SMPY Bibliography

An annotated fulltext bibliography of publications on the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a longitudinal study of high-IQ youth.
archiving, IQ, psychology, sociology, SMPY, bibliography, order-statistics
2018-07-282020-08-03 in progress certainty: log importance: 6


SMPY (S­tudy of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) is a long-run­ning lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of ex­tremely math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented or in­tel­li­gent youth, which has been fol­low­ing high­-IQ co­horts since the 1970s. It has pro­vided the largest and most con­crete find­ings about the cor­re­lates and pre­dic­tive power of screen­ing ex­tremely in­tel­li­gent chil­dren, and rev­o­lu­tion­ized gifted & tal­ented ed­u­ca­tional prac­tices.

Be­cause it has been run­ning for over 40 years, SMPY-related pub­li­ca­tions are diffi­cult to find; many early pa­pers were pub­lished only in long-out-of-print books and are not avail­able in any other way. Oth­ers are dig­i­tized and more ac­ces­si­ble, but one must al­ready know they ex­ist. Be­tween these bar­ri­ers, SMPY in­for­ma­tion is less widely avail­able & used than it should be given its im­por­tance.

To fix this, I have been grad­u­ally go­ing through all SMPY ci­ta­tions and mak­ing full­text copies avail­able on­line with oc­ca­sional com­men­tary.

The (SMPY; home­page) is a lon­gi­tu­di­nal “tal­ent search” study founded by of high IQ stu­dents, and specifi­cally math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented stu­dents, who achieve a high score on the SAT-M sub­test in mid­dle school (tar­get­ing 1-in-10,000 lev­el­s), start­ing in the Mary­land area and since ex­pand­ing to much of the USA. SMPY stud­ies the pre­co­cious youth, and also spon­sors ad­vanced classes & ac­cel­er­a­tion of ed­u­ca­tion, often in­volv­ing SMPY’s home in­sti­tute, Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Ad­van­tages of SMPY over other stud­ies such as the are that it is:

  • an un­usu­ally large & com­pre­hen­sive­ly-mea­sured co­hort

  • par­tic­i­pants are un­usu­ally gifted due to a high ceil­ing (the SAT-M test, which very few high school stu­dents are ca­pa­ble of reach­ing the ceil­ing even after high school math courses & study­ing for the test)

    • se­lec­tion is done in mid­dle school at an age where effects are less­ened, rather than el­e­men­tary school (see for why this is a prob­lem)
  • un­bi­ased se­lec­tion us­ing stan­dard­ized tests over most of the stu­dent pop­u­la­tion (as op­posed to stud­ies re­ly­ing on self­-s­e­lec­tion into groups like Mensa1 or re­fer­ral from child psy­chi­a­trists2)

  • long-term fol­lowups can be done link­ing life out­comes to early re­sults and in­ter­ests

It has been run­ning since 1971, and has made many im­por­tant find­ings, in­clud­ing:

  • ex­tremely high lev­els of achieve­ment among par­tic­i­pants, val­i­dat­ing pre­dic­tive power of IQ tests

  • dis­proof of the “thresh­old hy­poth­e­sis” claim­ing that IQ past a rel­a­tively low thresh­old like 130 ceases to pre­dict any­thing

  • sys­tem­atic sex differ­ences in vari­ance of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, lead­ing to ex­cess of males, as well as sex differ­ences in vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests & life-work bal­ance, lead­ing to differ­ent oc­cu­pa­tional out­comes & lev­els of suc­cess de­spite sim­i­lar abil­ity

    • im­pact of “tilt” to­ward math­/ver­bal abil­ity in sub­se­quent field & ca­reer
  • demon­stra­tion of the scal­a­bil­ity of the “tal­ent search” model & high­-ceil­ing stan­dard­ized test­ing

  • demon­stra­tion that ac­cel­er­a­tion of gifted youth is a use­ful strat­egy which has pos­i­tive effects while not dam­ag­ing them psy­cho­log­i­cally (con­ven­tional wis­dom in gifted & tal­ented ed­u­ca­tion was that ac­cel­er­a­tion would re­tard emo­tional & so­cial growth and back­fire, and that such youth should be forced into chrono­log­i­cal-age class­es)

