why 9 times out of 10 gifted doesn'tmean gifted.

[gracemargaret]

I have read many of the threads here and have been watching with amusement the whole G&T developments in education. I have two daughters who have both been placed on this register - one who was born truly "gifted" and has never ceased to amaze and frankly terrify me from the day she was born, and the other who is bright and quite academic and who is bound to do well in life with far less emotional difficulty along the way. My eldest daughter is eight - she spoke in sentences at 9 months of age was reading and writing before two - she has never really been a "child" - has never played with toys or other children (and I was a stay at home mum running a toddler group so she had plenty of opportunity!) Take her to a park and she will sit on a bench with a book. She is already far cleverer than either myself or her father and will spend hours in her room (if we let her) reading books and writing notes/constructing powerpoint presentations. As an example the other day I suggested going for a walk (it was raining) and she said she was rather "waterproof to that idea and was much more absorbant to the idea of staying at home" - she also likes home made food as "you can taste not just the ingredients but the effort too" Although she has us in stitches constantly with the things she says, her intelligence is far from a blessing as I worry about her constantly - she is so emotionally sensitive that she can hallucinate when upset and will taste words and smell voices - I am sure at some point she will be bullied as she is so obviously different and awkward and I can't see how she will ever develop as an adult able to deal with the realities of life (although will try my best to help her). My other daughter is an absolute joy - bright, very popular, high achiever and wonderfully within the realms of normal - she might be in the top 5% but is definitely not "gifted" despite what school might say and gives me far less reason to worry. Although I love both my daughters more than anything I still say nobody would choose a gifted child and what gifted children need most is not pushing to acheive (this is an inner drive they have anyway), but support, love, and help to try to adjust to a world where they may never feel they "belong". Good luck to everyone with gifted kids - and those with high achievers - know the difference - and realise how lucky you are!!

being phsycially around their children is important - should preview

Since when was feminism ever about forcing women to accept a high powered job?
It is surely about the choice to do so if you wish. It is equally about choosing to stay at home, or work p/t if that suits you better.

Feminism to me is the concept that I am not prohibited or actively discouraged from any lifestyle or career choice based purely on my gender. It is also about the fact that unlike my father and FIL, neither my husband nor my son will expect women to conform to any stereotype.

I know a lot of people in very well-paid jobs enjoy what they do (or at least don't hate it and don't care if they don't enjoy it) but it so happens that the kinds of work I enjoy are not so highly paid and it is extremely important that I am interested in what I do (much more imporatant than being highly paid but of course we all need a certain base line income). I'd go round the twist (but probably be fired first) in a city-type job.

I'm also doing a funded PhD and I am very anxious about trying to balance an academic job with dd's care. It's a tough balancing act - I totally don't want to SAHM but I really don't want to be full time either. I really don't know if I will have the choice though - and IMO feminism should be about enabling that kind of choice.

I think Xenia is both right and wrong. It's true that money does help and if you enjoy a highly paid job why not do it?

Conversely though - renumeration isn't the only reward. Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that. A lot of people get more satisfaction from helping others - care workers, teachers, nurses, than financial gain. Ditto university lecturers, PhD students all prefer the intellectual stimulation than any financial reward.

Each to their own - if we all wanted to be fund managers then society just wouldn't work.

I help others and get paid a lot for it and have huge intellectual challenge in the work I do. It's a nice mixture for me. A lot of women and men who run companies, are leading surgeons or whatever do love what they do. I am sure for most the money is not the principal reward. You keep going because you love it. You see it at my age, 46, in my contemporaries - those still going love it. Those who are gone on the mommy or daddy track or opened the failing wine bar or supposedly writing a novel at home are the ones who never really liked the work in the first place.

If you're gifted and talented you are usually born so and you are lucky because it does give more choices and chances in life. on the other hand the happy pig rather than the melancholoy philosopher example is always given. Most of us would rather be happy pigs. Certainly my brother has medical colleagues who are pretty cross their friends from Cambridge went into the city and earn 5x as much when they are all equally as bright ad have money for school fees and nice houses AND are not subject to low grade thick managers bossing them around.

don't get me wrong - I have a full on City lawyer type job - I just don't want to be a hedge fund manager . Although I DO happen to have a copy of the Final Report on Hedge Fund Standards on my desk - hot off the press.

