Who is Jacob Barnett and What Makes Him So Special?

[Simfish]

Oftentimes, the teachers aren't even going to encourage further interest in the subject. They'll literally tell you to "go out and have fun/be a child". They've definitely done that to me before (and they actually did care a lot about me) - although I was more of a history prodigy than a math prodigy.

 

[JaredJames]

True. But the fact is *someone* will have to notice (kids are monitored after all). If the parents found out, I'm sure they would alert the teachers.

Noticing and doing something about it aren't the same thing.

That comes down to the individual who discovers the talent.

I've met many people who it's clear wouldn't pick up on it and wouldn't take an interest. You need parents / teachers who will encourage you.

Bear in mind most lower age range teachers aren't qualified to go further than the very basics they are required to teach.

 

[DR13]

Oftentimes, the teachers aren't even going to encourage further interest in the subject. They'll literally tell you to "go out and have fun/be a child". They've definitely done that to me before (and they actually did care a lot about me).

I don't know you personally, but I'm just going to go out and say that there is probably a difference between you (a person that is advanced in math, physics, etc) and a child prodigy. I agree that some smart kids "slip through the cracks in the system". But there is a huge difference a smart kid and a prodigy.

 

[Simfish]

I don't know you personally, but I'm just going to go out and say that there is probably a difference between you (a person that is advanced in math, physics, etc) and a child prodigy. I agree that some smart kids "slip through the cracks in the system". But there is a huge difference a smart kid and a prodigy.

The problem is, though, that it's often hard to distinguish between smart kids and true prodigies. I ultimately ended up learning more about my 8th grade science/history subjects than my 8th grade science and history teachers. They realized that too, but they didn't know how to further my interest in those subjects (and they're not super-curious, so they're not going to read everything I write about them). While I'm not a super-prodigy, it would be difficult for them to distinguish a super-prodigy from me, precisely because of this.

Furthermore, some of these kids aren't necessarily going to score at the 99.99th percentile on standardized tests. There just isn't room to capture that extreme end in ability. And, of course, there are strong students who simply don't excel at standardized tests, especially when they have the emotional maturity of a middle school kid

And even then, it assumes that the teacher will actually vouch for the student. The teacher (or parents) has to go out and contact professors for the student. Most middle school students don't have the resources to contact professors on their own - and even if they did get the idea, it's a scary thing for them to do. Especially since some professors will most likely ignore the emails.

There's another prodigy in a similar situation, by the way: http://sammamish.komonews.com/content/seventh-grader-youngest-ever-invited-summer-program-mit. His parents managed to contact the early entrance program here, who managed to hook him up with several mentors, and later, some professors. There's no way he could do this with a traditional school schedule - his school had to be flexible enough to accommodate things.

And even then, it's quite possible for young students to do respectable undergraduate-level research even if they aren't prodigies, but merely in the 99th percentile. The students who enter the early entrance program here aren't necessarily the brightest people in their schools (they're far above average, but not necessarily top of their class year)

 

[DR13]

The problem is, though, that it's often hard to distinguish between smart kids and true prodigies. I ultimately ended up learning more about my 8th grade science/history subjects than my 8th grade science and history teachers.

And even then, it assumes that the teacher will actually vouch for the student. The teacher has to go out and contact professors for the student. Most middle school students don't have the resources to contact professors on their own - and even if they did get the idea, it's a scary thing for them to do. Especially since some professors will most likely ignore the emails.

It would be nice to see universities do outreach programs. I live in Michigan and never had University of Michigan or Michigan State come to my high school, middle school, or elementary school.

 

[eri]

That's funny, we were a bit more critical of him in the Academic Guidance section. Most of the stuff he's been interviewed as saying reaches about the average knowledge of a college junior in astrophysics. While impressive at his age, he's said some things about cosmology that are simply incorrect and show he's not at all familiar with current research in the field. So he's very smart, obviously, but also getting ahead of himself in what he actually knows about the field, and being encouraged to by reporters who don't know it at all. I can imagine a few profs at Princeton doing the research he's not familiar with probably being a bit embarrassed about the whole thing right now; if he were 18 or 20 instead, no one would be talking to him. He'd just be another undergrad with a potentially crackpot idea.

 

[Simfish]

That's funny, we were a bit more critical of him in the Academic Guidance section. Most of the stuff he's been interviewed as saying reaches about the average knowledge of a college junior in astrophysics. While impressive at his age, he's said some things about cosmology that are simply incorrect and show he's not at all familiar with current research in the field. So he's very smart, obviously, but also getting ahead of himself in what he actually knows about the field, and being encouraged to by reporters who don't know it at all. I can imagine a few profs at Princeton doing the research he's not familiar with probably being a bit embarrassed about the whole thing right now; if he were 18 or 20 instead, no one would be talking to him. He'd just be another undergrad with a potentially crackpot idea.

Haha funny. The thing is this - ANY professor is going to be INTENSELY embarrassed if his protegee is associated in any way with FOX News or Glenn Beck. FOX News/Glenn Beck are almost universally despised in academia.

 

[rootX]

"go out and have fun/be a child"

What is wrong with that?

 

[Simfish]

What is wrong with that?

It means that you have to sit in the same classes as everyone else, so that you learn at the same glacial pace as everyone else (while sucking up state money), while you're not given the chance to learn at a much faster rate by contributing to original research.

You can still go out and have fun/be a child. It's not mutually exclusive with doing what these prodigies did (I can testify that early entrance students have loads of fun). What is mutually exclusive with fun+research+acceleration, though, is doing those *and* sitting in the same classes as everyone else.

 

[rootX]

It means that you have to sit in the same classes as everyone else, so that you learn at the same glacial pace as everyone else (while sucking up state money), while you're not given the chance to learn at a much faster rate by contributing to original research.

You can still go out and have fun/be a child. It's not mutually exclusive with doing what these prodigies did (I can testify that early entrance students have loads of fun). What is, though, is doing those *and* sitting in the same classes as everyone else.

Having a good normal physical and mental healthy life is more important than research.

Nonetheless,
1) You would have to convince me that people who are given opportunities do actually contribute more to research than normal people
2) You would also have to convince me that these children who do accelerated studies do have normal social life as others and it doesn't harm them. Your testification is not sufficient.

 

[Proton Soup]

Hes probably thinking of it "accelerating sideways" as curving around massive objects. Not really acceleration. I think he needs to learn GR before people say he's creating a new theory...

it's all good. screwing up is the best way to learn

 

[Simfish]

All the papers are here: http://depts.washington.edu/cscy/research/

1) You would have to convince me that people who are given opportunities do actually contribute more to research than normal people

Average GPA among early entrance students here is 3.7. Also, *half* of the Goldwater Scholars from the university come from the early entrance program.

From the "Love and Work" paper: ". As mentioned earlier, EEPers have won a
disproportionately large number of prestigious scholar-
ships and research opportunities at LIW and the major-
ity regularly appear on the Dean's List. The average
EEP GPA is consistently about 3.7 while the average
UW GPA is about 3.0. "

2) You would also have to convince me that these children who do accelerated studies do have normal social life as others and it doesn't harm them. Your testification is not sufficient.

""Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn
from the current study is that early university entrants
do not fit the stereotype of the socially isolated,
unhappy
"nerd."
Yes, the respondents in the current
study value intelligence highly. Yes, they seek a high
degree of intellectual satisfaction and challenge in all
aspects of their lives, personal and professional. Yet
overall the participants in the current study revealed
themselves to be well-rounded, balanced individuals on
whom the EEP continues to exeft a profound and over-
whelmingly positive influence.""

 

[lisab]

It means that you have to sit in the same classes as everyone else, so that you learn at the same glacial pace as everyone else (while sucking up state money), while you're not given the chance to learn at a much faster rate by contributing to original research.

I'll tell you my daughter's experience in first grade.

She was a very early reader (3 years old) and by 1st grade, she could read at the 6th or 7th grade level. Like a lot of smart kids, she wasn't challenged in school - there were no programs for kids like her. I was getting very frustrated with the school for basically ignoring her.

Her kindergarten teacher told me what was really happening. Yes, she was being ignored, and it was because of the WASL (a standardized test students have to pass here in the state of Washington). She said, you can group students in three general groups: those that can pass the test today with no preparation from the teacher; those that can pass if they are properly taught; and those that will only pass if heroic measures are taken.

Teachers have only so many resources (i.e., teacher assistant hours assigned to them), and so they are forced to do what's expedient: focus on the middle group - the ones that will be able to pass, given enough attention. The other two groups...shrug.

My daughter was judged to be in the first group (the 'smart' kids).

Now, this is all 'unofficial' - the teachers don't plan to ignore smart kids. They just don't have enough resources to give every kid in the class what is needed. And I understand it - if I was a teacher and was going to be evaluated by how many of my students pass that test, I may have made the same decision.

Not sure if this sort of thing is widespread in places that use standardized tests.

 

[Simfish]

I'll tell you my daughter's experience in first grade.

She was a very early reader (3 years old) and by 1st grade, she could read at the 6th or 7th grade level. Like a lot of smart kids, she wasn't challenged in school - there were no programs for kids like her. I was getting very frustrated with the school for basically ignoring her.

Her kindergarten teacher told me what was really happening. Yes, she was being ignored, and it was because of the WASL (a standardized test students have to pass here in the state of Washington). She said, you can group students in three general groups: those that can pass the test today with no preparation from the teacher; those that can pass if they are properly taught; and those that will only pass if heroic measures are taken.

Teachers have only so many resources (i.e., teacher assistant hours assigned to them), and so they are forced to do what's expedient: focus on the middle group - the ones that will be able to pass, given enough attention. The other two groups...shrug.

My daughter was judged to be in the first group (the 'smart' kids).

Now, this is all 'unofficial' - the teachers don't plan to ignore smart kids. They just don't have enough resources to give every kid in the class what is needed. And I understand it - if I was a teacher and was going to be evaluated by how many of my students pass that test, I may have made the same decision.

Not sure if this sort of thing is widespread in places that use standardized tests.

Thanks for the anecdote - I appreciated it. I agree - we can't really blame the teachers for what they do most of the time - they have way too much to do (and honestly, I have to be grateful to my teachers for having good intentions, even if they did not truly know what was best for me).

All I'm saying is that with the growth of all sorts of free online tutorials, smart kids don't necessarily benefit from going to school. And so it's often counterproductive to force them to go through school, when they could learn much faster through other means that can be very cheap, given all the online tutorials that are now available.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'll tell you my daughter's experience in first grade.

She was a very early reader (3 years old) and by 1st grade, she could read at the 6th or 7th grade level. Like a lot of smart kids, she wasn't challenged in school - there were no programs for kids like her. I was getting very frustrated with the school for basically ignoring her.

Her kindergarten teacher told me what was really happening. Yes, she was being ignored, and it was because of the WASL (a standardized test students have to pass here in the state of Washington). She said, you can group students in three general groups: those that can pass the test today with no preparation from the teacher; those that can pass if they are properly taught; and those that will only pass if heroic measures are taken.

Teachers have only so many resources (i.e., teacher assistant hours assigned to them), and so they are forced to do what's expedient: focus on the middle group - the ones that will be able to pass, given enough attention. The other two groups...shrug.

My daughter was judged to be in the first group (the 'smart' kids).

Now, this is all 'unofficial' - the teachers don't plan to ignore smart kids. They just don't have enough resources to give every kid in the class what is needed. And I understand it - if I was a teacher and was going to be evaluated by how many of my students pass that test, I may have made the same decision.

Not sure if this sort of thing is widespread in places that use standardized tests.

this is completely unnecessary and probably stems from some idea of mainstreaming or using the smart kids to help tutor the slower ones. when i came thru public ed, by second grade we were divided into six tiers. each tier started off as a color, but soon it was obvious you were in groups 1 thru 6. by at least fourth grade, we were changing classes for subjects throughout the day. and each group only had class with its own group. throughout the day, teachers had groups of students with different abilities, different handicaps, and proceeding at different paces. maybe that is not politically correct now, but it seems to work decently IME.

 

[lisab]

Thanks for the anecdote - I appreciated it. I agree - we can't really blame the teachers for what they do most of the time - they have way too much to do (and honestly, I have to be grateful to my teachers for having good intentions, even if they did not truly know what was best for me).

All I'm saying is that with the growth of all sorts of free online tutorials, smart kids don't necessarily benefit from going to school. And so it's often counterproductive to force them to go through school, when they could learn much faster through other means that can be very cheap, given all the online tutorials that are now available.

I agree, I think online resources can be a lifesaver for certain kids. The student would need to put effort into having social activities, but that's not an issue for most kids!

 

[rootX]

All the papers are here: http://depts.washington.edu/cscy/research/

Thanks for the link. I would try to go through them as I get time, they look interesting!

 

[lisab]

this is completely unnecessary and probably stems from some idea of mainstreaming or using the smart kids to help tutor the slower ones. when i came thru public ed, by second grade we were divided into six tiers. each tier started off as a color, but soon it was obvious you were in groups 1 thru 6. by at least fourth grade, we were changing classes for subjects throughout the day. and each group only had class with its own group. throughout the day, teachers had groups of students with different abilities, different handicaps, and proceeding at different paces. maybe that is not politically correct now, but it seems to work decently IME.

Hmm, that brings back memories...I think my elementary school had a similar system but they called it "stanine groups". I agree, I think it worked well for the most part.

But such a system wouldn't serve a kid like the one in the OP. He'd be well outside the distribution.

 

[ideasrule]

Most of the stuff he's been interviewed as saying reaches about the average knowledge of a college junior in astrophysics. While impressive at his age, he's said some things about cosmology that are simply incorrect and show he's not at all familiar with current research in the field. So he's very smart, obviously, but also getting ahead of himself in what he actually knows about the field, and being encouraged to by reporters who don't know it at all. I can imagine a few profs at Princeton doing the research he's not familiar with probably being a bit embarrassed about the whole thing right now; if he were 18 or 20 instead, no one would be talking to him. He'd just be another undergrad with a potentially crackpot idea.

What has he said about cosmology that's incorrect? I'm not doubting you; I just haven't been able to find them, despite the numerous news articles claiming he's trying to disprove the Big Bang theory.

Incidentally, judging by the video in the initial link, he doesn't seem to understand basic relativity: "light travels at a constant speed, as in it doesn't accelerate forwards or backwards, but it does accelerate exactly sideways in some cases." Also note that for most of the video, Jake seems to be talking about special relativity, not general. I wonder whether he even understands general relativity mathematically.

 

[Proton Soup]

Hmm, that brings back memories...I think my elementary school had a similar system but they called it "stanine groups". I agree, I think it worked well for the most part.

But such a system wouldn't serve a kid like the one in the OP. He'd be well outside the distribution.

oh, i agree. but i think the OP is truly a rare breed. and once these kids are found, the money seems to find them.

 

[rootX]

I was thrown around all kinds of schools (from a small rural school in old house with only 20-30 students to a big school in a big city by the time I reached high school). My parents raised in rural areas also didn't know anything about these fancy programs however they kept of trying to provide me better opportunities.

I never saw any special (smart) kids program in elementary school or so. By the time I saw programs like IB (smart kids program) it was bit too late and I had plans to become a car mechanic/college than any university education :yuck: When I finally reached university, only thing I learned that those special programs don't matter as much as personal characters (good work ethics).

 

[ideasrule]

Hes probably thinking of it "accelerating sideways" as curving around massive objects. Not really acceleration. I think he needs to learn GR before people say he's creating a new theory...

That was my impression as well. I don't think he fully understands SR, let alone GR, which makes me wonder how he can try to expand the Big Bang theory.

 

[noted]

Hi guys, Simfish linked me this thread and I thought I'd contribute.

I was raised as a child prodigy. I probably wasn't actually that smart, but my parents thought I was, so they did dumb stuff like put me in the eighth grade when I was eight. I got moved from school to school because my parents had to find one that both let me do the grade-skipping thing and tolerated my godawful behavior. I had no friends until college and life pretty much sucked until a year or two ago.

Anyway, I got a full ride to a top 10 school ... but then I got kicked out for trying to kill myself. Shows you how well that worked.