While some re­cent SMPY pa­pers have made a splash, most SMPY-relevant pub­li­ca­tions are ob­scure, scat­tered, pub­lished in books decades ago, and there is no sin­gle bib­li­og­ra­phy pro­vid­ing de­scrip­tions of & easy ac­cess to SMPY pub­li­ca­tions; per­haps due to the diffi­culty of ac­cess­ing the pri­mary re­search pa­pers, there have been a col­lec­tively large num­ber of re­view/opin­ion pa­pers over the past half-cen­tu­ry, fur­ther mud­dy­ing the wa­ter. Be­low I have at­tempted to provide, in chrono­log­i­cal or­der, full­text of pub­li­ca­tions deal­ing with SMPY, with ab­stracts where avail­able & brief sum­maries where not, and pro­vid­ing ad­di­tional con­text like cases of mul­ti­ple pub­li­ca­tion­s/ver­sions of a pa­per.

Missing

  • archives of the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin (ITYB; SMPY’s 10-month­s-an­nu­ally newslet­ter)

  • an­nual re­ports to the Spencer Foun­da­tion: SMPY (al­l), SVGY (1, 5-?)

Bibliography sources

1950

Stanley 1951

“On the ad­e­quacy of stan­dard­ized tests ad­min­is­tered to ex­treme norm groups”, Stan­ley 1951:

Most stan­dard­ized tests are rec­om­mended by their pub­lish­ers for use in more than one grade. Fre­quent­ly, some con­ve­nient group­ing cor­re­spond­ing to a preva­lent type of school, such as the se­nior high, is sug­gested in the man­ual of di­rec­tions. Quite a few tests are rec­om­mended for an even wider range, this be­ing par­tic­u­larly true of in­tel­li­gence scales. Thus pre­sum­ably the Otis Quick­-S­cor­ing Men­tal Abil­ity Test (9), Gamma Test, is equally use­ful any­where from Grade 9 through Grade 16, while the Cal­i­for­nia Test of Men­tal Ma­tu­rity (2), Ad­vanced Form, is des­ig­nated for Grade 9–adult.

Thur­stone found that “the fac­to­r­ial con­tent of a test will change as it is given to pop­u­la­tions that differ in age and school­ing” (14, p. 43), and com­mon sense long ago told us that IQ’s based upon a chil­dren’s test ad­min­is­tered with a short­ened time limit to adults prob­a­bly do not have the same sig­nifi­cance as they would for fifth grader­s….

[test re­sults on var­i­ous groups]

…In or­der to make their tests more sal­able, a con­sid­er­able num­ber of au­thors have rec­om­mended them for use in grades be­low or above those for which the tests were ini­tially de­signed. Thus ques­tions con­cern­ing chang­ing fac­to­r­ial con­tent and diffi­culty level arise. As an il­lus­tra­tion of a test too hard for the low­est grade sug­gested by its con­struc­tors, the writer ar­bi­trar­ily se­lected the Nel­son-Denny Read­ing Test for Col­leges and Se­nior High Schools, on which there was data avail­able. This in­stru­ment was found to be of un­suit­able diffi­culty for ap­prox­i­mately the lower half of a typ­i­cal ninth grade (161 pupils) in a New Eng­land pub­lic co­ed­u­ca­tional se­nior high school. Dur­ing the analy­sis sev­eral neg­a­tive re­li­a­bil­ity co­effi­cients were se­cured. This sta­tis­ti­cal anom­aly and the­o­ret­i­cal is­sues re­lated to it are dis­cussed briefly.

1970

Keating & Stanley 1972

“Ex­treme Mea­sures for the Ex­cep­tion­ally Gifted in Math­e­mat­ics and Sci­ence”, Keat­ing & Stan­ley 1972:

What does one do for a ju­nior high school stu­dent who al­ready knows more math­e­mat­ics than his teacher? The ques­tion is not as im­plau­si­ble as it may seem at first glance. From pre­lim­i­nary work with sev­en­th, eighth, and young ninth graders at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, it is clear that a siz­able num­ber of these young­sters score ex­tremely high on the Col­lege En­trance Ex­am­i­na­tion Board (CEEB) Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­i­cal (SAT-M) and Math­e­mat­ics Level I Achieve­ment Test (M-I), often higher than their math teach­ers prob­a­bly would.

