Well, I did okay, but reading early wasn’t the reason. I was lucky enough to be in high school classes with lots and lots of smart people, so I never could coast, and I never got an automatic A. That prepared me very well for MIT. One of my roommates there, who is much smarter than me, was like a standard deviation ahead of anyone in his high school. (I went back with him, and we visited teachers, and I could see this.) I think he got the highest Underwriter Exam score in Texas history. He had a much harder time than I did, and while he has a good career, with insurance, I have a lot more visibility than he does.
I also had the advantage that, though I never had to go through the graded reading exercises, pretty much no one ever treated me differently as far as I could tell. Sure I got into the SP and Honors classes, but lots of people did. That was very healthy.
What do you base this claim on? Again, I’m highly skeptical: this is a little bit like the guy I knew who claimed he was flying a fighter jet when he was twelve. Are you basing it on your own memory, or on what your mom tells you? Are either of these accurate sources of information about your childhood?
I say this because I’ve talked with a lot of second graders very extensively about literature, including kids who can decode just about any word put in front of them. None of them–not one–has been as good as a fourth grader at understanding character motivation. I simply don’t believe that a kindergartener is understanding character motivation on a college level.
I’m glad someone else is questioning this, because I had a similar reaction.
When you say you understood character motivation, for example, to what degree and in what context? it’s one thing to be able to say “Sam did that because he was scared and mad” and another to say, “Sam did that because he felt the other man was a threat to his safety” and a third thing entirely to say, “Well, Sam had always been looking for acceptance, ever since his father left when he was six. So for him to lash out at a coworker when…” Blah blah blah. I can’t see a kindergartner getting beyond something between the first and the second example. I’d have to think that someone would have had to have more than 6 years’ worth of lived experience in order to formulate the kind of character analysis that goes on in a college-level literature class.
It’s barely–BARELY!–in the realm of possibility that a kindergartener could read these three sentences with 95% accuracy. They’d need to be awesome to read guarantee individual applies decision District Columbia addressed federal question overreaching local governments correctly; miss 5 of those, and you’re lower than 95%. (Each word in that list has an alternate pronunciation plausible to most early readers). Maybe an incredibly rare child could do it, but it’s incredibly unlikely.
But comprehend it?
To comprehend it, you need to understand:
-What government is.
-What the Supreme Court is.
-What the Second Amendment is.
-What an individual right is.
-What it means to bear arms.
-The difference between federal, state, and local laws.
-What gun control is.
-What a 5-4 decision means.
-What “overreaching” means.
That is a TREMENDOUS amount of background knowledge. Most 6-year-olds have only the vaguest concept of what government is, and I find it literally incredible that any six-year-old would have all the background knowledge necessary to understand just those first three sentences.
What’s far more likely is that a kid is bright, and a mom is super-proud of her bright kid, and the mom exaggerates the intelligence of the kid, confirmation bias clouding her judgment.
Folks: please don’t rely on your mom for an accurate assessment of your childhood accomplishments. She is the single least reliable adult source for this information.
Of course I didn’t have the knowledge and context to know that stuff. That’s ridiculous.
My grammar, vocabulary, and ability to tease out information with given context was at that level, though. And Mom didn’t brag about me to her friends or anything, but she did make for damn sure that I was where I was supposed to be. It wasn’t Mom who determined I was reading at that level: it was the people who tested me and shoved me as far ahead in English as they could. It was professionals, not a doting mother. She couldn’t have talked them into letting me into the gifted programs or into grade-advanced English classes if I was incapable of them.
I base a lot of this on memory, not what Mom told me – especially because most of these memories are of classrooms and independent reading. I read absolutely voraciously as a child and, while I’m sorry to disappoint you, I really DID understand what I was reading. I understood that Frodo was unnaturally kind to Gollum not just because he was a good guy but because he was terrified that he was seeing himself and wanted to believe that he wouldn’t be that lost. I got that when I was eight or nine.
