[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Underachievement rates among those gifted children

[Shaun Hately]

On 6 Jun 2002 at 17:23, pippin_999 wrote:

> Last time I posted on this thread I proved I didn't know what I was 
> talking about--and I appreciate Shaun pointing it out so gently. 
> 
> So I have been lurking since then, but I am curious about the 
> 50% statistic. If 50% of the gifted underachieve, how is that 
> different from saying, for example, that 50% of drivers are worse 
> than average, which is just what you would expect?

Fair quesion - because I haven't made that clear at all.

We don't base our ideas of 'underachievement' on averages - if we did, then we 
would expect to find 50% below the average and 50% above the average, naturally 
enough.

What we look at is achievement based on level of ability, and underachievement 
*may* be considered (it isn't automatically) in cases where the level of achievement 
is significantly below what is indicated by ability - not just below, but significantly 
below.

If we're dealing with a 9 year old, say, who we know could be achieving at 9th grade 
level in mathematics, we wouldn't even be thinking about underachievement 
*unless* they were below 6th grade standard. Before we even consider the 
possibility, there has to be a significant discrepancy. If they were below 6th grade 
standard, then we'd start looking for why - and underachievement might then be 
identified. *Might* be - not would be.




 

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia