t complain, cushy job, very good pay. But a literal monkey could do 70% of my tasks. I’m inside a corporate cage, that I realistically can’t escape from.
And I think that’s where many of the “gifted, but neither genius nor psychopath” people are at. Overqualified for what they’re doing, but caught in a system where they can’t really excel in the ways they could.
Basically an extended IQ test, back then this was done at the local university, probably by some psychologist.
I’m not entirely sure in how far these tests have changed over time and how different they are from adult IQ tests. I definitely remember a longer interview with someone, which isn’t part of a regular test, I think.
I’d say the real world doesn’t reward being actually gifted.
More accurately, the real world punishes being below average at any one of like a dozen skillets. You can’t min/max your stats because being 99th percentile at something won’t make up for being 30th percentile at something else. Better to be 75th percentile at both.
The real world requires cross-disciplinary coordination, which means thriving requires both soft skills and multiple hard skills.
How do you know that what you consider “literal monkey could do it” is not something many other people struggle with?
As a kid i struggled a lot understanding, why people didn’t get the math we dealt with in high school, but i lacked behind in languages, not getting that you have to study for them and can’t just “get” them like with math.
If we cut all the “Iam very smort”- humblebrags out, what we’re left with is kind of a shit take in my oppinion. You say you were gifted, but not gifted enough to game the system, nor smart enough to realize that in order to succeed academically, the skills you should have been honing were infact memorization and communication skills?
You kind of sound like you’ve got an inflated ego. You might think society screwed you over and now you’re a wageslave, but more than likely you landed exactly where you belong. I’ve listened to enough upper-middle-management powerlarping to know that 2/3 of cushy office job management shares your delusion.
I’m not saying that anything about the premise is wrong, I have intimate experience with the downsides of being differently-abled compared to your peers. Turned into a youth delinquent for a payday earlier than most people have their first sip of beer etc. but still got an academic education, as well as a vocation (nurse), because I realized quite soon that I just can’t take people with this kind of mindset that you clearly have, where you belittle people who have different skills and aptitudes than yourself.
I saw more than enough of the corpo mindset that come with a suite, designer briefcase and S- class Merc to know to steer fucking clear of that life.
As someone also measured as gifted and put in gifted classes, there was an interesting discussion that I had with one of the teachers about how the views for approaching gifted education was changing.
For a lot of schools, the “gifted” students are gifts; you don’t have to spend time on their education and they may end up helping the classes they are in. So, it is ok to treat them like normal kids and they won’t become a problem.
However, studies have shown that to be really bad for the “gifted” students. You get a lot of underperforming students who don’t engage with the material as it is mentally underwhelming. Soft skills that they were supposed to learn were never developed because they never had to. You even had issues with developing social skills as the distance in standard deviations between gifted and normal children are the same as between a normal kid and a “special education” kid.
The findings were showing you had to treat the “gifted” students with the same care as those in “special education” as the common teaching techniques don’t work, issues are much more varied between children, and being able to lean on talent in some cases leads to skills not being learned because they never needed to be.
No, I was actually in a class specifically for gifted children.
However, this was over 20 years ago and back then, this was a relatively new concept in my region. That meant the class had to be padded with “regulars” and the special treatment we got, was rather limited. Looking back, it seemed like they dropped the idea almost completely after 9th grade or so.
And even today I’m pretty sure there’s no comprehensive testing going on. So a ton of smart children get labelled as having ADHD or just as delinquents if they’re from a “bad” background.
Funny thing is, Germany actually did have a three tiered school system for decades, where after elementary the children were separated by “performance”, but since this country is laughably bad at creating equal opportunities, this de facto became a class filter. Parents are academics? Off to the Gymnasium with you! Parents are poor/migrants? Well, Hauptschule will have to do. Good luck at being underemployed for life.
State-funded schools (a big majority) are tuition-free, as foreseen by the respective laws, even often on constitutional level. Segregation of students by parent wealth or income is looked down upon, to the point of being an exception to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to have private schools (Article 7 section 4 of the German constitution, Sondierungsverbot). Of the private gymnasia, the vast majority is run by the Catholic Church on very low tuition fees (which is more easy as by Concordat, the Church receives a high percentage of the amount of money the State need not spend for a pupil in a Church-school); fees for schools who need to earn money by teaching are higher. Schools with fees generally offer scholarships.
In 2005, the German government spent €5,400 per student for those attending public gymnasium. This is less than what was spent on a student attending Hauptschule, but more than was spent on those attending Realschule.[22] Some Hauptschule and Gesamtschule students have special needs requiring extra help, so those schools cannot operate as cost-effectively as gymnasia.
I myself went to a public Gymnasium and can still remember that among my classmates we had a wide range re “parent income and status”.
Literally from:
‘single parent that barely gets by’
‘teacher parents’
attorneys / judges / cardiologist / engineers / etc.
CEO parent of an international company
I literally:
went through elementary school
got a recommendation for going to a Gymnasium at end of 4th year based on my performance
picked one out of the available Gymnasiums in my area (within what was doable by bus on a daily basis)
then went there
And even if you go to “Hauptschule”, that’s not the end of education.
