Research and Genius

In 1968 Julian Stanley, a researcher in psychometrics (the study of cognitive performance) met a young man named Joseph Bates. Bates was twelve at the time and his parents, finding him bored in school, enrolled him a computer science course at Johns Hopkins University. That alone did not cure his boredom and he began teaching graduate students a programming language. Stanley then had him take the SAT along with other tests. He ended up scoring higher than required for admission at Johns Hopkins. At this point, Stanley made an effort to find a high school where the boy could take advanced math courses. Unfortunately, it did not work out. He later convinced the dean of Johns Hopkins to allow Bates to take courses there. Bates soon enrolled as an undergraduate.  

It appears that children with “genius,” minds are more common than we realize. In addition, there seems to be a genetic propensity to this phenomenon.  High achievers tend to run in families.  But, more research needs to be done on the genetic component   There is the argument that those with more economic privilege are more likely to achieve higher degrees or contribute because they have the additional advantages and access to a better education.  One of my original questions was if it was genetic. This may not necessarily be the case. Though he is obviously an intelligent boy, his parents seemed to be average, otherwise they would have dealt with it differently. This also brings to attention the fact that this all began back in 1968. That was almost fifty years ago and in the time since, many geniuses have emerged, creating Facebook, Google, and other innovative technologies.

After his encounter with Bates, Mr. Stanley created the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). This study transformed and continues to transform the education system in the United States. It is currently the longest running survey, lasting for forty-five years and counting, tracking the careers and accomplishments of five thousand individuals. Many of these individuals became high-achieving scientists. The study has also generated four hundred books, many papers, and helped increase understanding on how to develop Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), focused talent.

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth is an ongoing study. This causes one to wonder whether it will last long enough to tell us anything significant. Though it has already begun to, will it have an impact on how history unfolds in the future? This also calls into question the United States education system, where the main focus is not on developing genius, but rather helping low performing students to improve. “There is an enduring misperception among educators that gifted kids are bright enough to succeed on their own and that we should focus more on low-performing students” (Clynes, 46). The important factor in this discussion is that precocious youth cannot do it on their own, despite popular belief. They require nurture and help, just as the average, or below average student does.

Stanley wanted to find the highest potential STEM students and boost the chance that they would succeed. His goal was to not only study their minds, but nurture their vast intellect. What he learned is that the precociously gifted tend to be more influential. Many innovators, in various fields, are those who were identified at a young age as having, “unique cognitive abilities.” They were supported through programs like the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, that Mr. Stanley started in 1980 in correlation with SMPY. The center was open to students who scored in the top one percent of college entrance exams. Many highly accomplished people have passed through the center, a few being Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin.

“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wei with Duke Talent Identification Program. He has combined data from SMPY and eleven other sources, demonstrating the correlation between early cognitive ability and adult achievement. He says that the students to test in the top one percent happen to become the scientists, academics, Fortune 500 CEOs, federal judges, senators, and billionaires.

This research shows that, unlike popular belief, hard work and practice are not the only factors to determine success. SMPY shows us that, “[E]arly cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socioeconomic status” (Clynes, 43). However, this is not all a perfect system, the downfall of identifying talented students, through talent searches and standardized tests, is that it raises the question of whether it is the right thing to do. This is especially troubling in areas where there are poor or rural students.

In conclusion, I believe that genius is a significant part of the makeup of our society. Not only do they create and envision our technology, but also push us forward. As for the ethics of such things, I suppose that is for the reader to decide.