Re: No Genius Left Behind

Herman Rubin wrote:
> 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >Herman Rubin wrote:
> 
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> raina120 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>                         ......................
> 
> >> >Bush's NCLB leaves all children in this country behind. To pass this kind of
> >> >legislation without any additional funding is absurd. But, what can we
> >> >really expect from a war-time republican president?
> 
> >> We do not need additional funding.  We just need to let
> >> the bright, and especially the geniuses, have access to
> >> real educational materials, and a little guidance.  To
> >> the extent that they need classwork, they can attend
> >> classes well above those of the typical student...
> 
> >I was thinking in terms of:
> 
> >  (1) Making sure they have all the stuff they need to progress
> >      on their own (lab equip, oscilloscopes, software, telescopes,
> >      materials, supplies, misc facilities, whateverthehell they want)
> 
> You overestimate the importance of laboratory work.  It IS
> useful, but there is the problem of being able physically
> to use them.  Back when there were higher standards, it was
> the case that college chemistry departments wanted the
> students to take high school chemistry so they would be
> less prone to breaking or mishandling the equipment.  The
> needed software is cheap.
> 
> >  (2) Top-notch professors (of whatever) to talk/consult with whenever.
> 
> They need guidance, and professors are generally willing to
> give it and to consult.  Speaking for myself, we would much
> rather talk to a 10 year old (or even younger) who is
> willing and able to understand that to a college student
> who has been trained in memorization and regurgitation.
> 
> >  (3) Access to business, world-class field trips, foreign travel,
> >      the whole nine-yards of exposure to creative culture/influences.
> 
> >Spare no expense.  It will payoff. This kind of program will get the
> >most of your IQ-160+ intellectual raw material.  Not like all the
> >money flushed down IQ-75 NCLB SpecialEd Ratholez, with little
> >in return..
> 
> I do not think that all expense here is needed or justified.
> However, we need it down to a much lower level than 160.  If
> we want competent teachers, physicians, etc., for the next
> generation, we will need to get it well below the genius
> level, as we need those who can do similar things year after
> year.
-------------
Absolutely, most teachers are only 110-130 IQ. The IQ 160 genius is
only 1 in 200 or 300 people.
Steve