(Happy ending: they let me back in after kicking me out twice and now I'm okay. But I was damn scared I'd never be able to go back again because the second time they wrote "withdrawn" on my transcript and advised me to transfer.)

 

[ideasrule]

The educational system might be underfunded and poorly designed, but stories like noted's make me wonder whether parents should really be interfering with their children's education. Parents are often clueless about their children's actual capabilities, and instead of listening to their desires, decide to "encourage" them in ways detrimental to intellectual and social development. I know of many parents who make excessive demands of their children, and in the process, hinder their social skills by taking away the rich experiences they would otherwise have in their childhood/teen years.

 

[Willowz]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

 

[HeLiXe]

I had no friends until college and life pretty much sucked until a year or two ago.

I'm happy to hear that things are looking up for you noted, and sorry to hear that you endured so much emotional pain.

 

[HeLiXe]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

like who >_> *googles them*

 

[Pyrrhus]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

My exact thoughts. I wrote a lengthy answer but had PF gave me some gateway error, and thus it was lost =(. In essence, it compared those both cases, and also asked about parental guidance as an important factor. Sometimes parents praise you too much or push you too much , and that can have emotional consequences to the child. The pressure of all these expectations of becoming the next Einstein, next Dirac might become to unbearable like in the case of Sidis.

 

[Calrid]

There is a difference between knowing your stuff and being creative enough to use it to expand the frontiers of human understanding.

Clearly some people are extremely intuitive and creative and clearly some of them will be prodigies. However more often than not truly creative prodigies are rare. Which is why many of these people end up disappearing off the face of the Earth.

It's no use being able to retain vast amounts of information if you can't use it. Hell the so called "real Rain man" can read two pages of a book at the same time with each eye and memorise entire libraries, he can recall anyone's birth day and perform some pretty incredible feats of recall. Intelligence wise though he's nothing remarkable, and cannot function well in social situations. Just to give an example of the difference between knowing your stuff and knowing how and where to use it and in new ways.

How good you are at school is probably not a great indication of your creativity or intuition either or even your tenacity, which is also important. I think often people expect those with high IQs or deemed prodigies to automatically succeed but there's more to intelligence than just raw values. Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Usually being fairly intelligent and very creative is far more likely to get you noticed than just having a huge IQ, people often focus too much on certain areas, and too little on those that are important to success.

 

[Leveret]

Let's not forget that once you go on the news, you get judged by a public who, let's face it, would probably be overawed by someone who could write Maxwell's equations. That's not to say this kid isn't smart--I don't think there's any question that he is, and extraordinarily so. But the scientific illiteracy of the general public contributes to the hyping up of kids like these, and perhaps even undercuts their potential by eliminating their scientific humility.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I agree, and that was the case of Sidis. He was always under public eye. It is not easy to handle the pressure of what the public expects of you and your research, and like Calrid argued research takes time. It is a creative endeavor, especially theoretical work.

 

[Borek]

Parents are often clueless about their children's actual capabilities

Sadly, way too often the same can be said about teachers.

Teachers tend to see kids through their grades. If you have good grades, you are smart, if your grades are low, you are an idiot. Fact that your grades are low because you are bored to death in the class and you become troublemaker are often beyond teachers recognition. Later teachers are surprised - what, he won a Chemical Olympiad? Impossible!

System is build for average kids, so if you stick out you are a problem, no matter which way you stick out.

Edit: speaking of anecdotes, what would you say about smart kid that has her books taken away from her so that she doesn't learn too fast?

 

[Ouabache]

Yeah... it seems like there is another prodigy. I don't know how smart he actually is. I would imagine some is just media hype but he obviously knows his stuff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110329/ts_yblog_thelookout/for-12-year-old-astrophysics-prodigy-the-skys-the-limit

It would be cool for someone to do a study on kids that are labeled as a "prodigy". Then track their lives and see what actually happens to them. I wonder if there would be any correlation between future success and what field the prodigy works in (are physics prodigies more likely to develop than musical ones, or vice versa). Also, what would be the affect of family life: if you do not encourage they may not reach their potential, but over-encouragement leads to burnout.

You probably didn't notice, but you've created a redundant thread. There was already a topic about this boy here titled: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=484331", begun on March 25, 2011. Perhaps yours can be merged with that topic.