It made me a ridiculously good student when it came to anything that was based on reading comprehension. I zipped through the comprehension assignments and found them a bit dull. I remember being annoyed with the paragraph-long questions at the end of my fourth-grade English reading assignments – not because I’d have to go back and think about Mr. Popper and his penguins but because it would take a long time to explain the answer sufficiently and it seemed like a waste of effort for something so obvious.
Now, I didn’t get through everything. I tried The Scarlet Letter and hated it and didn’t have the patience to get through it. Same with The Prisoner of Zenda. I got the Christian imagery in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe straight off and grumbled about it being so dang obvious when I read The Princess and Curdie.
I agree that critical analysis needs to be trained. I agree that ignorance of context can prove problematic. But I also remember taking lots and lots of tests where I had to read something for which I had absolutely no context and answering comprehension questions. It never gave me much trouble, and typically the wrong answers I got were as a result of rushing.
Honestly, my personal worth is not determined by whether you do or do not believe I could do this. It doesn’t matter to me. Just letting you know: it’s possible.
The point everyone is making is: what makes college level reading college level reading is not the ability to sound out big words, but ability to comprehend complex ideas. If you couldn’t do this at a “college level,” then you weren’t reading at a college level.
When I was a little tyke reading Little House on the Prairie, I didn’t understand what frontier life was like beforehand. I learned it from that book. I came to understand it. I did not have the context before. I gained it from reading.
When I read Beezus and Ramona, I had never had a sister and didn’t know what having one was like. I did not have the context before. I gained it from reading.
Part of the testing involves using nonsense words and figuring out what they mean from context. If a kid can’t do that, they’re not reading at that high level. If you can understand most of the sentence or paragraph or whatever and can use that understanding to pick up what the nonsense word must mean, well, that’s part of what they’re testing for.
Ignorance of the subject you’re reading does not equate to an inability to understand it. If it did, you couldn’t learn from reading.
Ok, how about this: if at 6 you had been placed in a college English class (even a 101), could you have passed? Since you were working at a college level.
I’m sorry, I won’t do either of those. Florida’s not here to argue with, and if it were, it’d bring me some specifics. And I don’t think you’re lying; rather, I think you’re talking about something you don’t know much about, operating on the highly flawed memories of childhood. Being mistaken and lying are two different things. Also I’m aware that thinking of oneself as an ultra-genius kid can be core to one’s identity, and it can suck having that called into question.
I’m loath to use examples from my own childhood (except when they’re totally freakin’ obvious, as above), but I know firsthand what I’m talking about.
Understanding Frodo’s terror at seeing himself, when you’re in third or fourth grade? That’s good: that means that you were reading at maybe a tenth-grade level when you were in third or fourth grade. There’s a significant gulf between tenth-grade level and college level, though, and the gap between kindergarten and fourth grade is absolutely immense. The scaled-back claim is much more plausible.
Note the challenge I gave earlier to Trucelt, giving her the outlines of a standard reading assessment that I conduct with my students several times each year. That’s the kind of stuff we expect a second-grader to know.
I don’t know of the assessments used at high school level, much less college level, other than from my own experience–and I wouldn’t presume to call myself an expert because of those memories. I suspect, however, that reading at a high-school level would require things such as:
-Identifying metaphor, simile, and other poetic devices in the writing.
-Identifying use of foreshadowing and irony.
-Explaining the significance of references to great works of literature.
-Elaborating on the theme of the book, connecting it to themes of other similar works.
As for your claim that the professionals’ moving you into second grade provides evidence of your reading on a college level, that’s ridiculous on its face. It provides excellent evidence that you were reading on a second-grade level, but no evidence of anything else. Else why didn’t they move you to a college-level lit class? Were they imperfect professionals?
