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?

Geekymommy, most are homeschooled or attend specialist schools.

yep the 'school' method of teaching is massively inefficient because kids spend so much time being exposed to ideas before they are developed enough to engage with them. Teaching kids one to one paying all the attention to what they are ready to take on board means you can learn to read in a few weeks instead of dragged out over 4 years. Similarly for all the key maths concepts. Takes minutes once they are ready to 'get it'.

Social development is different I think...which is why HE kids spend so much time hanging out with their pals.

I agree with you geekymummy. I think time and dedication ( and money in some cases for resources, teachers, travel etc) takes someone with potential and can aid their development in an area. Hence the idea of it requiring circa 10,000 hours to create an expert ( the idea in "Outliers"). They found, with music in particular, it was time spent practicing that makes a huge difference to success. In sport it is often your birthday and ability to train with increasing ability opponents ( again for long lengths of time). All this could be ( potentially) helped with money

I think you’re confusing gifted with success as well.
I was a child prodigy. I had finished all the most advanced piano exams in primary school. We didn’t even own a piano and were pretty poor.
My parents had no idea what to do with me as no one had ever been the way I was in my family.
They used to shove me in front of people and force me to play literally everywhere that had a piano and I hated it.
Then as I started doing competitions they would turn up in a completely middle class environment shouting obscenities at anyone who competed with me showing themselves up much to my humiliation.
When my school music teachers pointed out I was gifted (and also pretty much anyone who heard me play) my parents attitude was I know it’s great isn’t it. And it stopped there.
I’m so mad because it could have been put to so much good use but instead it was me that had to fight for lessons and me that had to work outside my family home to finally end up in one of the top music colleges in the U.K. my parents told me it was pretty far and visited me once there.
Now I teach piano part time, you can see raw talent a mile off. It’s very difficult to teach. You can teach a child to play well but not like a prodigy. That’s a natural thing imo. By three I was working out tunes on a toy keyboard and by 5 playing every morning and night voluntarily. By 10 I was on the piano as often as I could be and finally at the conservatoire 8 hours a day. I never once tired of it. I still travel miles to play the best pianos.
Success on the other hand. That can be bought and it definitely is, I saw people with c grade a levels get into Cambridge with their fantastic connections.
I still won all of my competitions and got distinctions in my exams. From a poor ignorant family. Prodigy with money? Not really. My 4yo dd is learning an instrument and id often rather watch paint dry than do practise time with her. I have the money and she goes to the best tutors who I know because I’m in the industry. Her attitude? I hate it mum why do I have to do it

Even the ones who are homeschooled still need to learn things like reading and writing that most kids would learn in school, and that takes time. You still need to practice those skills to get good enough at them to live on your own, and that takes time.

Tomorrow not locally, and I don't think she'd be happy moving schools. She'd be worried about losing her friends.

Offtocatchatrain I bet your playing sounds amazing.

Quite often it is a bit if a cycle. Highly intellectual driven female with good pay meets intellectual driven man with good pay. Genetics mean children have a greater the average intelligence and their drive means they have more ambitions for, and push their child further. And can pay for tutors.

Less intellectual families tend to have lower pay. Can't help their child with difficult subjects and can't afford tuition.

offtocatchatrain that’s such a shame.

I think you may find this interesting op. The idea that any child prodigy can be made, genetics aren’t important; it’s all about nurture:
www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/the-grandmaster-experiment

More succinctly put here
www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/the-polgar-family-history

Thank you for the link Yourdaughter, will give it a read!

I sort I'd agree with you OP.

I know one young person who has achieved a very prestigious award in his particular talent.

When he was young and had no particular interest in this talent his DM gave up work, claimed benefits, took him out of school to HE, they moved to the middle of nowhere... and so he got to what he wanted with what was available to him from aged 8 onwards. As you can imagine, not that much was available, but he did do one thing intensively, and got very, very good at it by youth standards. I'm not sure how much of a living he's making from it, although he seems mildly "famous". When he collected his award he was definitely hailed as a prodigy, brilliant etc.

Money was my no means a factor in this case. Parental choices definitely were.

