Underachievement rates among those gifted children

[cindysphynx]

I've been listening in on this lengthy and very interesting 
discussion of gifted children.  I certainly agree with a lot of what 
has been said:  that gifted children have special educational needs, 
that an inappropriate education will cause problems for them and so 
forth.

There are, however, a few things about the conversation that I find 
rather troubling.  So I think I'll just go ahead and raise these 
issues in my capacity as interested lay bystander.  I mean no 
disrespect to anyone who has weighed in with their own views or 
experiences on this issue, of course.  But if we're going to discuss 
it, we might as well ask some of the Tough Questions.

Of special concern to me is the idea that gifted 
children "underachieve" in substantial numbers.  Or, as Shaun put it 
(Message 10,871):

>The problem is that over 50% of gifted children are underachievers -
>and the higher you get up the scale of giftedness (there are 
>generally considered by experts to be three or four levels of 
>giftedness - each with significantly different educational needs) - 
>the higher that proportion is - and a significant number of these 
>kids are underachievers because their school environment is 
>inappropriate to them.

Goodness!  If it were true that 50% of gifted children are 
underachievers, and if this could be documented, it would be rather 
alarming indeed.  After all, if half of any population is failing at 
something worthwhile that they ought to be able to do and want to 
do, then this is certainly cause for concern.

But as the discussion has progressed, I find myself wondering 
whether we are anywhere *close* to establishing that 50% of gifted 
children underachieve.  Much of our discussion so far has involved 
anecdotal evidence –- interesting, probative to some extent perhaps, 
but far from sufficient to make such a sweeping and important 
statement.  

On the other hand, I sense a feeling from Shaun that his views and 
advocacy are based on more than anecdotal evidence (Message 10,937):

>[W]hat I advocate is based on solid research

AND


>I don't advocate these practices unless I know they work. Unless I 
>know that (1) there is a solid body of research evidence to back 
>them up, (2) that there is no significant level of evidence to 
>oppose the[m] . . . "  (Message 10,922)


It seems to me that before we can launch into an analysis of whether 
gifted children underachieve (whether based on anecdotal evidence or 
solid research), we should acknowledge that we have quite a number 
of obstacles in our path:

1. We have to define underachievement, either objectively or 
subjectively.  

2. If we use an objective measure of achievement, we will need to 
make a number of value judgments about what constitutes achievement 
versus failure/underachievement.  

3. If we use a subjective measure premised on the child's own 
internal goals and aspirations, we will have to be confident that 
the child's views are indeed the child's own assessment, not the 
assessment of others or the result of pressure or influence.  We 
will also have to decide how to discern whether a shift in goal is 
underachievement or merely a change in aspirations.

4. Whether we use an objective or subjective measure, we must 
somehow discern whether the child had an ability in the first place 
to achieve whatever the child failed to achieve.  This might in turn 
require us to examine whether the assessment that labeled the child 
as gifted (frequently the child's performance on an IQ test, if I 
understand correctly) has any meaningful relationship to the ability 
to achieve a particular goal.

All of this strikes me as immensely complex, to tell you the truth.

Apparently, there has been some research indicating that 50% of 
gifted children underachieve.  If I'm reading our discussion 
correctly, however, the major studies and published research to date 
use *objective* measures of whether the children are underachieving, 
not *subjective* measures.

Elkins asked about this (Message 10,957):

>So *are* there, in fact, any studies that have used the 
[subjective] definition 
>that you gave above as their standard, and then gone on to find 
>similarly high rates of underachieving among the top twentieth 
>percentile?

Shaun replied (Message 10,982):

>There's been a lot of new research done over the last 7 years, a 
>fair amount of which hasn't been formally published yet - much to 
>my chagrin, because I have written a chapter of one of the books 
>that is sitting around waiting for publication (-8 I don't know the 
>exact reasons for the delays - the papers and books are ready, and 
>have often been accepted for publication - then they just sit 
>there. . . . That study isn't ready for publication yet - they'd 
>like to double the sample size, and part of the study is intended to
>continue for at least another five years to study medium term 
>effects, but it's found around half of all gifted children 
>underachieve to at least a moderate level, under the 
>definition I gave.


Now, I'm no expert, and I certainly haven't read any of the studies 
that Shaun and Elkins discussed.  But reading between the lines 
here, it sounds like there *is no* completed, published, peer-
reviewed study at all that uses a *subjective* measure to assess 
whether a gifted child is an underachiever and whether 50% of gifted 
children underachieve.  At the moment, we just don't know one way or 
the other, apparently.