[dis­cus­sion of first year SMPY test­ing re­sults: SAT-M score dis­tri­b­u­tion, grades/ages & sex im­bal­ance, 2 ac­cel­er­a­tion case-s­tud­ies, first math en­rich­ment course.]

Stanley 1973

“Ac­cel­er­at­ing the Ed­u­ca­tional Progress of In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gifted Youths”, Stan­ley 1973:

It is ar­gued that ap­ti­tude and achieve­ment tests de­signed for much older stu­dents are in­valu­able for find­ing ex­tremely high abil­ity at younger ages, par­tic­u­larly in math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing. Re­sults of the first two years of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally and Sci­en­tifi­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMSPY)3 are ex­am­ined to show that con­sid­er­able ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion is not only fea­si­ble but also de­sir­able for those young peo­ple who are ea­ger to move ahead. Skip­ping school grades, tak­ing col­lege courses part-time, study­ing in spe­cial cours­es, and en­ter­ing col­lege early are pro­posed. These are sim­ple to carry out. in­ex­pen­sive, and sup­ple­men­tal to reg­u­lar school prac­tices. The SMSPY staff does not ad­vo­cate the usual in­-grade, non-ac­cel­er­a­tive “en­rich­ment” pro­ce­dures often rec­om­mended for in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren. The ap­proach in this pa­per is via cases and ref­er­ences to nu­mer­ous SMSPY stud­ies. It is meant to be an heuris­tic overview of the main as­sump­tions and find­ings.

Hogan et al 1974

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Sec­ond An­nual Re­port to the Spencer Foun­da­tion. 1973-09-01–1974-09-01”, Hogan et al 1974:

Re­ported are sec­ond year data from an on-go­ing project con­cerned with iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and fa­cil­i­ta­tion of ver­bal tal­ent in early ado­les­cence. Par­ent and teacher nom­i­na­tions of ju­nior high stu­dents and ver­bal scores on the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT-V) are de­scribed as pri­mary as­sess­ment tools. Over­all the en­rich­ment sam­ple is de­scribed as bright, so­cially per­cep­tive, and po­ten­tially cre­ative with the boys char­ac­ter­ized as in­tro­vert­ed, the­o­ret­i­cally ori­ent­ed, and so­cially re­served and the girls ex­travert­ed, ac­tion-ori­ent­ed, and so­cially out­go­ing. Math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally gifted young­sters are com­pared. Ex­am­ined are fea­tures of a sum­mer en­rich­ment pro­gram in­clud­ing a cre­ative writ­ing course (re­quir­ing out­side read­ing, writ­ing as­sign­ments, and a sem­i­nar-work­shop in the po­et­ry, fic­tion, and drama gen­res), a so­cial sci­ence course (in first-year col­lege level an­thro­pol­o­gy), and eval­u­a­tion pro­ce­dures (in­clud­ing tests of im­prove­ment in con­ver­gent and di­ver­gent think­ing) Such project ac­tiv­i­ties as the fol­low­ing are de­scribed: dis­sem­i­na­tion of in­for­ma­tion, per­son­al, ed­u­ca­tion­al, and col­lege course coun­sel­ing ses­sions, a stu­dent newslet­ter, a six-month fol­lowup sur­vey of stu­dents’ ed­u­ca­tional sit­u­a­tions, and a study of the re­la­tion­ship be­tween pre­coc­ity in for­mal op­er­a­tions and in­tel­li­gence. Project ac­com­plish­ments are sum­ma­rized and fu­ture goals out­lined.

