Ainan's latest favourite subject.

One of Ainan’s most evident characteristics is his capacity to surprise. He is always managing to find new ways to surprise me, even now that he is 12 years old and I have had 12 years of surprises. He still manages to find new ones.

One of his latest surprises was his reaction to this semester’s selection of courses on his American Degree Programme. Which course do you think is his favourite? I am not going to tell you which courses he is taking, because I want you to imagine out of all possible courses, which one Ainan might consider his favourite. Have a good think about it.

Well, his favourite course this semester is World Civilization. That is basically an ancient history course which he is taking to balance his more scientific interests (other courses this semester include a Chemistry course and a Calculus course, among others). I was surprised to learn that he liked this course so much and so I asked him why. “Because it is new.”, he said simply.

So, Ainan is discovering a liking for more humanistic pursuits than the scientific ones that have preoccupied him all these years. I am pleased at this discovery for it promises that he will end up much more balanced in his education. So far he has studied courses in the areas of Chemistry, Physics, Maths, Biology, Computer Programming, Economics, Computer Animation, English and, now, World Civilization. This is already quite a broad selection of subject areas, but it shall widen much more in the years to come. I hope to see him become broadly knowledgeable, as well as well equipped in his primary interests. That, I believe, would make for a much more effective person.

His World Civilization course is interesting in the way it invites Ainan to think about history and civilization. He is working with a group of his fellow students on designing a civilization, including its own mythologies. He will have to present this invented civilization to his fellow students in class. To my mind, this is a very good challenge to set the students, for it invokes creativity, imagination and the ability to have insights and understandings about the nature of civilizations and what makes them work. It is certainly a much more interesting way to teach students than a standard lecture format. What is most notable about it is the cooperation with other students that it involves. This is, I feel, a good skill for Ainan to develop, since he must learn to work with others, to a common goal. This is a situation which is not natural to many gifted children, accustomed as they are, to thinking alone and working in solitude.

I am happy to hear the occasional remark from Ainan about less familiar (to me) events in history and civilizations I know very little about. It is heartening that, it seems, he will end up with a more comprehensive view of the world than I managed to acquire in my own education. Certainly, if he continues to study broadly as well as deeply, that is a likely outcome. Of course, it is much to his advantage that he is studying an American degree rather than a British style one. In a British degree specialization is encouraged at the expense of breadth. Such an education leads to incomplete understandings of the world. That is not the likely fate of Ainan.

I will write more in future of his reaction to his course selections. It is revelatory to discover what he likes and what he doesn’t. I have learnt that this is not as predictable as one might have thought. Then again, I shouldn’t really have been surprised by that, should I?

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Education should be free.

Education should be free, everywhere, everywhen. There should be no fees at any stage of the educational process. To do otherwise, is to compromise the whole purpose, nature and intent of education itself.

Why do I say this? Well, to ask a fee for education - any fee at all - is to ensure that some potential students will be excluded not on the basis of ability but on the inability to pay. The higher the fee, the higher the barrier to those of limited means and the more who will be excluded.

Singapore, like America charges for its education. Thus, like America it is an unequal system where opportunities differ depending on the wealth of one's family. This should not be so.

Today, Ainan returned to Singapore Polytechnic to continue with Chemistry. Unprecedentedly, however, he laboured alone in the labs, the seat beside him, where his lab partner had sat, on all other occasions, remained empty.

Half-way through the class, I asked the lecturer if she knew where Ainan's lab partner was: was she sick...or had she dropped out of the course?

The answer was as feared. Ainan's experimental partner had returned home to Malaysia. The lecturer then voiced my own thought: "I don't know why...she had no problems with the lab work."

I agreed with her. Ainan's partner had been as competent as she had been warm, to Ainan. I very much doubted whether a lack of ability to cope was the reason.

"I think it is probably financial. Singapore is very expensive for a Malaysian - and the economy is not good now."

The lecturer agreed. "Such a pity...she was such a nice girl, too."

"Yes." She had been a very good partner for Ainan.