You say that you’re just letting me know “it’s possible.” What’s very possible is that somewhere along the line, someone told you that you were reading at college level, or else told you that you were reading better than some college students, or that you were reading their college textbook, or something similar. What’s very possible is that you were a highly advanced reader. What’s not possible–again, what’s literally incredible–is the claim that a six-year-old can read on a college level, complete with comprehension.
Again, I once knew a guy who claimed that he flew a fighter jet for the air force at the age of 12, the youngest pilot ever in the air force. He was a pathological liar, and I absolutely don’t think that you are–but if it weren’t for air force regulations, I’d find his claim more credible than yours, if only because I don’t know shit about flying a jet fighter, and I know quite a bit about child psychology and cognitive development and reading skills.
[Edit: and FWIW, my advanced second-graders read and loved Little House in the Big Woods. They needed a lot of support. Again, it’s totally believable that a first-grader with tremendous reading skills cold read it without support and get the general gist of what’s going on.]
I guess that this was where I was coming from in my skepticism. Again, not to say that you are lying. But my freshman English books in college included:
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
The White Hotel by D.M. Thomas
Where I’m Calling From:Selected Stories by Raymond Carver
and some other stuff. I’m trying to imagine the 6-year-old who can deliver a cogent analysis of character motivation, plot advancement, or any other critical reading skill on one of the above texts.
The over-the top defensiveness and hostility that TruCelt showed when she was (gently) questioned about the claims she was making about her daughter told me that TruCelt knows damn well that what she wrote isn’t accurate, and was upset that she was called on her exaggerations, instead of being lavished with praise for her kinder-genius offspring.
Little Plastic Ninja is not quite as rabid, but as you say, apparently calling someone’s claims of youthful super-intelligence into honest questioning can REALLY piss off some adults who nonetheless take pains to say say that their “personal worth is not determined” by their supposed high achievement as youngsters…
Just to even out all these child prodigies: To the best of my memory I didn’t learn to read until I started first grade. My parents didn’t send me to kindergarten for some reason, and I had no interest in the few books that might have been around the house (my mother was a reader, but my father wasn’t). So I was a bit behind the other kids; it also might not have helped that in second grade I was found to be so nearsighted that I couldn’t see the blackboard clearly.
Once I figured out what those marks on paper meant, however, I made up for lost time. I was always reading ahead in the textbooks, and found classes boring because the teachers spent so much time explaining things that I already knew. In eighth grade they gave us some sort of test of our comprehension level in various subjects. My results showed twelfth grade level (the highest possible) in all subjects but religion, which was at 11.8. Yet I was not a straight-A student because of the aforementioned lack of interest in classwork. I
And the thing is, I’m sure that TruCelt’s kid is a really advanced reader. I’m sure LPN was a really advanced reader as a kid, also. I don’t dispute that.
What I do dispute is the completely bizarre claims. It’s as if someone bragging on their child athlete talks about how their six-year-old can slam-dunk in a regulation hoop, or someone talking about their scientifically-minded kindergartener is working as a lab assistant at a hospital.
Or how when IQ threads pop up on this board, everyone has at minimum a 150 IQ. I have no doubt in my mind that the average IQ of the posters on this board is a smidge higher than average and we might even have one or two certifiable geniuses amongst us, but c’mon.
This topic is always so exhausting on the Dope. I don’t know why there is such emotion expended and vitriol flung every time it comes up. The same thing occurs whenever the subject of intelligence measures is raised.
I was tested by my teacher, who was so amazed and dubious that she involved the Principal, who arranged for extensive testing by experts, who then recommended me for placement in advanced classes.
When I was five, we got a new dog, and I suggested the name “Grendel” from the book I was reading (Gardiner, not Beowulf). I was then grounded as my Mother had been looking for the book all week, and needed to finish it for the class she was taking. Neither the time period in which we got the dog, nor the name we gave her, nor where I got it from is in question. And when my Mom did her take-home test, she asked me a bunch of questions and used some of my thoughts in the essay portion.
