I believe that Chris Langan is very successful. Although he was unable to go to college, and therefore not taking very seriously in the science community, he is still the smartest man in the U.S.A. Also, he has been able to make kim self happy, and succeed more than many other people. Currently, he lives on a farm with his wife, and raises animals. Although some people may say he can do more with his potential, that may not be necessary. I believe success is a matter of opinon, and if he did what he wanted to do, then he IS successful. I think that if you accomplished your goals, no matter what they are, then you are successful.
Fun Fact? Chris' IQ measures between 195 and 210, which is currently the highest in the U.S.A.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Kindergarten Debate
Currently we are reading the book "Outliers" in G&T. At a part we are at, we are debating whether it is good or bad to hold your kids back a year when starting kindergarten, based on their age. We read an article named "Delay Kindergarten at Your Child's Peril" alongside our book, so we can see to sides to the argument..
I disagree with the idea in the article about how a child starting kindergarten late can have a negative impact on them. I believe that the "Outliers" is correct in the view it states. Matthew Gladwell says that most children who start school late will have it better, because being the older children in the grade, they will appear to be smarter, and therefore get more attention. This is the same as what happens in sports, when because a child is bigger and stronger, coaches assume they are just better. The name of this is "accumulative advantage". I believe that if you are older, and start when you are older, you will be able to comprehend things easier, which will give you a major jump start.
The article about how children would do worse overall if they start late does makes good points though. One, is the observations that they observed. They say "In a class of 25, the average difference is equivalent to going from 13th place to 11th. This advantage fades by the end of elementary school, though, and disadvantages start to accumulate. In high school, red shirted children are less motivated and perform less well. By adulthood, they are no better off in wages or educational attainment — in fact, their lifetime earnings are reduced by one year." This means that although the older children will start off better, they will fall farther and farther behind as time goes on. They also say this will have an effect on their financial success in life.
All in all, I believe that it would be better if a child starts late, because i think that Matthew Gladwell's idea of accumulative advantage would be in place. This would make their time in school more successful and, in turn, their chances at a more successful future would be higher.
I disagree with the idea in the article about how a child starting kindergarten late can have a negative impact on them. I believe that the "Outliers" is correct in the view it states. Matthew Gladwell says that most children who start school late will have it better, because being the older children in the grade, they will appear to be smarter, and therefore get more attention. This is the same as what happens in sports, when because a child is bigger and stronger, coaches assume they are just better. The name of this is "accumulative advantage". I believe that if you are older, and start when you are older, you will be able to comprehend things easier, which will give you a major jump start.
The article about how children would do worse overall if they start late does makes good points though. One, is the observations that they observed. They say "In a class of 25, the average difference is equivalent to going from 13th place to 11th. This advantage fades by the end of elementary school, though, and disadvantages start to accumulate. In high school, red shirted children are less motivated and perform less well. By adulthood, they are no better off in wages or educational attainment — in fact, their lifetime earnings are reduced by one year." This means that although the older children will start off better, they will fall farther and farther behind as time goes on. They also say this will have an effect on their financial success in life.
All in all, I believe that it would be better if a child starts late, because i think that Matthew Gladwell's idea of accumulative advantage would be in place. This would make their time in school more successful and, in turn, their chances at a more successful future would be higher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)