As I returned to the bench to sit beside Ainan, I reflected on what this meant. Ainan's lab partner had come all the way from Malaysia, to secure a "better education" for herself. She had parted from home and family to do so. Now, however, in all likelihood, she had been forced to give up her dream to return home to Malaysia, her qualification incomplete, her education cut short. The probable reason: money.

I don't think that a lack of money should be allowed to impede anyone's education. Education should be regarded as a basic right - and should be as free as the air we breathe (presently free anyway...). To place a charge upon it, is to ensure that many cannot benefit from it. This means that families whose circumstances are straitened may pass on their limited circumstances to their offspring, whose limited educations will perpetuate the same straitened circumstances. A greater injustice is harder to imagine. Each generation should be allowed to be set free from the limitations of the one before - and the only means to allow that is to ensure that all education is free to all.

Some will object that the girl in question is Malaysian and should therefore pay for a Singaporean education. However, were education free to outsiders Singapore would find little trouble in drawing the best from around the world to its doors - some of whom would go on to settle here. So, there is an advantage even in such a policy.

Whether or not education should be free to non-nationals is not a central issue. The point is that education, in Singapore and America, is not even free to nationals. It should be.

When I grew up, in the UK, Universities were free to all. Indeed, the State paid a fee to each student to cover their living costs at University. This meant that there was social justice: even the poorest could afford to get a University education. It meant that there was great social mobility, with those of poorest background able to rise to the top of the professional tree, if they made the necessary effort - for the doors were not barred by financial means. It strikes me as a better system than those nations that seek a fee everytime knowledge is imparted. Such countries are paying a very high price in the lost potential of their youth.

I wonder, now, whether Ainan's lab partner will ever become the Chemist she had dreamed of being. Will her family be able to afford her education? Will she have to settle for a lesser role in life, wishing away her days on might-have-beens? It is sad - for she would have been a warm and welcome presence in any lab - for not only was she able, but amiable too.

I wish her well on finding a way forward - and I wish well, too, all who are in her situation: stalled in their educations for want of the money to pay for them.

There is a better way: education should be free for all, everywhere, everywhen.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind)

Homeschooling in Singapore and the USA: a comparison

Without knowing how common homeschooling is, elsewhere, it is not possible to assess the Singaporean situation, fully. So, how common is homeschooling in the United States?

Well, Dr. Patricia Lines wrote a paper, found on the Discovery Institute site, that estimates that, in 2001-2002 there were up to 1,320,000 homeschooled children in America. The growth rate for the years 1995 to 1998 was noted to be 11 per cent, year on year - so there could be many more such children by now. Even at these figures, however, we can see how rare homeschooling is in Singapore, with its 280 homeschooled children.

As a ratio of population, the homeschooled children in America in 2001 to 2002 constituted about 1 in 227 or so. In Singapore, that figure is 1 in 16,428.

Apparently, 2 to 3 per cent of American children are homeschooled. Virtually none are, in Singapore. From the figures above, one can see that homeschooling is more than 72 times more common in America, than in Singapore.

Singapore has a long way to go before it can honestly speak of a homeschooling trend. If one were to look at the situation, impartially, with a global perspective, one could say, without doubt that there is almost no homeschooling at all happening in Singapore. The freedoms that would make it possible for homeschooling to be common, are not readily given. Until they are, homeschooling will remain a rare, mostly expatriate phenomenon in Singapore.

One big step towards making homeschool more likely for Singapore's children would be changing the name of the government department responsible for it from "Compulsory Education Unit" to virtually anything else. How about "The homeschooling unit" or "The Alternative Education Unit". Such names would inspire greater confidence in the positive intentions of the unit in question. As it is, the very name of the unit says you haven't got much hope of being allowed to homeschool.

I haven't got any figures to hand at this moment, but I would be very surprised if anywhere else in the world could challenge Singapore for the rarity of homeschooling. Singapore is probably "no.1" in not allowing children to homeschool. However, I don't think this is a "no.1" to be proud of. Parental choice is always a good idea in such important matters. You see, the parent is much more likely to know what is best for their children than the state. That appears to have been overlooked along the way.

