To think most "gifted" children are from affluent backgrounds?

[Notapushymum1]

I was reading about Alma Deutscher, a child prodigy who started composing at age 6 and had her first opera performed at age 9. She is a child prodigy who is home schooled, her parents are scholars with interest in music, she had the best teachers from age 3 and according to Wikipedia:
^^
Professor Gjerdingen recommended to Deutscher's parents the renowned Swiss improvisor Rudolf Lutz, who then connected them with the Swiss musician Tobias Cramm.[51] Gjerdingen sent exercises and commented on technical aspects of Alma’s composition, while Alma had lessons in improvisation from Cramm via Skype, with the pair using the pedagogical method of the eighteenth century Italian partimenti, instructional bass lines used for the teaching of harmony, counterpoint and improvisation.[52] Alma quickly became fluent in the music syntax of eighteenth century music

She spends 5 hours a day on music lessons from "Renowned violin and piano teachers at Yehudi Menuhin music school".

AIBU to think that most kids will become "prodigies" with such input?

I was wondering same thing.

Maybe she has a gift, maybe she doesn’t. According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, it takes 10000 hours to become a master at something. If she’s practising 5 hours a day then I’m not surprised she’s amazing at it!! But that isn’t what childhood is about, that isn’t learning through play and developing a thousand other life skills. Each to their own but you become and adult too quickly - I say let them be children and discover their ‘gifts’ by themselves

I think people are born with potential or 'gifts' but your family and financial situation will determine whether your gifts are hothoused like this girl, or just sink to the bottom. This was the whole point behind the Surestart centres and providing quality pre-school education (that was never meant to be about childcare as such). The idea was to provide all children with support, opportunity and advantage from the beginning because by school age children from many disadvantaged backgrounds have already fallen way behind their wealthier peers. You can see it in so many situations in life - the number of Olympic medallists who are privately educated for example (especially in sports like rowing). It's not that people who can afford expensive schools are innately better at rowing, just that they get more opportunity to do rowing.

KrisMulready Bullshit. Wilfully ignorant bullshit.

No you're the one full of bullshit

You said that parents with money is the biggest predictor of life chances, I gave 3 examples of greater determining factors that you then ignored.

Then you start talking about houses without the heating on, as though that is a normal scenario when actually it is very sad but uncommon. Get that chip off your shoulder, not everyone can be a brain surgeon and there will always be rich and poor. Doesn't make the achievements of rich or poor children any less valid so stop making it so

Sealover, I am on page 36, and it all makes sense. I always felt that "giftedness" is not as random as it seems...

When I think of a prodigy I think of someone who is at an ability or aptitude level that is beyond what tutoring can bring. e.g. Ruth Lawrence. Gifted I see as the highly skilled who have a high potential to achieve given the right support. Andy Murray is a gifted tennis player but I don’t think he is a prodigy.

Chazs

I agree with your last post and I think you are right
Gifted refers to potential, like schools that take gifted children are looking for the potential not exams passed or competitions won, or a written thesis.
They look at the potential of the person to be able to do these things.

This quote is quite interesting:

This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example, famously started writing music at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his book Genius Explained, by the standards of mature composers, Mozart’s early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang’s childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not composed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had already been composing concertos for ten years. The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart, he argues, actually “developed late,” since he didn’t produce his greatest work until he had been composing for more than twenty years.

I don't think it's money, it's privilege.

Eg gilly, but their circumstances allowed them to still provide the experience. Whereas someone like me, who has none of that would need money instead.

Dd's gift is academic, again something that I've been able to support despite not having money. Although she is naturally better than me, we are similar enough that certainly in her earlier years I could meet her needs. Now maybe not so much, but I'm still partly ahead due to years/ life experience.

Despite our financial situation meaning a failing school with little for academic dc was the only real option, to an extent privilege has allowed us to bypass the lack of money.

Her scholarship and bursary were of course awarded on her merit. However despite our reduced circumstances, I was raised in an affluent middle class home, so my life experiences are naturally different to someone from a typical low income background. Privilege is what gave dd the opportunity to apply.

And if that had failed, again privilege would have at least compensated partly for a failing state school because I have means that other similar income families don't usually have.

And re connections- dd does a sport, she's very good but luckily understands that it isn't a realistic career without the capital. However on even double my income she couldn't do it at her current level, without my experience and connections. And on my income it would normally be a once a week hobby. There will be countless dc with dd's ability/ dedication to her sport and many others who will never get chance to discover it. And it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Thehogfather

Totally agree again.
I'm not very academic at all, and no way would I have been able to afford extra tuition if dd had been academically gifted.
I could have encouraged, but wouldn't have known where to get help or where to go. We certainly have no connections in this area and would have struggled.
thank God, she wasn't bright, I know I'm terrible.

Both. My grandmother was very poor with no mother. She was pushed up a grade and her favorite brother (7 children) went to excellent university on scholarship.

It's strong work ethic, talent and sometimes fancy families with connections. Plenty of duds in fancy families too.

There is intelligence, people intelligence, book learning and some people who are just good at memorizing or kissing butts. There is not one answer.

I think many immigrants with successful children had much careers before coming here. I often have spoken to well educated immigrants with lower jobs.

gilly It's just lucky our dc weren't swopped at birth! Dd isn't musical, it's been an off/ on happy hobby since she was 7/8. But even when she did grade 1 I couldn't have helped if she'd got stuck.

As a child I could remember things extremely well, eg reading basic music, I have good timing and coordination in other areas, I was intelligent enough to understand the theory. But I just didn't get music then and still don't. I suppose a bit like somebody rote learning the times tables without ever understanding the concept of multiplication.

