[ SECRET POST #2486 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2486 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 024 secrets from Secret Submission Post #355.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that gifted kids need less attention. I was a gifted kid, and even in the upper-level classes my schools provided, I wasn't challenged. I never had to "study" -- I just paid attention in class and maybe looked over my notes once or twice before a test. I was able to get by (and do well) on sheer brainpower, and so I never learned how to tackle challenging material, or work at a problem until I "got" it. Needless to say, about halfway through college, when I was hitting more difficult material and I could no longer coast (not that I thought I'd been coasting until then, because I never learned any other way), I hit a wall academically. I would've been a lot better off if there had been a more intensive gifted program in my earlier years that had challenged me enough to give me the opportunity to learn to handle material that was "hard."

It sounds like that's what OP wants to do. I know US school systems generally aren't set up to accommodate that, but I know firsthand that it's something that needs doing, so good on them. School is about more than just "getting through the material" - it's about learning how to learn. Or it should be. "Normal" kids are able to do that with the standard curriculum, for the most part, but gifted kids DO need special attention in order to get the same result.

[(Anonymous)]

This is kind of me, too. I definitely feel like there was a point in time where I was advanced enough over everybody else to miss out on some crucial learning things, but...then I stayed there and they all moved ahead and past me.

[chardmonster]

I guess it's a matter of perspective. What's worse?

A) Having an easy time, not being challenged

B) Having a B or C average, getting stuck in normal classes with teachers who expect fuckall from you and don't really care, believing yourself to be stupid

You hit a wall in college--to which a lot of kids never get to go. A lot of this is because they learn to hate school.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I just don't see the point in playing "what's worse?" when someone is talking about wanting to do something that helps people. Some people donate to PBS rather than cancer research because that's what they're most motivated by, not because kids not being able to see Sesame Street is worse than cancer. You could criticize someone for being passionate about helping Group A when Group B has a greater "objective need" -- or you could be glad that the person wants to help anybody in the first place. And since it's not as though gifted kids don't need any help at all, their efforts wouldn't be wasted, even if you don't personally think that's where their attention would best be used.

[chardmonster]

or you could be glad that the person wants to help anybody in the first place.

...but they aren't even helping anyone. They're posting on fandom secrets about liking the idea of helping someone. That's about as helpful as hitting like on a facebook page. No offense to OP, it's just a fandom secret.

Also--you can't really compare cancer research and PBS. The OP is talking about having liked the idea of teaching, but only in a relatively glamorous job. They are comparing teaching to teaching.

It's exhausting. I see this attitude all the time. As soon as a kid is difficult the education students suddenly forget all they said about wanting to be nurturing.

This is like someone saying "I want to be a plastic surgeon, but I only want to work giving women breast enlargements, never mastectomy cases" and you jump in saying "but at least they want to help some of the boobs!"

[(Anonymous)]

...but they aren't even helping anyone. They're posting on fandom secrets about liking the idea of helping someone.

If we're not treating this secret as something the OP actually might attempt to do in the future, then what's the point of criticizing the sentiment? At that point, you're not even saying, "How dare you expend your future efforts toward a goal that I don't think is worthwhile" -- you're saying, "How dare you idly wish you had expended your hypothetical efforts toward a goal I don't think is worthwhile." That would be pretty much the height of useless complaining, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't doing it.

Also--you can't really compare cancer research and PBS. The OP is talking about having liked the idea of teaching, but only in a relatively glamorous job. They are comparing teaching to teaching.

Yes, they were comparing teaching to teaching, just like I was comparing charitable giving to charitable giving. The point of the analogy is that both kinds (of teaching, and of charitable giving) are worthwhile, even though you seem to think that one kind (of teaching, at least) was more deserving and more virtuous.

You read the OP's sentiments as saying they wanted the easy, glamorous form of teaching; I read them as seeing a particular need they wanted to respond to -- one that you appeared to think was completely unnecessary. My point is that it's not unnecessary, that gifted kids do need special attention and effort from teachers.

I'm not denying that teaching gifted students carries more prestige for teachers, and can be less frustrating and unpleasant than trying to bring kids up to grade level and motivate them to learn in the first place. I'm saying that gifted education is also an important thing to have for the sake of the kids who would benefit from it. It's not just "teaching on easy mode" for tenured instructors. If it is, they're doing it wrong.

[chardmonster]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you haven't been hearing the infuriating stuff I have? I don't think gifted education is unnecessary. I simply think it's less important.

Thanks for responding to me like this; I appreciate having an actual discussion on here.

[diet_poison]

r u me? o.O