to not like the term 'bright'

[southeastastra]

so is every other child 'dim'?

not unless there are only 2 possible boxes you can put children into.

i have no problem with the term bright to mean a child who is above average at something.

doesn't mean that all other children are dim

You are over analysing it. If you want to go down that route, would you say that if a child is "gifted and talented", that ones who are not should be described as "ungifted and untalented"...

What term would you use then southeastra, because knowing MN someone will find something to complain about whatever term you use.

...we're mainly just ordinary...

I like my DS being called Bright, it gives me a warm cosy glow.
The fact that his sister is not called Bright does not worry me.

The term 'bright' is used to mean the child is better than the norm (norm meaning average) it doesn't mean every other child is dim. Kim Ung-Yong was a boy that was speaking at 6 months, was able to read 4 languages by age 3 and got a Ph.D in physics at 16. I'm sure many people were saying "ooh isn't he bright" :)

What a strange way to look at it! Just because you are complimenting one child does not mean you are insulting every other.

Ds1 is bright. Except when he is being dim.

Hard to know what to say really to describe, if you are referring to academic ability. My DD2 is a genius but I can't go around telling people that; I'd have no friends left. So I tend to describe her as "quite bright".

I don't think it's a judgement on anything other than her academic ability; I always hope it infers nothing else other than she's quite bright! I certainly don't think it means other people's children are dim (although maybe a bit dimmer than mine, of course ).

"Kim Ung-Yong was a boy that was speaking at 6 months, was able to read 4 languages by age 3 and got a Ph.D in physics at 16."

I take it back. DD2 is quite dim.

Yes. And no-one should every say a child is pretty because that must mean every other child is ugly

Or tall
Or musical
Or skinny

Etc

I don't mind the term, but then I use it for children in the same way as I would for adults, being either drains or radiators.

Having volunteered for years with children, some are bright, some for academic ability, others for leadership ability, or are funny... whatever, but they shine.

Only when said by boastful parents...I don't give a hoot if your child is bright so don't bother telling me.

What word would you propose we use instead?

You do need one and academically gifted is considerably more of a mouthful?

I would not use bright to describe an academically gifted child. I would use clever.

would you prefer adept?

YABU.

nothing wrong with bright.

I use the term a lot (pay lots of compliments where I think they are due)...don't see anything wrong with it and am not making a comparison with other children, but it gives confidence to the child and reassurance to the parents I think.

S'fine as long as teacher isn't hollering so everyone can hear "Tarquin is bright whilst Jerome is a bit of a thicky"

Children have to be graded somehow.

Bright is a really nice word - it suggests not only intelligence but a warmth and glow - imagine a really, happy smily child! :)

"Gifted" on the other hand is the ponce word to out-do all previous ponciness!

OP Are you suggesting that all children be described using the same adjective and that we never acknowledge their individuality? Should we treat them as Borg? Alternatively, if you dislike the "two" categories of bright vs. the alleged dim, how about classifying by IQ? E.g., "Emma darling, you're a 145, your best friend Sarah's just a 104 and your brother is just a 92".

not only = not just, words can have different meanings