Who is Jacob Barnett and What Makes Him So Special?

[Leptos]

He'll definitely be well above average, but it's too soon to say whether or not he'll at the top of the field he chooses.

I think Terrence Tao is the ultimate example of a true child prodigy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao

Seriously, is there anyone who has accomplished as much as Tao has at his age?

 

[Simfish]

There are a lot more people who actually have these abilities - it's just that the public school system holds them back. The people you see in the news are lucky - many of them either had unusually flexible school systems, or parents who were willing to fight the school system.

I personally went to an early entrance program myself, and while the students in it were definitely above average (and won many awards for the university), they actually weren't necessarily the smartest people from their old middle schools.

 

[DR13]

There are a lot more people who actually have these abilities - it's just that the public school system holds them back. The people you see in the news are lucky - many of them either had unusually flexible school systems, or parents who were willing to fight the school system.

Do you have any data on this? I have a tough time believing what you say. If a child is teaching himself calculus at age 8, people will realize. Public school teachers arent morons. If most kids are doing 8*7 and another is doing LaPlace transforms, it would be impossible not to notice.

 

[JaredJames]

If most kids are doing 8*7 and another is doing LaPlace transforms, it would be impossible not to notice.

Assuming it's done in front of the teachers that is.

If the kid just does the work given, how is the teacher going to know? Perhaps they do it quicker than the others, but that's hardly going to raise major flags.

 

[DR13]

Assuming it's done in front of the teachers that is.

If the kid just does the work given, how is the teacher going to know? Perhaps they do it quicker than the others, but that's hardly going to raise major flags.

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.

 

[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 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.