Did anyone see the hedge fund manager in this week's sunday times? Terrible suit. NO excuse with his money.

Well I've gone down the 'mummy track' and I very much enjoyed my career before.

I knew I wanted to teach but felt very pressured to apply for law (I was at what would now be classed as a sink comp)
I did put both law and English courses down on my UCCA form and got offers for both. I did English, then PGCE and I've never regretted my decision even though the other choice would have offered me greater financial rewards.

Yurt, in all seriousness, DH once told me about a graduate being sent home because his boss decided the quality of his suit make him look like 'an estate agant!' They apparently told him that if he was going to wear River Island suits then they'd pay him accordingly.
When I think about how much debt I was in as a graduate, they'd be lucky if I managed to afford a suit at all!

Estate agent.

yes cerainly one rogue trader in france has hit the big time 3.6bn apparently - the societe generale is in deep do dah, makes Nick Leeson look like an amateur.

My bro is high flying investment banker
He thinks it sucks and is as he says, he is prostituting himself - in it for the money alone.
So he can retire early and enjoy his life

aww poor guy cushioncover The hedge fund managers is pale blue- probably beautiful expensive material but... pale blue (think its his casual wear ;o)

Not all wealthy people are into clothes and image. In fact once you get beyond a certain level and people are queuing up to use you clothes for some can become less important. Some companies have style consultants to make sure people look good, don't reveal their G string etc and look wrong for the company.

For some people it is very desirable to work in a situation where everyone else is bright like you because that's so much more fun. If you're the one bright person amongst 1000 others I'm not so sure working life is as good. The ability to chat to and bounce ideas off other clever people is something I hope my children seek in whatever work they go for.

I don't feel the people I work with are less intelligent than those I may have met had I done law.
BTW, I'm all for people earning as much money as possible if that's what makes them happy. It just wasn't my motivation in life. Different strokes, I guess.

Poor sucks. But an elegant sufficiency is all you need - deciding what you want to do with your life based on how much you will earn is so sad and limiting. I do so hope neither of my children do this.

It's a factor for most people. Just ask a load of university students. With 3 children at that stage I know tons of them. They are going to do all kinds of things and one issue they consider is money but they know what jobs are like. The banker one earns a lot and works long hours. The one at the auction house earns a veritable pittance considering she got a first (she's female of course -women shoot themselves in the foot all the time financially sigh.....) but she's doing what she loves. The one who has just gone off to the US to learn to fly planes, she will be enjoying it too although that's reasonably well paid as well as exciting. So yes pay is a factor. What I don't want is for one of mine to say in their mid 30s I never realised if I became a stable girl my financial options would only be Y, I had no idea of the different in life terms between earning s£200k a year and £15k and had I know I would have made a different choice. So I think wise parents point out pros and cons but never decide for the children. It's for them to make their own choices.

I would prefer them to avoid areas where there is institutional sexism if they're female and I would like them to have a measure of stability so trying to be an actress careers although great if you make it, most people don't whereas other careers are a bit more certain. On the other hand if they felt it would not be their life unless they tried to act then I'd want them to go for it.

There is a lot to be said with working with fun clever people you admire and respect. There's the air plane test - would I like to be stranded at a foreign air port for 20 hours with this person. If so hire them. If they are really boring and not very bright then probably not.

Of course you consider money. If I were teaching f/t I'd be earning 32k pa. Not great and certainly not enough to pay my mortgage. But it's by no means minimum wage. Now had the salary been minimum wage, I may have chosen a different career path. I think, as others posters have mentioned though, that there is a certain level above which the stress and unhappiness of poverty does not apply.

I know when I was young I couldn't even imagine money being important. I couldn't imagine that I would ever want or need to own property and so forth.