If any of you are thinking of homeschooling your children in Singapore, I wish you luck. It is not an easy path to get permission. A year and a half into seeking it, we are still being fobbed off.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The Nature of American Education on TV

A few days ago, I chanced upon a TV programme that made me wonder about the nature of American education.

Now, I should point out that I have never studied in America. I have not been to school, there, nor University (although I worked in one, once). I have not personally, therefore, gone through the process of an American education. I am left, therefore, with the evidence that comes my way through other sources. One of them was a TV programme shown in Singapore this week, entitled: "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?".

This TV programme was a quiz show. It challenged participants, who were adults, to pit their wits against the knowledge base of an American elementary school fifth grader. I should rephrase that: it is not their wits that were being pitted, but their memories, for no wits were actually required. I should explain. I noted, with some puzzlement, that all of the questions consisted of a simple exercise in recall. They were all factually based questions that required a quantum of knowledge as an answer. There were no questions in which actual thinking, or any kind of rational process, was required to produce an answer. This puzzled me. Does this accurately reflect the true nature of American elementary school education, or does it simply reflect the choices of the quiz show producers?

I would like comment, therefore, from Americans, if possible. Is American education based too much on simple rote learning of facts, or is there actually thinking involved? Is elementary education largely an exercise in factual recall?

I would be interested to find out.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The 2006 Pisa survey on OECD education.

The results of the 2006 Pisa (Programme for International Student Assessment) survey have just been released. They make interesting reading.

The Pisa report is a comprehensive survey of the skills in science, reading and mathematics of 400,000 15 year olds tested in 57 countries around the world. Singapore is not one of them.

The survey is conducted once every three years and serves as a snapshot of international students' comparative abilities.

The OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An average performance for the OECD across the three areas was calculated. Before I discuss who was below average, however, I will state the results for the top three positions in each category. There are some surprises, here, at least for me.

In Science:

Finland was no.1. (average score 563)
Hong Kong was no.2 (average score 542)
Canada was no.3 (average score 534)

In Reading:

South Korea was no.1 (average score 556)
Finland was no.2 (average score 547)
Hong Kong was no.3 (average score 536)

In Mathematics:

Taipei was no.1 (average score 549)
Finland was no.2 (average score 548)
Hong Kong and South Korea were equal at No.3 (average score 547).

Now, firstly, it is remarkable that both Finland and Hong Kong appear in the top 3 for all categories. This shows that there is a distinct correlation between performance in each of these areas. Perhaps it reveals that bright students, on average, do well in all subjects. Alternatively, that well-educated students do well on all subjects (depending on whether you ascribe the results to nature or nurture).

32 countries were statistically below the average of all OECD countries in science. These included the United States, Spain and Italy.

Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and, oddly, given Finland's astonishing all-round performance, Norway, were below the OECD average in reading.

For mathematics, the United States, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were all below the OECD average.

Interestingly, South Korea beat Finland in reading. This is notable because Finland topped the reading results in both Pisa 2000 and Pisa 2003. Even more interesting, for what it says about the education system in South Korea is the source of the improvement. South Korea improved its average, not by bringing up the performance of the lower end students - whose quality of work remained essentially unchanged - but by enhancing the performance of its more able students. The stellar students shine more brightly in South Korea.

It seems to me that the South Korean approach is more likely to result in truly capable adults, who are able to do something worthwhile. As a nation, they seem to be aiming for peak performance of their best students. Most countries (like the United States and its famous - or infamous - No Child Left Behind Act) appear to aim at strengthening their weakest students. I think this has limited utility from the point of view of getting the best out of a student population. The results of Pisa 2006 seem to show this, with the United States lagging behind most other nations in Science and Mathematics.

The students were generally asked to carry out paper and pencil tasks, in the three areas of Science, Reading and Mathematics.

One of the most interesting results of this study is that Canada came third in Science, but the United States was below average for an OECD country. I am not familiar with the differences between the Canadian systems and the US systems. Perhaps a reader of this blog post can enlighten both myself and my readers by suggesting why Canada came third but the United States was below average. Do Canadians spend more time on Science than US students? Are they just more gifted at it? Is the education system simply better in general? I would welcome any insights on the conundrum.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

No Child Left Behind Act: Is Bush One?