[The 2nd/3rd/4th an­nual re­ports of SVGY to the are avail­able on , but I can’t find the 1st, and sub­se­quent re­ports are not men­tioned on­line—­Dur­den 1979 im­plies SVGY was ac­tive up un­til ~1980 in the form of “The Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth” (“PVGY”), so there should be re­ports for 1976/1977/1978/1979/1980, but on the other hand, Dur­den 1979 also states that “PVGY” was only “be­gun in the fall of 1978”. The ex­is­tence of an­nual re­ports for SVGY sug­gests the ex­is­tence of an­nual re­ports for SMPY as well, since it was like­wise ini­tially funded by the Spencer Foun­da­tion, but I have not seen them. ERIC has an en­try for the 7th re­port but no full­text, al­though the cat­a­logues of the Na­tional Li­brary of Aus­tralia & Uni­ver­sity of Malaya Li­brary in­di­cate they have mi­cro­fiche copies sourced from ERIC, so ERIC ap­par­ently at one time did have a pub­licly-dis­trib­uted copy of that.]

Stanley et al 1974

Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: Dis­cov­ery, de­scrip­tion, and de­vel­op­ment, ed Stan­ley 1974 (ISBN 0-8018-1585-1): an­thol­o­gy.

  1. Pref­ace
  2. “In­tel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley
  3. “The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
  4. “Fa­cil­i­tat­ing Ed­u­ca­tional De­vel­op­ment of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Lynn H. Fox
  5. “Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal and Sci­en­tific Pre­coc­ity”, He­len S. Astin
  6. “Com­men­tary on the Pre­coc­ity Project”, Anne Anas­tasi
  7. “A Math­e­mat­ics Pro­gram for Fos­ter­ing Pre­co­cious Achieve­ment”, Lynn H. Fox
  8. “Per­son­al­ity Char­ac­ter­is­tics of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys”, Daniel S. Weiss, Richard J. Haier, & Daniel P. Keat­ing
  9. “Val­ues and Ca­reer In­ter­est­s.of Math­e­mat­i­cally and Sci­en­tifi­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Lynn H. Fox & Su­sanne A. Den­ham
  10. “Be­hav­ior of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys in a Col­lege Class­room”, Daniel P. Keat­ing, Stan­ley J. Wie­gand, & Lynn H. Fox
  11. “Epi­logue”, The Ed­i­tors

Hogan & Garvey 1975

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth; Third An­nual Re­port to the Spencer Foun­da­tion: 1974-09-01–1975-09-01”, Hogan & Gar­vey 1975:

Re­ported are find­ings froth the third year of a project con­cerned with iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and fa­cil­i­ta­tion of hu­man­is­tic pre­coc­ity in early ado­les­cence. The project fo­cused on stu­dents who showed a pre­co­cious con­cern with and abil­ity to rea­son about so­cial, moral, and po­lit­i­cal prob­lems. De­scribed are at­tempts to de­fine hu­man­is­tic pre­coc­i­ty, and pro­ce­dures used to se­lect the 120 Tal­ent Search win­ners for 1975. Con­tent cov­ered in so­cial sci­ence and cre­ative writ­ing sum­mer en­rich­ment courses is out­lined, and re­sults of eval­u­a­tion of both the courses and par­tic­i­pant se­lec­tion pro­ce­dures are pro­vid­ed. Dis­cussed are stu­dent coun­sel­ing and in­for­ma­tion dis­sem­i­na­tion facets of the pro­ject. It is re­ported that hu­man­is­tic pre­coc­ity was found in quan­ti­ta­tively as well as ver­bally gifted stu­dents. Re­sults of the project are said to in­clude the de­vel­op­ment of a suc­cess­ful cur­ricu­lum for train­ing hu­man­is­tic pre­coc­i­ty. Ap­pen­dixes con­sist of re­search stud­ies on the fol­low­ing top­ics: the per­son­alog­i­cal [sic] sig­nifi­cance of differ­en­tial quan­ti­ta­tive and ver­bal tal­ent; the de­vel­op­ment of po­lit­i­cal rea­son­ing in ver­bally tal­ented chil­dren; hu­man­is­tic pre­coc­ity and gen­eral in­tel­li­gence; and eval­u­a­tion of a pro­gram for the en­rich­ment of hu­man­is­tic tal­ent.