It is a lot more important to me now that I'm older, especially having a child, but I see it as needing to be above a certain level. I would really love to be loaded, frankly, and have a really nice house etc. But I just don't want it it enough not to what I've chosen to do - I want that more - really need it in fact. The mind seems to run a natural course, like water, and I have to follow it or I'm miserable.

Now if only my natural inclination (and talent) had been to be a stock broker. Ah well.

Children do differ and some of mine are more materialistic than others but most young people are less materialistic than 30/40 year olds and yet it's in your 20s you sometimes take irrevocable decisions about careers. I know my 23 year old has talked about wanting to buy a flat (and keep a horse if she's ever rich enough).

But you can't deny that having a decent wage makes life easier, me and mr belladonna don't need to worry about if we can afford to put 5 kids through private school or if they can all have their own bedrooms, we know we can go on 3 holidays a year and we know that if it is all gone tomorrow, for whatever reason then we have enough assets to keep us going for a while.
I am lucky enough to have never experianced the uncertainty of not knowing what I would do if for some unknown reason I needed money quickly, my parents both earn 6 figure salaries and my grandparents are far richer than my parents, so the money is there if it is ever needed.
I wouldn't say it is materialistic to aim for a job where you will be financially secure, and you KNOW you will be financially secure enough to put money away for 'a rainy day'
At the moment I am doing my phd so I'm not earning much but I have plenty of family wealth in various accounts so I'm financially independant and I can pick my children up from school 3 days a week and go to tumble tots/baby yoga/coffee mornings with the younger ones as well, if I wasn't financially independant I would have chosen the fast track through the city/accountancy/banking etc routes instead of additional study

I don't suppose I'd ever worry if I couldn't put 5 kids through private school (ds2 and ds3 go to one, I wouldn't worry if they couldn't though) or whether they'd all have their own bedrooms (ds2 and ds3 actually share despite there being enough to go round) or going on 3 holidays a year (couldn't think of anything worse tbh- we have to do one this year and I am dreading it). None of those worries are things that do/would worry me, so perhaps that's why I never felt the need to shoot from Oxford to the City (lots of contemporaries didn't either)

Belladonna - what you describe is rather more than just being financially secure. I think we are OK but we can't do any of those things (and both my parents died in debt so no beans there either - or from dh's family). I shan't be crying into my Tesco's boxed vino over it. I guess that kind of financial reward is more important for a lot of people than doing something you really enjoy (or is meaningful or both hopefully) - it's just not a POV I can really understand.

I wonder if growing up with less money makes you less demanding wrt salary. Absolutely nothing would make me go the other route - absolute torture (not even to put dd into private schol ).

Acinonyx, I suppose you may have a point, I guess I would miss the luxuries I am guilty of taking for granted, if I had grown up in poverty maybe I would be more inclined to see the luxuries I could now afford. Maybe my whole idea of what constitutes a luxury would be re-assessed...
I know I have been spoilt as a child and I have always been financially dependant on others (be that husband/family/inherited wealth) for at least the majority of my money. But I am only in my 20s I hope that before too long I will be able to be completely financially independant on my income alone.
but.
Please don't judge me for what I am about to say...
What I earn is above the average wage, I wouldn't know how to live on it, I'm not being snooty, just stating that, as the product of my upbringing (which is another issue entirely) I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I have the umost admiration for people who can make £20,000 a year feed a family of 6 or whatever but surely if you could earn 3,4,5,10 times that then wouldn't it make life easier, not having to worry about money?
Wouldn't you want that for your child, never having to worry about money?

I would like my child to not have to worry about money. I don't think you need a 6 figure salary to not have to worry about money. I would hope that my children will grow up realising that there's more to life than private schools, separate bedrooms and expensive holidays. I personally would rather stay in a yurt in Cornwall (as we did) than fly to the bahamas.

I hope my children don't make value judgments about people based on money. I hope they mix with a wide range of people (as I have done my close friends include people on benefits and millionaires) and that through that they discover that money is pretty much meaningless providing you can afford decent food and shelter and you have enough that you can have some spare time and some choices. There is a point at which more money makes you happier, but you don't need a particularly large income before it to makes no difference. Many studies have shown that.