Is President George W. Bush a child left behind? I can't help but wonder - for he characterizes to a great degree, the very children he espouses to support in his keystone educational legislation - the No Child Left Behind Act.

For those of my readers who are not American and do not know, the No Child Left Behind Act requires education authorities and schools to focus on the weaker children - to ensure that, "No Child is Left Behind". This may seem admirable, but has its downside. The effect is that all the more capable kids - that is, almost everyone else - gets ignored, to a greater or lesser degree. In other words, most kids in the American system suffer because of the No Child Left Behind Act. The aim of the schooling system is now to bring up the performance of the worst performers, which tends to lead to the better performers being ignored. Apparently, in many school systems, the lowest scorers improve - but how about everyone else? This matter is largely ignored.

Anyway, the reason I ask whether President George W. Bush is in fact a child left behind, himself, is because of something which happened on Wednesday and which was reported by Reuters.

At a televised event, surrounded by schoolchildren and in the presence of Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, he said: "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

Wow. Children might learn, in such circumstances but, clearly, in the impoverished circumstances of President George W. Bush's own difficult upbringing, he didn't manage to learn basic English grammar.

Now, you might say this may be an isolated incident. But it isn't. The President's grammar is frequently original - but never insightful. He is capable of mistakes I have never heard any native speaker of English ever make - and he does it quite spontaneously - and with mind-numbing regularity. The Reuters report also noted that, the "education President" - as he thinks of himself, once asked: "Is our children learning?"

Probably not, if their President isn't and hasn't, either.

Now, President George W. Bush defends himself by saying that he was an average student at school and makes light of his tendency to mangle English grammar - but I think that poses deeper questions. He may have been an average student - but should an average student be leading a meritocratic nation? (Is America a meritocratic nation? If not, why not?)

Now I have no political opinion on Bush or any other President of America since I don't live there and am largely insulated against most of what they say and do - but I am able to make, therefore, fairly impartial observations.

Generally, a well-functioning brain does not make grammatical errors, on a regular basis, in the speaker's native language - at least, that is what I have observed in the course of my life. Does, therefore, the President of America not have a well-functioning brain? If he doesn't, surely he should.

Perhaps his intelligences are biased towards the non-verbal spheres of mental life. Sadly, I cannot illustrate any decisions, events or actions in favour of this view. Perhaps others can.

It may well be, that, mysterious as it seems, the President of America, George W. Bush is, in some ways, a child left behind. His No Child Left Behind Act, could be the work of a man who empathizes with these children who cannot keep up with their peers. Perhaps, in some way, George W. Bush cannot keep up with his own peers. He must daily be surrounded by his intellectual superiors, in his office. Perhaps that is the very source of his passion for the No Child Left Behind Act. It would seem apt.

Perhaps you, as a reader have some personal experience of the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act and might like to share them. Or maybe you have some insights into that most unusual of figures: the present President of the United States, George W. Bush - and a child left behind?.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

What does "Early College" mean?

Everywhere, the world over, educational systems and standards differ. This makes it very difficult to understand what one nation's educational accomplishments mean without some research.

In America, there is a phenomenon known as "Early College". This is where a child aged under 18 goes to a "College" where the usual age of admission is 18. The procedure is undertaken not infrequently to address the educational needs of gifted children, showing precocity, who might otherwise become bored, disheartened and otherwise switched off, by an unchallenging education, at school. This seems like a good idea, therefore: but what does it mean? What is College?

Every country above the most primitive level, has Universities. Yet, not all Universities are the same. In particular, there is a divide between what an American University is and does - and what Universities in the rest of the world tend to be about - and provide.

In many countries, University is meant for an elite: it is not meant for all. In America, "College" is a much more common experience than it is for the nationals of many other countries. There is a reason for this. In most Western countries, a first degree is used for professional education. In America, a first degree is usually used for general education. What this means is that American Universities are actually doing what is done in secondary school/high school in Europe and all those countries that follow a European style of education (which includes Australia and parts of Asia, and even Africa, as I understand it).