If I've read this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), then I 
*really* start to wonder about the foundation for the statement that 
half of gifted children underachieve.  The reason for my concern is 
that the statement seems based on external, objective measures of 
achievement coupled with a rather wobbly assessment of whether the 
child had an ability to achieve in the first instance.  

One problem is that the statement assumes that the mere fact that a 
child has been identified as gifted or even profoundly gifted 
(apparently based on IQ, primarily) means that the child *should* go 
on to "achieve."  That, I think, is a huge leap, and an unfounded 
one.  After all, as several people have pointed out, IQ tests 
measure only one very narrow component of what it takes to achieve.  
Indeed, Shaun indicated that a very tight definition of intelligence 
is used (Message 10,875):

>Intelligence is generally defined for psychological purposes as the 
>ability to comprehend cognitive complexity - a very tight 
>definition. While this isn't the same as logic or reasoning 
>ability, it correlates very highly with them (estimated correlation 
>is better than 0.9) - you don't often get correlations that high in 
>psychological tests. It still means it's not perfect - but it's 
>very close, and extremely useful.

Therefore, it seems to do the child an injustice to rely on an IQ 
test to decide that he/she is capable of "achieving" (whatever that 
means) and will be labeled an underachiever if he/she does not.  
This is particularly so in light of the fact that "achievement" 
requires much more than just the ability to reason, and Shaun 
acknowledged as much in Message 10,887):

>I think resourcefullness is more important than IQ. So is self 
>discipline and a variety of other things.

It seems inherently unfair to me to measure a child's ability to 
reason, to then acknowledge that many other qualities influence 
success and achievement, but to label gifted children who have not 
been proven to have these other qualities as "underachievers" if 
they fail to achieve.

Ah, but that takes us to the real problem in my eyes – the 
definition of achievement.  Whether you use a subjective or 
objective definition, deciding whether anyone underachieved is 
fraught with uncertainty –- to the point that I cannot see the value 
of even asking the question.

Let me take Shaun's example of the 8-year-old boy who wanted to be 
an engineer.  Let me then admit I know precious little about 
engineering, so I'll tinker with the hypothetical to change the 
child's goal to something that gives me a more secure footing in 
this discussion.  Let's assume instead that the 8-year-old boy wants 
to be a federal court judge in the U.S.  This child just loves the 
law with a passion, and he tests profoundly gifted in IQ and has no 
learning disabilities.  IQ supposedly measures "ability to 
comprehend cognitive complexity", practicing law certainly requires 
that ability, so the child's goal arguably bears some relationship 
to the proficiency he displayed on the IQ test. 

In fact, Shaun suggests that we should further assume that our 
profoundly gifted boy isn't just a one-trick pony (Message 10,907):

>Most profoundly gifted kids are fairly 'evenly' gifted - their 
>level of academic ability is about the same across all areas of 
>learning (about - not totally). There are some with domain specific 
>gifts, as there are among all people - but that's a minority.

Better yet, Shaun suggests that we can also safely assume that our 
profoundly gifted boy is not socially stunted and relates to others 
just fine (Message 11,026):

>In the social sense, gifted children rarely have problems making 
>friends etc, because they lack social skills. It's quite the 
>opposite - the problems occur because the other children around 
>them do not [have] the same level of social skills. 

Fast forward to adulthood.  If the child is just a lawyer instead of 
a federal judge, has he objectively failed to achieve?  How about if 
he is a document clerk in a law firm?  Legal secretary?  Court 
bailiff or court reporter?  How about if he attends law school for 
one year, decides he hates law after all, drops out, and happily 
begins teaching in a pre-school?  How about if the child winds up in 
a low-status/low-paid position of any sort without ever pursuing his 
childhood passion for the law?

I don't know for sure what the studies that use objective measures 
would say to these questions, but I have a feeling that even if the 
child were happy teaching pre-school, there would be a feeling 
(among parents, teachers, researchers and psychologists) that the 
child had "underachieved."  I somehow suspect that "achievement" is 
defined to some extent by status, prestige and compensation, 
although I certainly hope that I am wrong about that.  

And I don't think that is fair or right.  After all, there is much, 
much more to becoming a judge or even a lawyer than the ability to 
do well on an IQ test, or even the ability to reason.  The sad fact 
may simply be that the child did not have the ability (i.e. talent) 
to achieve this goal, despite being "intelligent."  So what do we 
hope to gain by labeling the child as an "underachiever?"

Ironically, even using subjective measures, the children most likely 
to be labeled underachievers might be those who set 
ambitious/prestigious goals for themselves or who have adults in 
their lives who set these goals for them.  I find myself wondering 
whether a child who sets a goal "beneath" the expectations of 
parents, teachers and psychologists will receive tremendous pressure 
to set a higher goal.  Perhaps the 8-year-old who does high-school 
level math is free to declare that he "just" he wishes to teach pre-
school, but I have trouble imagining that this goal wouldn't be 
questioned early and often.  

And if the child is abandoning a previous lofty goal, I worry that 
the child will encounter adult resistance to some extent.  Shaun 
wrote (Message 10,982):

>As for changing goals, we basically accept them as the child's 
>right to change.  If we think they are making a mistake, we may 
>advise against it and explain why we think it's a mistake - but 
>really it's their choice in the end, and our responsibility is to 
>help it happen.

I would imagine that it is the rare child indeed who would be 
willing to downsize his/her goals or switch to a totally different 
area of interest in the face of adult advice to the contrary.  The 
result, I would imagine, might be a child who goes with the flow, 
who sticks with the areas in which he is believed to be gifted, only 
to be tagged as an underachiever should he finally decide to change 
his goals or pursue another path for whatever reason.

After all, we don't label non-gifted children as underachievers if 
they do not reach goals they set for themselves or if they don't 
reach some objective measure of achievement.  There are many 
internal and external reasons beyond ability that a person might not 
reach a goal.  As I understand the subjective definition 
of "underachiever" that Shaun has used, it is (Message 10,922):

> "A person who is not achieving at a particular level, who is known 
> to have both the ability and the desire to achieve at that level."

I'll use myself as an example here, just to see how I measure up.  
I've always wanted to be a judge, I still want to be a judge, I have 
the ability to be a judge, and I even have the academic and 
professional credentials to be a judge.  Nevertheless, I am not a 
judge and will probably never attain this goal.  There are at least 
two reasons that come to mind why someone like me might not achieve 
a life goal.  First, sometimes people make perfectly legitimate 
decisions that move them away from reaching their goal (the decision 
to put one's profession on hold in favor of raising children is one 
example, but there are many others).  Second, there can be external 
factors that impede achievement of the goal (lack of political 
connections that would lead to appointment to the bench).  

Under Shaun's subjective definition of "underachiever," I am a 
textbook underachiever.  Yet no one has ever claimed I was 
underachieving by any subjective or objective measure.  And why is 
that?  Well, there is one thing missing from my profile that 
separates me from the 8-year-old boy in my hypothetical example 
earlier -- I never scored as gifted or profoundly gifted on an IQ 
test.  It strikes me as quite misguided to suggest that changing one 
thing about my life (whether I score high on an IQ test or other 
tests as a youngster) would earn me the label "underachiever".

All of this leads me to think that, despite the best intentions of 
those involved with gifted children, gifted children are being 
saddled with an obligation that other children do not have -– the 
*obligation* to succeed/achieve.  There might even be a feeling that 
the gifted child owes a bit of a debt to society – the obligation 
not to "waste" their God-given talents and abilities.  The gifted 
child must carry all of that baggage, based on someone else's narrow 
assessment of what those gifts are, what the child could be expected 
to do with those gifts, and whether the child has milked sufficient 
results from them.  

That said, I wonder whether, in the zeal to advocate the interests 
of gifted children, we might be overstating the case just a bit.  
After all, educational resources are limited.  Gifted children must 
compete for these resources with LD children and "average" 
children.  Perhaps raising with alarm the possibility that gifted 
children will "underachieve" and thereby waste their considerable 
talents -– talents that could change the world –- is seen as a way 
to secure greater resources for gifted children.  Perhaps it might 
even work.

I have to wonder, however, whether we're necessarily doing gifted 
children a favor by saddling them with these expectations and 
obligations.  Before we do, I'd at least like to see additional 
solid evidence that gifted children are at greater risk 
of "underachieving" than anyone else and that there is a darn good 
reason to label half of gifted children as "underachievers."

Cindy