One can still do what’s called “M-Zweig”, which gets you the equivalent degree of “Realschule”.
Then one can go to “FOS”, which gets you a degree close to that of Gymnasium.
It at least allows for going to a “university of applied sciences”, which is less geared towards academics and more towards industry. Still can get you your masters degree or if a doctors degree if one really wants that and partners with an “academic university” (AFAIR).
Some children simply take that other route.
Still, it comes down to ability of the child. Of course, having a non-supportive environment that doesn’t believe in achild can make things harder on it. Some children might actually be motivated by “potentially escaping that”.
But to say this education system is a “class filter” is just wrong.
Maybe I have bit too positive outlook on this, yeah.
But that article also emphasizes a lot (first half) that a child’s environment simply matters a lot. Esp. having parents that have higher education themselves and are there for the child to support it regarding learning outside of school can make a big difference.
And this isn’t just about the first couple years before elementary school (what article says re “Wortschatz”). Esp. the ongoing school period thereafter. E.g. “Does it make a difference in a child’s household if parents can speak English when trying to learn English?” - of course it does!
The point on “Brennpunktschulen” is also very environment driven.
I’m not saying that “Lehrermangel” isn’t real, or that having this system of three school paths starting from 5th grade is the best invention ever.
But one can’t put all the blame on the school system, when “what happens outside of school” has such a big impact on a child.
TBH, I don’t know much about school systems of other countries. Just reading horror stories of the US education system re student loans at times. So can’t really argue that point with you.
But I’m not sure what made you think I’m blaming the children. Not once did I make a remark that would suggest that.
So let me be clear:
Children, while they are still considered children, really can’t be blamed. As they become adolescents, then slowly, but ever increasingly more, their own viewpoints and actions will have an impact on how their education is going (esp. true if a child goes a lot further in education than their parents ever did).
Rather there’s some blame to be put on the social environment and the child’s parents.
E.g. it’s not the fault of the education system if child’s parents are divorcing while the kid is in Kindergarden and the child then has to switch schools multiple times, not because the child is problematic or because the education system is pushing the child around. No, chances are most of the blame is on the parents then.
Definitely feel the last part… Regular people really don’t realize the distance between them and some of us is the same as them and their dog. It’s cute when it’s a dog; it’s incredibly taxing when it’s a person.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
I’d say the real world doesn’t reward being actually gifted.
School rewards obedience and memorization. If you’re aggressively mediocre, but sufficiently agreeable and willing/able to memorize a bunch of bullshit, chances are, you’ll get pretty good grades. I know several people with very good grades who are simply not very intelligent.
Universities also reward memorization. If you’re good at learning facts and writing bullshit like the prof wants to read it, chances are, you’ll get good grades in at least some areas (business, psychology , medicine, and as a CS graduate, even CS to a frighteningly high degree).
If you’re gifted (like I’m actually certified to be, whatever that means), you’re often bored at school, you won’t learn because you don’t really need to, and you don’t really want to play ball with all the bullshit. You can see through it, and especially for teenagers, that’s extremely frustrating.
In the “real world” being gifted isn’t really a huge benefit either. I’m good at what I’m doing and what’s the result? I’m now de facto managing other people at doing what I’m good at. I can’t complain, cushy job, very good pay. But a literal monkey could do 70% of my tasks. I’m inside a corporate cage, that I realistically can’t escape from.
And I think that’s where many of the “gifted, but neither genius nor psychopath” people are at. Overqualified for what they’re doing, but caught in a system where they can’t really excel in the ways they could.
Where and how do they certify “gifted”?
For example, a gifted student would probably know how to use Google
The person I was replying to knows how to use Google.
They’re not the one asking easily searched questions
Basically an extended IQ test, back then this was done at the local university, probably by some psychologist.
I’m not entirely sure in how far these tests have changed over time and how different they are from adult IQ tests. I definitely remember a longer interview with someone, which isn’t part of a regular test, I think.
More accurately, the real world punishes being below average at any one of like a dozen skillets. You can’t min/max your stats because being 99th percentile at something won’t make up for being 30th percentile at something else. Better to be 75th percentile at both.
The real world requires cross-disciplinary coordination, which means thriving requires both soft skills and multiple hard skills.
How do you know that what you consider “literal monkey could do it” is not something many other people struggle with?
As a kid i struggled a lot understanding, why people didn’t get the math we dealt with in high school, but i lacked behind in languages, not getting that you have to study for them and can’t just “get” them like with math.
If we cut all the “Iam very smort”- humblebrags out, what we’re left with is kind of a shit take in my oppinion. You say you were gifted, but not gifted enough to game the system, nor smart enough to realize that in order to succeed academically, the skills you should have been honing were infact memorization and communication skills?
You kind of sound like you’ve got an inflated ego. You might think society screwed you over and now you’re a wageslave, but more than likely you landed exactly where you belong. I’ve listened to enough upper-middle-management powerlarping to know that 2/3 of cushy office job management shares your delusion.
