Being 'academic' and being 'bright' or 'clever' aren't the same thing are they?

[minifingerz]

Just a reflection on the 'not clever enough for grammar school' thread. Am I right in thinking a child can be extremely clever but might never achieve well academically? That there are many, many children out there who are skilled learners, highly original thinkers, have phenomenal memories, are articulate and have good analytical skills, but who will always be shit at formal study, or simply don't enjoy formal study?

I think this lies at the root of my problem with the grammar system and the way people talk about it. There seems to be a belief that there is only one type of intelligence and if a child has this they will be able to demonstrate it through academic performance. If they can't perform academically it's because 'they're not that bright'.

Totally agree, I have one child who breezed through the 11+ and ended up with a part scholarship to Private school
Her brother is very very clever, has amazing ideas and is very "quick" but although he does ok at school he's not what I would call "academic" and I doubt we will put him in for his 11+ when it's time. Thankfully due to his sister being there we will get a good discount at her Private school for him as I doubt he would get a scholarship
There are also children who either can't do exams or really thrive on them

Absolutely.

My dd is the eldest - very bright, works really hard, intellectually curious and loves school, just got all A*s in her GCSEs - would be classic grammar school fodder if we lived in a grammar school area.

My ds is four years younger - again very bright, could read comparatively earlier than his sister, can do quite complex maths in his head, has always been able to spell any word almost instinctively and can remember football facts from many seasons ago but he is bone idle, won't write his maths working down because he wants to do it in his head so makes sloppy mistakes, likes to lark around in class, is highly disorganised so rarely turns up with the right book for the lesson and generally doesn't like some parts of school. He would have failed the 11+ if he had sat it yet I think he is probably brighter in lots of ways.

As much as I approve of the Grammar system, having been through it, I am, as a mum, very aware that it doesn't suit every child, even ones who would 'qualify' to go to one. Success in education is not just a string a GCSEs - what about music? You can be a musical genius on a par with Mozart and yet you still get just one GCSE. My DS is a talented comic actor but he is told what to do in Drama class, and this is rarely where his talent lies but in school productions he comes into his own, but that is not where the GCSE is, sadly.

You have to ignore the labels and go with your gut feeling on a school, on the school where, regardless of Grammar or UTC or the unfashionable choice (what we did), where you feel your child with their individual abilities will thrive.

You're right, but it's a concept that I still see a lot of people (parents!) struggling with - that you can be 'bright' but not 'do well' at school.
DS was always seen as average at school until we found out he has dyslexia - ed psych put him in the top 3%, but he will still underachieve as he has very poor processing skills and memory.
Unfortunately many employers still value 'quick-thinking' and traditional academics over other skills.

Hell yes

I know people from uni who are spectacular in their academic ability

Can't find their arse with their own hands.

Lateral thinking, problem solving, common sense and an ability to work with others far more indicative of success in life.

And lots of really smart people just flounder in exam situations too.

No, they aren't the same thing at all, albeit they can and do overlap. You don't have to be a genius to be academic, just capable of focusing intently on a specialist subject that bores the shit out of other people.

I really clever child will always do fine academically because smart children can compensate for a lack of study through intelligence. However they won't necessarily do well on intellect alone. A smart child would probably be able to do school work passably well at age 10 without paying attention/doing homework etc sinplyby being present for some ofteaching and reasoning their way through the rest. But they are unlikely to get a grammar school place unless they are extremely clever or they put in at least a bit of work.

Not sure the "idle" child is necessarily excluded from being one or the other.
Ive taught many bright, clever, talented in one area, inquisitive, creative and/or academicly inclined children and have my own theories about how and why they develop in a particular way.
Ive always encouraged parents to celebrate just the way they are and of corse, everyone is different.

Course that should be, I can spell!
I dislike children being given the label "idle". I think that they are just finding their own way in a different direction to what mught be considered the "norm"

My criteria is zombie apocalypse survival likelihood. The 2 of my 4 DCs who are most likely to survive the zombie apocalypse are the least academic - but they're practical and resourceful.

I like that Hassled!

One of my adult sons is an academic but would lead the way in the zombie thing so that is another example of how one size doesnt fit all!

Anecdote is not evidence. Have there been studies into whether academic success correlates to IQ? Certainly the 11+ results can be improved in any child by practice for the exams.

Measuring how successful a person is in the real by how they would survive a zombie apocalypse does have an innate flaw.

My criteria is zombie apocalypse survival likelihood.
Or even on the milder, cope in the real world

I'd take many of my non academic clients over the paper pushers buggering up the country in Whitehall any day

Absolutely.

The more I read on MN, the happier I am that we don't live in a Grammar School area.

IQ correlates positively with general success up to about 120, which is smart albeit not super smart.

After than the correlation no longer holds. I think being 'too 'intelligent isn't always a positive thing in today's society.

Firstly, society does not laud intelligence in the same way it does sporting prowess, or beauty, or many other things (especially for women - intelligence is actively discouraged in many arenas.)

Secondly no one really agrees what intelligence actually is. IQ is one measure - the concept of 'g' being a sort of general intelligence. This is an overarching sort of high cognitive function. It's not the same as being a genius at maths for example - that's one very specific functional area. And there are lots of these discreet areas (emotional intelligence being one that's often touted.)

Academic success doesn't always translate to life success either - plenty of straight A student fail or have crises once they leave the academic sphere, or get to a level in it where they are no longer comfortable.

Success in life seems to correlate with four things, imho.

1. Your start point. A child growing up in a stable, financially secure home in the uk is likely to do better than one from a chaotic or abusive home in the uk. Money also factors here - and privilege and network.

1. A basic 'good enough' level of intelligence.

1. Grit, stickability etc. The ability to learn from failure, to persevere and to be psychologically strong enough to cope with life's ups and downs. To delay gratification (the marshmallow test is a strong predictior of future success.)

1. What happens to you along the way and how you cope with it (or if you can cope with it.) illness, injury for example - can be almost impossible to succeed through. Other things like unpleasant situations can make or break someone. And you have to be willing to take opportunities when they arise.