No, the name of the tests and the credentials of the testers were not shared with me. One was referred to as “Doctor” though, and the County, the Principal, and my parents were all satisfied by their credentials. Further, my parents were not the sort to be thrilled by this news. In fact, they considered it shameful that their daughter tested higher than their son. They didn’t think that “smart” was a compliment to a girl.
I also don’t think they based their assessment on whether I had the life experience of a 20-year-old. I’m pretty sure they based it upon my ability to read and comprehend new ideas, or plot points. I do recall a great many 2-3 paragraph bits followed by multiple choice questions. And I recall a staffer reading off questions and writing down my answers for me because my hand cramped up during the essay portion.
My daughter has not yet received such testing, as it’s recommended to wait until the age of four. But her teachers, one a phonics expert, have made the assessments, not me. So there could 5-6 delusional people working with this child, and given the geographic area perhaps they are all descendents of the same delusional folks who worked with me in my childhood . . . or perhaps there are just a few folks on the Dope who have difficulty accepting the presence of gifted people in the world.
Or maybe, like not a few in our society, you just think that any recognition or discussion of giftedness is proof of arrogance, and must be shot down for the good of the speaker. I won’t hide under a rock for you, and I won’t teach my daughter to either. We have a gift, I’m sure you have gifts of your own. It’s not a competition.
I do agree: there’s a large gulf between tenth grade reading and college reading. I seem to recall (I mean, I was six, without asking someone who was an adult at that point I can’t give you a definite answer, so all I can do is extrapolate from what little I remember and what little I know) shoving me a grade up was as much as they could convince the school district to allow.
I can tell you that I always found English classes ridiculously, almost insultingly easy. I was just pleased to be good at it, and because I enjoyed reading I enjoyed my easy classes. I never, never, never made under an A in any English class I took. When I got to college and got a B on my first essay I was entirely scandalized – I’d never seen such a thing before.
But I admit: while I understood I was “reading at a college level”, it’s thoroughly possible I heard that from “she successfully read and understood this college textbook”. I can cheerfully say that if you had plopped kindergarten Ninja into the Intro to British Literature course I took a few semesters ago to boost my GPA she would have been pretty lost. She could have read Gawain and the Green Knight and if you’d explained the symbolism to her she would have filed it away in her little brain, but she would not have understood the connection between Arthur’s devotion to his knights and the same relationships in Beowulf. She could have trudged through The Rape of the Lock and might have recognized it as a parody, but she would not have been able to explain much more.
She might well have been able to get through my original freshman English literature class, though, because I was sadly able to skim through it with an easy A without ever cracking a book. All she would have had to do is listen when the professor told us exactly what we were supposed to get out of the books we’d read. That’s a reflection on that class, though, not Tiny-Ninja’s brilliance.
LHoD, I get where you’re coming from. I do. It’s a ridiculous assertion and I’m happy to point to what I could and couldn’t have done. I also didn’t have a scrap of trouble with “Little House in the Big Woods” when I read it at six. I’m not saying that I could have really gotten, say, Catch-22 at that age, though I might have understood why it was funny.
I recommend looking at it again as an adult, especially with an eye toward what kids might miss. There was at least one word in each chapter that I had to look up for myself. I’d create a list of a half-dozen words or so per chapter that I wanted to make sure my students got, and still some of the descriptions were very complicated.
Kids have an amazing ability to read over things they don’t get. Seriously, it’s great. They can get the gist without worrying about details.
Do I doubt some kid could pick up Grendel, move their eyes over the words, get a sense that it’s a story about a monster and some warriors? Absolutely not. Do I think that the discussions of immortality, of monstrosity and morality, would mean anything to a kid? Absolutely not.
What do you base this claim on? Again, I’m highly skeptical: this is a little bit like the guy I knew who claimed he was flying a fighter jet when he was twelve. Are you basing it on your own memory, or on what your mom tells you? Are either of these accurate sources of information about your childhood?