Keating 1975

“The study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth”, Keat­ing 1975:

[re­view of test­ing, SAT scores, school lik­ing in­ven­to­ry, per­son­al­ity in­ven­to­ry, vo­ca­tional in­ter­est, birth or­der effect (s­light first­born ad­van­tage), parental back­ground, ini­tial ex­am­i­na­tion of tilt & SAT-M vs SAT-V]

Solano & George 1975

“Col­lege Cours­es: One Method of Fa­cil­i­tat­ing the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented”, Solano & George 1975:

A fol­lowup study in­volv­ing 2,021 stu­dents iden­ti­fied as aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was con­ducted to de­ter­mine the effec­tive­ness of col­lege courses for fa­cil­i­tat­ing the ed­u­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ju­nior and se­nior high school stu­dents. Ad­van­tages of a col­lege course over ac­cel­er­a­tion, stu­dent re­quire­ments for par­tic­i­pa­tion in the col­lege course pro­gram, and col­lege en­roll­ment pro­ce­dures were con­sid­ered when ad­vis­ing a stu­dent el­i­gi­ble for col­lege cours­es. Of the 1,510 stu­dents re­turn­ing the Col­lege In­for­ma­tion Ques­tion­naire, 83 stu­dents had taken col­lege cours­es. Among find­ings were that stu­dents’ grade-point av­er­age (GPA) for the col­lege courses taken was 3.57 (on a four-point scale) and that SMPY stu­dents rarely en­coun­tered so­cial diffi­cul­ties in the col­lege class­room.

Gifted Child Quarterly 1976

A spe­cial is­sue of Gifted Child Quar­terly (vol­ume 20 is­sue 3, Sep­tem­ber 1976) fo­cused on SMPY:

Stanley 1976a

“Youths who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly: SMPY’s ac­cel­er­a­tive ap­proach”, Stan­ley 1976a: ed­i­to­r­ial in­tro­duc­tion

George 1976

“Ac­cel­er­at­ing Math­e­mat­ics In­struc­tion for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, George 1976:

Fast-paced coun­try-wide math­e­mat­ics classes meet­ing out­side of reg­u­lar hours were es­tab­lished to meet the needs of highly tal­ented math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ers. The re­sults from the orig­i­nal two pro­grams demon­strated that four and one-half years of pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics could be taught in ap­prox­i­mately 120 hours. These classes show the im­por­tance of ho­mo­ge­neous group­ing. Class suc­cess was based on iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of qual­i­fied stu­dents through ap­pro­pri­ately diffi­cult math­e­mat­ics tests, vol­un­tary par­tic­i­pa­tion by stu­dents, and care­fully done home­work as­sign­ments. The pro­grams’ suc­cess re­sulted in differ­ent school sys­tems adopt­ing the mod­el. This pa­per con­cerns the var­i­ous classes and the im­pli­ca­tions of fast-paced math­e­mat­ics.

Solano & George 1976

“Col­lege Courses and Ed­u­ca­tional Fa­cil­i­ta­tion of the Gifted”, Solano & George 1976:

Math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious ju­nior high school stu­dents have been en­cour­aged by SMPY to take col­lege cours­es. To be el­i­gi­ble, the stu­dent should score at least 550 on the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the Col­lege Board’s Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT-M) as a sev­enth or eighth grad­er. A score of at least 400 on SAT-Verbal is also de­sir­able. Courses should be taken for graded cred­it, prefer­ably in the sum­mer, and in the area of the in­di­vid­u­al’s high abil­i­ty. Many col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties have proved will­ing or even ea­ger to ad­mit tal­ented young stu­dents. The cred­its earned can be held in es­crow for col­lege lat­er. In the last five years, 131 SMPY youths have taken 277 col­lege courses and earned an over all GPA of 3.59, where 4:A and 3:B. Girls take fewer courses than boys and have a sightly lower GPA. Com­mu­nity col­leges are a great deal eas­ier for these stu­dents than ei­ther col­leges of uni­ver­si­ties. These youths ex­pe­ri­ence lit­tle so­cial or emo­tional diffi­culty in the col­lege class­room. A com­par­i­son group of con­sid­er­ably older high school stu­dents who took evening col­lege courses did not do as well as the SMPY group (GPA 3.02 ver­sus 3.59). This was prob­a­bly due to the greater se­lec­tiv­ity by SMPY on both abil­ity and mo­ti­va­tion to work in a col­lege class.

