IQ in children

[BaskeyJill]

My friend is a teacher and made a comment the other day that made me wonder. She thinks that she can identify which children in her year 4 class could go on to be doctors, solicitors, vets etc and which children would never be capable of achieving the grades needed.

My pfb DS is 7 and has just started year 3. When I look at him I assume he could be anything he wants to be. At the moment he is slightly below average (he is an August birth) but I think he is still so little! He has another 11 years of school until he does his A Levels and I am a bit that my friend thinks he isn't ever going to achieve the 'higher' tier jobs.

LaQueen - isn't that partly a self-fulfilling prophesy demonstrated? Though it does seem likely that bright children will stay bright, perhaps some that have a slow start are written off too early, and ability with exams at 11 isn't the only demonstration of intelligence that could take you into a good job.

Actually I want to amend that to say that isn't taking SEN into account. But I have know "low ability" pupils with SEN to outstrip "able" pupils in attainment.

Maybe your friend is meaning that some of her pupils are lazy and they won't have the motivation later in life? But I disagree with that too because attitudes can change.

It's a worry stuff like this - it can become a self fulling prophesy.

I'm sure there are indication teacher might pick up - supportive back ground or exceptionally motivate child but that is all they are indications.

Maybe I feel like that as no-one thought I'd do well. Dyslexic, quiet and not very confident.

Thing that got me was some of my teachers at A-level who'd taught me earlier still seem to think of me like that and volatilized their thoughts despite me having done exceptionally well across the board at G.C.S.E. . I did lose my way a bit at A-level but did well degree and post degree. I do wonder if their attitude played a part - certainly seemed to affect how much support or not I got from them.

*known

To be honest the thread title and the opening post are a little confusing, the title mentions IQ but the the post doesn't. I assumed that the teacher was saying she could predict which children would do well academically and therefore be able to go on and train in medicine etc., this is not necessarily the same as having a high IQ.

LaQueen, I think that's probably a more accurate assessment because it depends on the students learning at that current time (the age difference isn't that large).

However doing the 11+ also isn't an indicator of how well a person will do in life. So much can happen in a young persons life, especially during the teenage years/early twenties that it is impossible to say.

Interesting there was a guy in DH's school who was written off and left at 16 and became a young father - he is now doing extremely well in banking in Hong Kong.

Thats probably why short term assessments, like in the case of LaQueens friend are more likely to be right, than long term assessments of the OP's friend.

IQ is fairly stable over time, but that isn't really the point here, because the teacher isn't measuring IQ when she picks out who she thinks will do well.

Haven't read all the posts but I would agree broadly with your friend. Obviously there will be children who don't shine until later but some children simply will never be bright enough to be doctors- and I myself was one of them!

Far too early, the 11 plus was scrapped because it was proven that 11 was too young to predict a child's potential and limit their options.

Nothing to do with IQ.

But if you want to identify future lawyers/doctors etc just look at what the parents do.

It's the biggest indicator to the future achievements of the children - social mobility in the UK is a joke.

'Nothing to do with IQ.

But if you want to identify future lawyers/doctors etc just look at what the parents do.'

Intelligence comes down to genetics. There's a reason those lawyers and doctors have DC that do well, above and beyond nurture!

Not just genetics though. It's parental involvement in education, role modelling, being willing to ferry your kids to activities, pushing further education, discipline... all sorts.

I know lots of intelligent people who haven't achieved, and lots of non-academic people who have. Intelligence is only a part of it.

This notion that you can be anything you want to be is a load of nonsense. While you certainly shouldn't knock a child's confidence, you equally shouldn't set them up to fail. There is no point saying, yes darling you can be the next Judge John Deed or Professor Winston of their IQ is average. Parents need to be realistic and play to their child's strengths.

Yes, intelligence doesn't automatically equal success, but intelligent people have intelligent DC. Even with lots of support and encouragement you're going to struggle terribly to get a good medical degree without being bright.

I didn't say you could get a medical degree without being bright. I said being bright isn't the only indicator that you might end up with a medical degree.

I'm sure plenty of families have bright kids who, due to family background, lack of opportunity and (these days particularly) lack of money for further education, can kiss goodbye to any degree. Intelligence will not cut it on its own.

IQ testing is meaningless unscientific bollocks anyway, if you take the time to look into it...

Did she specifically mention IQ?

Because achievers are not only people with higher IQs, but people who persevere and work hard and are motivated.

The key thing that I try to teach my DS is to learn from his mistakes and his failures.
And always to achieve a little bit more.
He gets a well done, but usually with something afterwards. Either a "but you could have done X better", or "because you worked hard/practiced and managed to get it done".

Plus it's also about following examples, in a family where people achieve, I think it's more likely that members want to achieve at least as much.

Agree. You get bright DC who don't get the support they need to become doctors but you don't get DC who aren't bright who becoming doctors, even with all the support in the world.

Interesting here that we are automatically defining "success" as being university degree/professional career related....

cakebump I agree about parental involvement. It has some bearing on a child's willingness to learn and excel.
I have a decent IQ but lack social skills and communicate poorly, I don't think IQ is the be all and end all. I am dyslexic so I have poor spelling and grammar skills yet my memory capacity for stupid facts and figures is really good. so is intelligence just the ability to retain information? Or the ability to understand it?

I think one of the main problems with tuition fees is that you will get bright and motivated people who cannot afford/don't have the parental wherewithall to get to university

BUT you will have a lot of bright (to get the A Levels) but unmotivated students whose parents adopt the view of "I'm paying, you're going" filling up the lecture halls.

Not a recipe for success (and I know for definite I would have been in the latter category)

The OP was about academic success CakeBump.