There are relatively limited ways that society measures the value of a person: intelligence, socio-economic class, attractiveness, achievements, etc. But the one that seems to be at the center of most of these is intelligence. But what is intelligence really? I mean what does it mean to be smart, gifted, talented, brilliant or a genius? Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills but does that apply to the fine arts as much as academics? What I’ve come to realize is that its not seen that way as much, and that society has a very rigid view of what it means to be intelligent and that view is very much forced on children making their way through their formative years.
Like pretty much everything in our society, the path towards intellectual development in the early years is not a level playing field. And the socio-economic status of the parents/whoever is raising the child means everything in the journey. More affluent, well educated parents are likely to help them develop verbal skills earlier, read to their children, teach them simple math etc. during critical years of brain development. As opposed to say a working class family who may have to work many hours a week to sustain their family and as a result the academic/intellectual development of a toddler, preschooler or elementary schooler is further down on the priority list.
There have been many, many cultural shifts in recent years that revolve around progressive ideals and one believe it or not is questioning traditional intelligence quotient (iq) tests. Many have emphasized that disparities exist among class and racial lines, because the tests are structured in a way that is biased towards white, wealthier people. Which in some form determine entry into higher level courses and gifted programs in schools. And of course gifted programs in schools are designed with the notion that certain kids aren’t challenged enough with general education and their intelligence must be nurtured in order to unlock all of their potential, for themselves and theoretically for society. But does anyone stop to think about the downside to these programs. For one thing it can be disheartening and discouraging for kids who are not accepted into them.
And I know this because I was once that little girl. I was so unsure of myself, desperate for validation. Yes, some people viewed me as smart but there were more that saw only my learning disabilities (attentional and processing issues) and academic troubles and called me stupid while comparing me to my sister who was in gifted programs since we were in elementary school, and aced every higher level course available.
So when I reached middle school, I became so fixated on successfully testing into PACE (our school district’s gifted and talented program). It was an attempt to measure up to my sister, prove all of the bullies wrong and most importantly find a place of belonging. But in both 6th and 7th grade I was rejected and felt crushed. I saw all of the fun and fascinating assignments and activities PACE kids had and I felt that they were the ones who would be the visionaries and success stories of the future and there was no hope for me. I know that sounds really melodramatic but thats just how my 11 and 12 year old brain worked. It was all black and white and it would take a lot of time, soul searching and maturing for some shades of gray.
Now coming back to gifted programs: Black, Hispanic and Native American children as well as those of lower socio-economic classes are extremely underrepresented in gifted and talented programs as a result. This is largely because poorer school districts don’t have the resources to have these programs run successfully or even to testing to identify these kids, but also how the testing is structured as I mentioned before.
Which begs the question, why do some races perform so much better academically than others? More specifically why have Asians become the “model minority”? Why are they viewed by many as smarter more broadly than everyone else and are more skilled in math and science specifically? Is it cultural? Could it be biological? Perhaps a combination of the two?
I have never gotten sufficient answers to any of those questions which is maybe why they never cease to fascinate me. So I’ve done some research and it turns out it’s kind of obvious a lot of it has to do with their cultural identity, while not everyone has a ‘tiger mom’ there are many more that feel that they’d let their heritage down by not meeting certain expectations
(by the way I’m referring to East Asians). Also part of Asian-American academic success is related to U.S. immigration policy. Many high-achieving Asian-American students have well-educated and relatively well-to-do parents, admitted to the U.S. because they were seen as potential assets to our country.
So the next thing I’m pondering is could it also be biological? Meaning how much of intellect is genetic? And by that I mean individual to individual not in terms of race.
Which that takes us back to the never ending nature vs. nurture debate. Scientists believe that much of the results of I.Q tests are genetic. But I.Q test results showcase skills learned in school almost as much as raw cognitive abilities, giving privileged kids the upper hand yet again.
That being said intelligence can only take you so far. It means that you have potential but isn’t everything. The world is littered with highly intelligent people who have lots of untapped potential because they haven’t found their niche, have issues that can impede them from fulfilling their potential or they simply don’t work hard enough. Even Albert Einstein whose very name is synonymous with genius (I would argue more than anyone in history) failed his college entrance exams because he didn’t study as he was convinced his intellect alone would be enough to ace them. So dream big, focus on your strengths but be dedicated enough to see it through.
"Asian-American Parenting and Academic Success." Pacific Standard, psmag.com/education/asian-american-parenting-and-academic-success-26053.
Comments