 

[JaredJames]

Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Yep, rather close to home.

I can sit down and learn, do the work well. But try to get me to apply it creatively or 'merge' two subjects to come up with a solution and it's a no win situation. If I'm not taught (or don't learn it myself) I really struggle to do it.

Tell me A gives you X and B gives you Y and I can get you X and Y. But if you don't tell me A and B together give you Z I'll never work it out for myself (or at least not without a ridiculous amount of work that ends up taking over the main task). It's something that really annoys me.

I did well in school because what you were taught was pretty much exactly what came up on the exams (the whole "taught to pass exams" thing). There's little creativity needed when you're taught exactly what you need and shown exactly how to use it.

I always find it inspiring (with a hint of jealousy) when I see someone able to apply their knowledge creatively.

 

[Calrid]

Yep, rather close to home.

I can sit down and learn, do the work well. But try to get me to apply it creatively or 'merge' two subjects to come up with a solution and it's a no win situation. If I'm not taught (or don't learn it myself) I really struggle to do it.

Tell me A gives you X and B gives you Y and I can get you X and Y. But if you don't tell me A and B together give you Z I'll never work it out for myself (or at least not without a ridiculous amount of work that ends up taking over the main task). It's something that really annoys me.

I did well in school because what you were taught was pretty much exactly what came up on the exams (the whole "taught to pass exams" thing). There's little creativity needed when you're taught exactly what you need and shown exactly how to use it.

I always find it inspiring (with a hint of jealousy) when I see someone able to apply their knowledge creatively.

Sadly when people do that it more often induces fear. Trust me on this. People don't value things that are outside of their comfort zone. You will get closed down faster for making people appreciate that they don't have some ability they lack, than you ever would by making people appreciate it is so worthwhile and so very important to try and appreciate skills you lack. People focus on the wrong things, effort and imagination and maximising what you are good at is what makes you successful. Learning sure helps but hell if you are not willing to imagine or try hard then you might as well just comply to the silly standards that are held as important. Couldn't hurt to appreciate something you cannot do though could it, good for you. Jealousy isn't a bad thing if it inspires you to do better. Trite but true.

It depresses me how stupid people are. I was watching a program last night about "teachers" (ie those who were successful in a field) trying to inspire people to think beyond where they are in school, by introducing adroit people that tried to fire the imagination. Like great actors, great Surgeons, great Chefs or Scientists; woodworkers, specialists in mechanical engineering. It got back to the basics of what we value. It was genuinely inspiring. Pity so many kids will be passed over because they lack merit in such scant areas of ability. It really works much better than irritating people who are bad at stuff- to think that school relies on a very slim amount of skills, and that life therefore does? What's wrong with having a high emotional quotient, with people who have good people skills but lack book smarts? With enjoying the skill and technique that comes with art and considering some jobs valuable because you do? It's a whole mess of depressing values we have.

Kids are so turned off by some of the narrow minded prejudices people have, it's very disappointing to think a gifted artist in any field isn't appreciated because he may not earn big bucks. Some of the most amazing ideas have come from some of the most unappreciated people.

It's a crazy world we live in.

We need people who are good at the basic skills, we need people who are imaginative and creative and aren't: we need all this. I despair quite frankly that a score board is more important than firing the imagination and inspiration of young people. We have gone badly wrong.

Jumping through hoops is fine, but makes sure they are the right hoops you are setting up.

That said the brain isn't cast in stone, it is extremely pliable, you can train yourself to be more creative just as you can train yourself to be better at maths or language. Sure it's not easy but then nothing worth doing is.

We all have a lot to learn about valuing abilities I think. Our parameters though are stupid, no that is an understatement they are moronic.

I'm damned good at learning stuff, my memory is pretty good given time, my creativity is high. I really do appreciate though that I am useless at music or building things with my hands, despite being ambidextrous, and my love of the art that is music. I wish I was better at this stuff. If I wanted to be I could be, but I fear no one would value my efforts because we value things that are all too meagre and we don't appreciate people unless they display exceptional ability right away, all to often. It's not the score you achieve it's the score you achieve despite your limitations that counts.