I’m not saying that anything about the premise is wrong, I have intimate experience with the downsides of being differently-abled compared to your peers. Turned into a youth delinquent for a payday earlier than most people have their first sip of beer etc. but still got an academic education, as well as a vocation (nurse), because I realized quite soon that I just can’t take people with this kind of mindset that you clearly have, where you belittle people who have different skills and aptitudes than yourself.
I saw more than enough of the corpo mindset that come with a suite, designer briefcase and S- class Merc to know to steer fucking clear of that life.
“the real world” isn’t a thing.
There’s no such monolith. Different jobs reward different gifts. The challenge is finding one for your own.
Well, thank you very much, Captain Obvious!
Are you aware that generalizations can sometimes be a proper rhetorical device or do you need your contrarianism for self validation?
As someone also measured as gifted and put in gifted classes, there was an interesting discussion that I had with one of the teachers about how the views for approaching gifted education was changing.
For a lot of schools, the “gifted” students are gifts; you don’t have to spend time on their education and they may end up helping the classes they are in. So, it is ok to treat them like normal kids and they won’t become a problem.
However, studies have shown that to be really bad for the “gifted” students. You get a lot of underperforming students who don’t engage with the material as it is mentally underwhelming. Soft skills that they were supposed to learn were never developed because they never had to. You even had issues with developing social skills as the distance in standard deviations between gifted and normal children are the same as between a normal kid and a “special education” kid.
The findings were showing you had to treat the “gifted” students with the same care as those in “special education” as the common teaching techniques don’t work, issues are much more varied between children, and being able to lean on talent in some cases leads to skills not being learned because they never needed to be.
Sounds like you were kept with the normal kids.
No, I was actually in a class specifically for gifted children.
However, this was over 20 years ago and back then, this was a relatively new concept in my region. That meant the class had to be padded with “regulars” and the special treatment we got, was rather limited. Looking back, it seemed like they dropped the idea almost completely after 9th grade or so.
And even today I’m pretty sure there’s no comprehensive testing going on. So a ton of smart children get labelled as having ADHD or just as delinquents if they’re from a “bad” background.
Funny thing is, Germany actually did have a three tiered school system for decades, where after elementary the children were separated by “performance”, but since this country is laughably bad at creating equal opportunities, this de facto became a class filter. Parents are academics? Off to the Gymnasium with you! Parents are poor/migrants? Well, Hauptschule will have to do. Good luck at being underemployed for life.
Your last paragraph seems misinformed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(Germany)
I myself went to a public Gymnasium and can still remember that among my classmates we had a wide range re “parent income and status”.
Literally from:
I literally:
And even if you go to “Hauptschule”, that’s not the end of education. One can still do what’s called “M-Zweig”, which gets you the equivalent degree of “Realschule”. Then one can go to “FOS”, which gets you a degree close to that of Gymnasium. It at least allows for going to a “university of applied sciences”, which is less geared towards academics and more towards industry. Still can get you your masters degree or if a doctors degree if one really wants that and partners with an “academic university” (AFAIR).
Some children simply take that other route. Still, it comes down to ability of the child. Of course, having a non-supportive environment that doesn’t believe in achild can make things harder on it. Some children might actually be motivated by “potentially escaping that”.
But to say this education system is a “class filter” is just wrong.
You seem to have a much too positive view of our system: https://www.das-parlament.de/inland/bildung/wie-gerecht-ist-das-deutsche-bildungssystem
Maybe I have bit too positive outlook on this, yeah.
But that article also emphasizes a lot (first half) that a child’s environment simply matters a lot. Esp. having parents that have higher education themselves and are there for the child to support it regarding learning outside of school can make a big difference. And this isn’t just about the first couple years before elementary school (what article says re “Wortschatz”). Esp. the ongoing school period thereafter. E.g. “Does it make a difference in a child’s household if parents can speak English when trying to learn English?” - of course it does!
The point on “Brennpunktschulen” is also very environment driven. I’m not saying that “Lehrermangel” isn’t real, or that having this system of three school paths starting from 5th grade is the best invention ever.
But one can’t put all the blame on the school system, when “what happens outside of school” has such a big impact on a child.
You can absolutely blame the schools, if so many other countries manage to do better.
You’re basically blaming the children.
TBH, I don’t know much about school systems of other countries. Just reading horror stories of the US education system re student loans at times. So can’t really argue that point with you.
But I’m not sure what made you think I’m blaming the children. Not once did I make a remark that would suggest that.
So let me be clear: Children, while they are still considered children, really can’t be blamed. As they become adolescents, then slowly, but ever increasingly more, their own viewpoints and actions will have an impact on how their education is going (esp. true if a child goes a lot further in education than their parents ever did).
Rather there’s some blame to be put on the social environment and the child’s parents. E.g. it’s not the fault of the education system if child’s parents are divorcing while the kid is in Kindergarden and the child then has to switch schools multiple times, not because the child is problematic or because the education system is pushing the child around. No, chances are most of the blame is on the parents then.
Definitely feel the last part… Regular people really don’t realize the distance between them and some of us is the same as them and their dog. It’s cute when it’s a dog; it’s incredibly taxing when it’s a person.