I don't know any prodigies per se, but I do know a moderately successful premiership football player. Started off in a low division side (think something like Barnstaple Town FC), got talent spotted to a slightly higher division team, and eventually ended up in a premier league team. His "backstory" as published in the national papers is that he was just a humble brickie lifted from obscurity by nothing more than talent and hard work.

What the papers don't note is the following:

1. He wasn't a brickie, but an unskilled labourer for a couple of months in his grandfather's multi-million pound construction firm as "work experience" for beer money.
2. His (very well off) parents took him to football training regularly from the age of about four.
3. He went through the academy system of a local club from the age of eight to seventeen, in which he devoted most of his time to football rather than actual schooling.
4. He's never actually had to work for a living a single day in his life on account of substantial family wealth.

Moral here is that football isn't the pure meritocracy it's made out to be, and that a lot of what is reported isn't actually the whole story behind even moderately successful people, let alone child prodigies.

Samantha - I've noticed an understandable trend among wealthy parents, to argue that their children having had opportunities such as being sent to excellent private schools does not in any way take away from the achievement of eg good A'level results. It is obvious to everyone else that children who have gone to bad schools and have got the same A'level results have achieved far more and deserve greater credit for their achievement. The odds are stacked in favour of children from wealthy families whose parents are happy to use their money to help their child get ahead.
It is possible to bypass some of the disadvantages of no family money if 1) your child has a strong natural gift, and 2) you are educated enough and interested enough and energetic enough to search out opportunities for your child and get your child to those opportunities (much more effort involved than if everything is laid on at school level).

clarissa I broadly agree, but I don't think it's always the case. Even the worst schools occasionally get the odd dc who effortlessly gets top grades through sheer ability (rather than through effort despite the school). And plenty of privately educated dc work just as hard as a (bad) state school pupil with the same results. It's more that their parents haven't had to give the same input or the dc seek to remedy the schools failings. And tbh if you replaced private with good state school and compared it to a bad one what you say would be equally applicable.

Know of a family with 9 children very poor financially but supportive to children. One became Dr. Another family with not so many children but poor financially, one son became Prof of psychiatric medicine. He committed suicide. Gifted is relative I think, throw all the resources possible at a child but if they dont have the inclination even though given support, encouragement then they wont learn.

You get rich parents who will pay for their child to appear gifted when instead they’re extensively coached & encouraged in the direction of meeting required measurements. As if the child is another element of personal success & they see it as a personal failure of their child isn’t “gifted”. Lots truly gifted kids of all backgrounds, but some not nurtured if parents busy, not interested, don’t understand or don’t have means (financial, intellectual, time) to help stretch their children or provide opportunities they’d enjoy & benefit from which would explore their gift.

I think there is a big difference between a good state school and a good private school, when you're talking about sport or music. A good state school will quite likely have a couple of music groups that a fairly small number of pupils attend. A good private school may have over half a dozen groups, attended by a higher percentage of pupils, some of which will be at quite a high level. Their music staff will be more specialised. They are more likely to pick up on and support talent. There are far more performance opportunities. I don't know a lot about school sport, but from what I've seen there is a big difference there too.

I think children from affluent families have advantages- but I no way feel child prodigies can be created. Being good at music is a gift - a child with limited musical ability could practise all day but not achieve this level of greatness.

My dd can fit a whole chocolate digestive in her mouth at once without breaking it. Does that mean she’s gifted?

Depends on whether it's a dark chocolate or milk chocolate digestive.

Clarissa I think what you say about state vs private school music provision may be true in some cases but not all . Ds goes to state school it has an excellent music department, 3 hour concert to say goodbye to the 6th form on Tuesday where some but not all of the music groups played . They take a keen interest in Ds's ability and provide lots of extra opportunities, invite him to play with groups usually reserved for the 6th form etc . Music and the arts in general are really celebrated at the school . Our next 2 closest state schools also have excellent music departments .
However because Ds is good come September when he is in year 9 he will be one of the most able brass players in the school , I'm keeping my fingers crossed that some of the current year 11 trumpet players stay on then Ds will have others of a roughly similar standard to play with . It's not that those in his year group aren't any good but I think there's less of a culture of pushing through the grades and starting very early - as I said at the start of the thread . So for Ds he definitely needs the older pupils but he would probably have needed that at private school too!!

Like Gilly said though it's not just money that determines whether talented / gifted children make it they're also privileged if the family can offer the time , connections , support . We aren't particularly musical but I have kind of made it my mission to find out what Ds could be doing to support him . I suppose he's lucky in that I recognised how important it was to present him with the opportunities . Thanks in part to mumsnet I found out about JDs etc ( until he was 10 I hadn't heard of them !!) and NCO etc . Other parents with money or not who didn't have the time or inclination might not have realised the value in offering their dcs these sorts of opportunities .

I'd like to know who is supposedly doing all this "gifting" - God? Somehow I don't think he works like that - what about people with disabilities are they then "ungifted"?
"Gifted" is the most vain term any parent can use - what they are really saying is "look what my child has inherited from clever old me"
Some kids are more able or willing to achieve certain things than others - if you are prepared to push them hard enough. The vast majority of these child prodigies do not change the world so you may as well leave the tiger parenting to the vain and boastful parents!

dinomum

Absolutely. If you train someone up the right way then they can become "gifted".

I also think people who are good at something, and do it really well have an interest and a passion for what they're doing. Seldom do you find someone who's good at maths, art, athletics etc. that actually hates what they're doing. Well, unless a pushy parent is forcing them to do it.