Thread by @blog_supplement

There has been some discussion about the removal of special schools/programs for "gifted children" in the US. This is a topic we have long wondered about: are these really useful? For an India parallel 1 could think of the IIT & some lesser know programs with a high entrance

threshold. 1 thing I learnt from classmates& relatives (& to a degree myself) who made use of entrance into a high threshold program is the obvious. If you enrich based on a cognitive criterion (\approx IQ) then you will get a pool of students who will show markedly above average

trajectories. This is simply a consequence of the filter rather than any special training. The 2nd thing is that once you have a threshold system, there will a bunch of individuals who will "crack it" to get in. Hence, it might not be a true measure of the "special ones" who

might make intellectual contributions. This make the value of such programs questionable IMO. I've mentored several students from these special schools & observed: 1. Only those with a certain parental paramparA in knowledge production could also make use of the school& highlevel

mentoring to become knowledge producers themselves. 2. The rest might have a high IQ but are not really good at knowledge production -- they are only good @ cracking entrance tests & providing grist for the higher IQ jobs needed in a society. 3.Many of them end up with low mental

immunity against pathogenic meme complexes like navyonmAda. 4. There is clearly ethnic segregation: the deshI-s, prAchya-s, prathamonmatta-s clearly out perform europIya-s, kR^iShNa-s and the like in cracking these entrance tests. The deshI-s,unfortunately, have some of the worst

attitudes to learning& knowledge production thereafter, often failing to distinguish it from cracking. The prAchya-s to an extent get the difference & try hard to follow the famous American adage of "fake it till you make it". prathamonmatta-s have much stronger social network &

parampara within the family or a closely knit community with strong sense of identity, which helps at much greater actualization of potential. In part this issue with the deshI-s might because most of them are kids of "cracker" parents who made it as such rather than knowledge

producers. The second major issue is that they have much lower community solidarity than probably the prAchya-s & definitely the prathamonmatta-s. These are not my unique observations. A relative would mention how school honors would ethnically segregate with "academic" 1s taken

mostly by the above 3 groups, performance arts& fund-raising ventures by europIya ancestry & sports by kR^iShNa-s. This in turn feeds into representation in special schools. But America has great difficulty coming to terms with the fact that people different. An acquaintance from

grad-school days after finishing her research decided to become an educator at such a special school. While of europIya ancestry, coming from a certain country less affected by American fads, she was able observe things objectively & reached a similar conclusion that such schools

are in essence crackers paradise but because the density of cognitive peaks is like the himAlaya you will get some knowledge producers. However, those are not greatly benefited by the school; they do not benefit much from the aggressive competition of those settings; they also

get to develop much less on their social dimension. Something feeding into mental wellbeing. Hence, the utility of these schools to svAyambhuva-s is dubious. The 1s who might benefit from it are the late-bloomers & kR^itrimap who need inspiring teachers/exposure to knowledge to

bloom in the first place. However, this might even be detrimental to the svAyambhuva-s as the constant testing& structured activities might be an impediment to their autodidactic tendencies.This brings 1 to excessive emphasis in American education on frequent testing& measurement

I can see myself wilting in such a system. The Indian model of the past suited me best. In school we had only 4 tests an year (except for the last year) & in college 1 or 2 an year. I found 4 itself to much. But at least it gave me time for self-education at my own pace & simply

going in for pinch-hitting to clear the exams about 10 days to a week before them.I could also afford fail in an exam or 2 while passing overall for the year in subjects i cared little for like the apabhraMsha-s& curricular geography in school. This allowed a much better learning

experience, mental health& social experience which would have not been possible in something like the American system. To wind down a long thread, I'm not convinced of the value of special entrance-exam based schools while acknowledging the value of filtering high IQ individuals

for the good of the nation. Instead, for a better social experience, it is good to have a classroom representative of a random sample of national IQ. However, within it the individuals should be treated differently. The true knowledge producers have a certain "ready capacity".

Those can be identified by probing the class without warning for their knowledge/cognition involving topics that might not be in the classroom syllabus (sudden test with no books). Such should be granted special privileges of learning& their own pace & access to knowledge-

production institutions (e.g. doing their own research). The crackers can be identified as usual by exams. They can be give additional challenge &exposure for screening late-bloomers & kR^itrima-s. The rest of the crackers can be routed for the usual high cognition jobs a society

needs. Finally these are embedded with the rest of the population at school so that everyone can have a realistic social experience& mating opportunities if interested. The only thing the management needs to do is to limit violence to a tolerable level & provide some support for

those with emotional issues & the cognitively under-endowed. One may also look up the case of Zerah Colburn& William Hamilton. To conclude an apolog: manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/a-d…