If your DC are "clever" - was it obvious from the start?

[SpaceOP]

I'm not talking gifted and talented/prodigy type clever, just more general, day-to-day academic "clever" as in as they then went through school they did well academically, didn't find school difficult etc. if they went to grammar school or other selective type schools, when did you figure out that they probably would be able to do this?

To be clear, I'm fully aware that intelligence can be measured in many different ways. DS, who is, I think, quite intelligent, has never really performed at school. His intelligence is far more about emotional intelligence and street smarts - both of which are regularly commented on by teachers/other parents - but his understanding of academic subjects is relatively low.

DD appears to be quite traditionally clever - she reads very well, seems to do okay with numbers, comes home and tells me about things she's learning and is able to apply this knowledge etc etc. In our area, high schools for girls are a little limited, so in time, we'll consider grammar school or see if she can get a scholarship for a private school but obviously, at 6, she's a bit young to really assess that. But I'm trying to figure out if this sort of academic smarts is obvious from the start or not? Entirely for my own interest as clearly there is nothing we can or will do right now besides continue to send her to school!

Yes. They learned very quickly and I spent a lot of time reading, writing, spelling etc before they went to school. One is arty now and the other works in IT!

I sometimes wonder what it means to be clever and whether this actually has any bearing for their future. I was definitely not bright in primary school. My memory for random things e.g. letters and other meaningless info that i didnt care about etc was pretty bad and my kid is the same. But I got all As at A'level and have three degrees from all of the top unis.

However, I wasn't interested in making money so my job doesnt pay much for London (although am surrounded by very clever people). DH was exactly the same. So on the one hand - degrees seem to suggest that am 'clever' and can assume that DS will be the same. However, unless I instill in him a love of money - this might still result in him earning a lot less than people who might be less clever but be more money driven.

It might be interesting in school to see how is on top and who isnt but in live being clever doesnt automatically get you far

If you want to assess who has 'done well' in life, I'd say a better metric than 'going far' is 'getting to somewhere you want to be'. That may not have much to do with 'cleverness'.

My kids are quite clever. Most of all it's being interested in stuff that makes them so and I suppose part of that is having parents who are interested in stuff and want to know 'why' too.

As someone who was a very clever kid and has completely NOT realised my potential, I think self esteem and picking a goal and going for it plus not minding failing now and again are more important for personal success though.

@ErrolTheDragon

If you want to assess who has 'done well' in life, I'd say a better metric than 'going far' is 'getting to somewhere you want to be'. That may not have much to do with 'cleverness'.

Absolutely this - I'm only just realising this myself

What you accomplish academically and professionally is only very partially down to intelligence. You need to have a minimum amount of brains to succeed in some fields but once you've got that who goes the furthest will usually come down to who has the most ambition, the strongest work ethic, and resilience. In life, emotional intelligence, charisma and an ability to think creatively / laterally also come into play.

Intelligence is just like any other talent. No matter how much natural speed a runner has, if they want a world record or to win a gold medal they are going to have to train and push themselves hard and that takes ambition, a ton of work etc. Bolt may make it look easy but he would train until he vomited in practice (like all Olympic athletes do). Natural talent alone gets no one anywhere.

I actually think who goes the furthest normally comes down to confidence, and being an extrovert. I don't think it comes down to work ethic, creative thinking, resilience (unless those are completely absent). There are some very clever, conscientious, resilient creative people who get completely overlooked because they are quiet or non-pushy.

I was very bright at school and university (as in academic work came very easily and I got straight As, have a BA, an MA and an MSc from good universities etc) but am solidly middling in my career. Part of my problem was I was equally good at all subjects, so it was very hard to choose a direction, and I have never found what I really want to do. I am however conscientious, resilient, can think of solutions etc. It comes down to not being much of a talker/ having no desire to 'network'. I far prefer studying to working.

DD is 6 and appears to be academically bright. She is also a massive extrovert and very confident, so I expect her to do quite well in whatever she chooses. I think the latter is more important though.

To answer the question (not that we really know yet as she is only 6) but DD has seemed quite clever from early on. Was a very observant baby - we were once in Oxford on the bus with her, and she was watching everything going on very closely as normal; when we got off a woman chased us down the road to stop us and tell us that she was an academic in child development and DD seemed exceptionally observant - we were quite taken aback. One of our NCT group commented really early on that she was obviously clever as she got bored of 'where's mummy gone?' type games really quickly. She was talking very early (full sentences before 12 months). She has never shut up since. Obviously we don't yet know how she'll do when she gets older but she was in the top group for reading in reception so I think that points to 'normal' clever and looking back that was probably clear from very early on. She's not a genius though.

@Digeridont

It’s not so much the academic stuff (dd1 could read very early but struggled with the fine motor control for writing in YR) but their attitude. Are they curious, do they remember stuff and ask you about it, do they make links between things they know, are they a knowledge sponge (not necessarily academic knowledge)?IME, it’s those things that correlate with later academic ability.

I haven’t read the other posts as @Digeridont put it so well!

Both my children are academic, but it manifested at different times. DD took a while to learn how to read ( need extra tutoring) and I was worried for a year or so. There’s dyslexia in DH’s family and I thought she might really struggle.
But, she’s always been curious, made links between ideas, etc. and once she’d grasped reading, she was off. Now she’s in advanced sets for every subject except French... again, I blame DH’s side, they’re all hopeless at languages.🤣

DS (12) OTOH, didn’t have any trouble reading and is top set across the board. He’s been “obviously” bright from the start. But, he was also slower to potty train and generally less mature than DD for a while.

Based on my limited experience then, I’d say wait and see as you won’t absolutely know at 6. I’m sure your DC are great, everyone has skills in different areas.

@Smellybluecheese

I actually think who goes the furthest normally comes down to confidence, and being an extrovert. I don't think it comes down to work ethic, creative thinking, resilience (unless those are completely absent). There are some very clever, conscientious, resilient creative people who get completely overlooked because they are quiet or non-pushy.

I was very bright at school and university (as in academic work came very easily and I got straight As, have a BA, an MA and an MSc from good universities etc) but am solidly middling in my career. Part of my problem was I was equally good at all subjects, so it was very hard to choose a direction, and I have never found what I really want to do. I am however conscientious, resilient, can think of solutions etc. It comes down to not being much of a talker/ having no desire to 'network'. I far prefer studying to working.

DD is 6 and appears to be academically bright. She is also a massive extrovert and very confident, so I expect her to do quite well in whatever she chooses. I think the latter is more important though.

That’s my point about charisma if the field you choose requires you to lead people. You don’t have to be an extrovert per se as I know quite a few senior people who aren’t. However you need to have a commanding presence associated with leadership.

This is less true if you are a preeminent scientist potentially though people skills almost always help people along in life.