In England, general education is completed, normally, at the age of 16. This is a typical age around the world for general education to have been completed. Then specialist education begins. In America, general education is completed by taking a four year degree: thus it is complete at the age of 22. This means that there is a very important difference between American and European education systems that must be understood if the two are to be compared. An American with a first degree has just completed their general education. A European with a first degree, has, in many cases, completed their professional education, AND their general education.

So, how may we compare the American system to the rest of the world? Well, the website of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, compares requirements for admission to a medical degree, by applicants from different countries of the world. Distilling the essence of what it says is simple. A school leaver from secondary school/high school, aged 18, from anywhere in the world is, in theory, ready to start a medical degree in Ireland (if they are of good grades etc.). Yet, for an American applicant, A BACHELOR'S DEGREE is required for Admission to the normal program. Otherwise candidates have to undergo a special extended program longer than the usual degree.

This site equates an American Bachelor's degree as being equivalent to a high school education in the developed world - or in fact less. It states that an American Bachelor's degree is comparable to Year 11 of the Australian education system: that is, the age of attainment reached at the age of 17, by an Australian "high school" student.

Thus, back to my first question: what does Early College mean, in the American context? It means a high school educational opportunity, in the context of almost all the developed world. It does not mean "University-level" when compared to those who follow a European model.

As I have noted before, in other posts, this difference between the American system and the rest of the world, is due to the emphasis on breadth, at the expense of depth, in the American education sytem up to and including a Bachelor's degree. Most of the rest of the world looks into subjects at depth, much earlier on in a student's education.

This analysis of education systems helps us understand an interesting cultural observation. There are quite a few American kids in Early College, if internet boards are anything to go by. There are virtually none in University in the rest of the world. The reason for this is now clear: like is not being compared with like. An American student in Early College is studying material that a sixteen year old would study in High School/Secondary School in the rest-of-the-world system. Thus to compare like with like, we must look for rest-of-the-world students who have been accelerated to the later stages of High School/Secondary School. We do, in fact, find such students - although they are rare. (I do not have access to numerical data, but I have read of a few cases, in my lifetime). Furthermore, we also find some children who ARE in University while quite young - but these are few, in the rest-of-the-world. They are studying a Bachelor's degree in the main: this is equivalent to an American Doctoral degree.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and eight months, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does College make you fat?

I remember being slim once. It was before I went to University. So slender was I, that I even had the proverbial "six-pack". Ah well. So, am I alone in my observation? Am I the only one to leave University heavier than when I arrived?

No. Not by a long way, if a 2005 study by researchers at Washington University, St. Louis is anything to go by. The work was published in the Journal of American College Health.

Principal investigator, Susan S. Deusinger, obtained height and weight data for 764 incoming freshmen at Washington University. At the end of the year, students being students (and therefore implicitly unreliable) only 290 returned for reassessment, despite being offered financial incentives.

However this was enough to decide whether the folklore of the "Freshman 15" (the number of pounds you would gain, along with your courseload in your first year), had any substance. It did. But not quite 15 pounds. Seventy per cent of freshmen students gained an average of nine pounds in their first year.

Researchers were unable to pinpoint a cause. They noted that there were no noticeable changes in dietary habits, or exercise levels from the start of the year, to the end (awful at both ends, by all accounts). Whatever the cause of the gain, it does show that going to College, does make you fat.

Parents of College going children, have, thus, one more thing to worry about: the health of their offspring. It might be wise to educate them a little in wise food choices - and other lifestyle measures, before they leave your sight.

Note, however, that this study only examined the American college student population - it did not address the issue of whether this was a global phenomenon (though it probably is).

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The incommensurability of education systems

I have discussed this before, but it deserves to be addressed again, in another way and through the lens of another experience.

Education systems are not the same, the world over. The clearest divide is between the American education system and the old, traditional British one, still common throughout the Commonwealth and former colonies.