I think it's difficult for many "poor" parents or parents with several children or busy work schedules to ensure their child can focus on just one thing intensively enough to be gifted. But a genuinely gifted, rather than very very able should shine though if they have the opportunity, and I'd like to think in the UK we give DC that opportunity in state schools. Good Lord I'm naive

YouCan'tGetThere ....wondering what you mean by "You wouldn't get into MIT by being top 2%." Are you suggesting that you have to be better than that?

starzig That is not true. Genetically there is always a drift towards the average.

That drift genetically towards the average means that adults with very low IQs, can have a very smart child.

Gifted is probably bandied about too much. Lots of bright children will be defined as ‘gifted’ by school definitions but aren’t necessarily that exceptional. Prodigies seem special and have obviously had a range of things come together including talent.

I don’t doubt that parental interest and money makes nurturing talent much easier. My husband and I were both mediocre at music getting to about grade 6 on our instruments. We could both play a tune but would have never got into county orchestras etc. Our parents didn’t play and didn’t push or couldn’t help us read music etc. I have no doubt our children will start earlier, have more parental support and will be better at playing than either of us were even if they have exactly the same level of ability. If you have super talented parents that affect will be so much stronger.

YouCan'tGetThere ....wondering what you mean by "You wouldn't get into MIT by being top 2%." Are you suggesting that you have to be better than that?

We're looking into it for DD at the moment, which is why I'm interested. You might scrape in if you're top 2%, if you have lots of other things going for you, and especially if you came from a school with generally lower achieving students. But really you need to be top 1%, specialising in science and maths.

DD is at one of the top 15 schools in the US for STEM, and they generally get 1 student per year into MIT out of about 45, but they are very unusual.

I guess things may have changed, but I was accepted at both MIT and CalTech and chose MIT (because it was farther away from home). I went to my local public/state school which did not have ANY special advanced classes (concept didn't exist back then) and I hadn't even done Calculus yet which was a prerequisite for getting in. I was in the top 2% though probably not 1% in the country in the standardized testing, but I'm sure that I was also greatly assisted by all my rather unusual extra curricular activities (including a gap year in England, back when no one in America did gap years).

And I suspect things are far more competitive these days than they were in 1980.

SofiaAmes - very interesting! Did you enjoy it?

We are going to look at CalTech soon too - and have already spent a fair amount of time at MIT at their various programmes for high schools.

I loved it. I even took a class at Harvard (which I didn't get into) and hated it. I started with a double major in Biology and Economics and ended with a degree in Economics, a minor in Biology and a job at MCA Records in NYC doing promotion. That's what's so wonderful about the USA is that you can change your mind a million times and there is still a way to get there. What part of the USA are you in?

What is your dd interested in?

I am tone deaf, can't sing for toffee and have no musical ear. I was however a highly intelligent child joined Mensa age 12) menswear a load of bollocks but Indah it just to show I was above the norm.
I was made to practice music every day from when I started music lessons at age 7 and so flew through all my exams on the piano and flute. I played in concerts and church and also learnt the guitar and a little bit of organ. People said how good I was.
I had no natural talent for music but in was very very good at learning things. Now if I did have a natural talent and a real passion for music I can see how I could have become a prodidgy. I hated all the practice and gave up music as soon as a could in my teens.
I did also do ballet, tap, brownies/guides, gymnastics, dance etc so didn't even dedicate all my time to music

I think it's a mix between natural talent, passion for the subject as well as plenty of practice that makes a prodigy.a lot of Prodigy's probably go undetected as they either have parents who are not interested or do not have the resources to nurture thier talent.

We are in Maine, so MIT is pretty handy for us but if she wants to go a long way away for university then we will cope. We're originally from the UK and we've both studied a long way from home.

What is your dd interested in?

She's pretty well rounded but her main academic love is maths - she takes every class she can get. She doesn't really know where she wants to end up, so I think the US system will be really good for her - giving her a chance to try things out while she finds her way.

I don't think she's necessarily a classic MIT 'type' of student, but I'm intrigued to see what they say if she does apply.