The American system prides itself on breadth. At every stage from first grade to "College" - there is breadth. The British system goes for depth: at every stage from the first year of school to the last year of University, there is greater depth, than in the American system. This leads to much incomprehension when Americans seek to understand the achievements of British style educated kids - and vice-versa. Quite simply: is it possible to compare breadth with depth? Are they commensurable?

My belief is that they are not readily comparable - for where the American loses in depth, they gain in breadth - and where the British/Commonwealth/European loses in breadth they gain in depth.

There is however one way we can compare them: cognitive complexity. The cognitive demands of an old-style British education of O Levels and A Levels followed by a single subject University degree are greater than at any given age in the American system. This is not a controversial statement. It is readily seen by looking at any online US based course designed for a given age and comparing what would be demanded under the traditional British style education at the same age.

What do I mean by cognitive demand? Well, the difficulty of a subject comes in the depth: the level of concepts and techniques, skills and knowledge that must be mastered. It is in the depth that this is to be found. In breadth, one is held largely to an introductory level of knowledge, simply because so many things are being looked at. In this way, the challenge doesn't deepen - and grow, thereby.

The American system probably catches up in Graduate School (I am not sure but that seems more specialized) - but a taught Graduate degree in the US is probably little more than a taught Undergraduate degree in the old-British style single subject system. This seems obvious because it CANNOT BE OTHERWISE when the Undergraduate US degrees have such breadth in them. Because of that breadth, they are limited in depth.

I will give you a practical example of the incommensurability of these systems at work. A few months back, Ainan and I sat through a University of Berkeley, California, Physics lecture. I presume it was a first year lecture because it was so very simplistic that Ainan, six at the time, who had no formal physics background, thought it very simple indeed. In fact, I would say it was pre-O level. That is the level it was pitched at was below a course of study normally started by 14 year olds and finished by 16 year olds in the old traditional British style education. It wasn't even hard enough to be called O level. It was late primary/early secondary level - and yet that was Berkeley. This set me thinking about the nature of education systems. Raymond Ravaglia's remark that the American system "teaches to the left of the distribution" also opened my eyes as to what was happening here.

This phenomenon of great breadth and little depth in the American system - and great depth but little breadth in the traditional British system - leads to the impossibility of either side understanding the academic achievements of the other, fully. There will always be some failure to understand what it is that the other has done and can do.

American Universities recruit students directly after O level, in Singapore. That shows that O level is equal to or above High School graduation standard. The Berkeley lecture makes me wonder how much above that standard it might be.

Yet, all is not lost for the American system. The great breadth means that an American educated child should be able to handle a great variety of tasks - and there is merit in that, too. It just depends on what the culture needs.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fourteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Ravaglia on American education and the gifted

Raymond Ravaglia is the Deputy Director of the Stanford University, EPGY (the Education Program for Gifted Youth) and recently he gave a talk in Singapore.

One of the themes he addressed, briefly, was the state of American education. He summarized the style of American education by stating that, generally, American classes are pitched to "to the left of the distribution"...by which he meant the Bell Curve, of IQ distributions. He said that this was done so that those "to the left" were not left behind. This worked in keeping those of lower IQs happy but it had an unfortunate side effect: those to the right of the distribution - the ones for whom EPGY was conceived - would tend to be bored by American education.

Thus, EPGY is pitched to the right of the distribution. It is deliberately aimed at stimulating some of the brightest students. This could have the unfortunate consequence that some on the EPGY (he didn't say it, but seemed to mean those who had just scraped into the courses) might be left out a bit, but he did say that the course instructors did generally manage to keep all-comers happy. Yet, he did make it clear that the type of pitch of material at EPGY was very different to what would be expected in a standard American classroom.

He addressed this point quickly and in passing, but I felt it to be one of the more important things that he said: this pitch to the left of the Bell Curve was one of the big failings in American education - for it ensured that ALL gifted children would be left out in the classroom. There is something not quite right in that. Are not the gifted an important intellectual constituency to be nurtured and groomed to become the best that they may? I would have thought so, but it seems that American education has overlooked this and only in exceptional cases is the matter of the education of the gifted properly addressed.

America is the world's leading nation - but how much longer can it be, if the needs of its most gifted are neglected? Your thoughts please.