Stanley 1976b

“Ra­tio­nale Of SMPY Dur­ing Its First Seven Years Of Pro­mot­ing Ed­u­ca­tional Ac­cel­er­a­tion”, Stan­ley 1976b: brief sum­mary

Stanley 1976c

“The stu­dent gifted in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence”, Stan­ley 1976c:

Much more needs to be done for the na­tion’s tal­ented stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence than is now hap­pen­ing in the schools, as­serts this writer, who de­scribes in this ar­ti­cle the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and what has been ac­com­plished for the young par­tic­i­pants.

Fox 1976a

“Sex Differ­ences: Im­pli­ca­tions for Pro­gram Plan­ning for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Gifted”, Fox 1976a: brief sum­mary

Cohn 1976

“In­di­vid­u­al­iz­ing Sci­ence Cur­ric­ula for the Gifted”, Cohn 1976 (ab­stract from ERIC ver­sion):

Re­ported are meth­ods of ac­cel­er­at­ing and in­di­vid­u­al­iz­ing sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics cur­ric­ula for ex­tremely gifted ju­nior high school stu­dents as de­vel­oped by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gifted Child Study Group. Given are ex­am­ples of ac­cel­er­a­tion such as al­low­ing the stu­dent to take more ad­vanced courses in the stan­dard se­quence, tak­ing ad­vanced place­ment cours­es, tak­ing spe­cial out of class col­lege level cours­es, or re­ceiv­ing tu­tor­ing through the Ox­ford-Cam­bridge Tu­to­r­ial Pre­cep­tory Sys­tem of SMPY. A ques­tion is raised re­gard­ing the amount of lab­o­ra­tory work that is nec­es­sary for highly gifted sci­ence stu­dents. Sources of fur­ther in­for­ma­tion are pro­vid­ed.

Hogan & Garvey 1976

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Fourth An­nual Re­port to the Spencer Foun­da­tion. Sep­tem­ber 1, 1975–Sep­tem­ber 1, 1976”, Hogan & Gar­vey 1976:

Pre­sented is the fourth an­nual re­port of a project con­cerned with hu­man­is­tic tal­ent (de­fined as the abil­ity to rea­son in­ci­sively and well with com­plex so­cial, moral, and po­lit­i­cal prob­lems) in gifted ado­les­cent stu­dents. Ac­tiv­i­ties of the past year in the ar­eas of coun­sel­ing ser­vices, grad­u­ate train­ing, and re­search ac­tiv­i­ties are re­viewed. Ex­plained is the de­ci­sion to cut back on coun­sel­ing ser­vices due to in­effi­cient use of staff time and the small num­ber of per­sons be­ing served. De­scribed in the sec­tion an grad­u­ate train­ing are the the­ses of two stu­dents in ed­u­ca­tional ad­min­is­tra­tion, both stud­ies be­ing re­lated to the pre­dic­tion of aca­d­e­mic per­for­mance. Re­search ac­tiv­i­ties are sum­ma­rized and fu­ture ac­tiv­i­ties in­clud­ing data analy­ses and writ­ing, in­for­ma­tion dis­sem­i­na­tion, a writ­ing sem­i­nar for gifted ado­les­cents, re­search on the de­fi­n­i­tion of noncog­ni­tive de­ter­mi­nants of hu­man­is­tic rea­son­ing, analy­sis of in­dices of fu­ture pro­duc­tive­ness of gifted chil­dren, and a book length re­port of the en­tire project are out­lined. Ap­pended are a bib­li­og­ra­phy of 17 pub­li­ca­tions of the study from 1972 to 1976, a sum­mary of the pa­pers, and in­di­vid­ual sum­maries of four pa­pers on the sub­jects of quan­ti­ta­tive gift­ed­ness in early ado­les­cence, ver­bal gift­ed­ness and hu­man­is­tic tal­ent, ed­u­cat­ing hu­man­is­tic tal­ent, and the de­vel­op­ment of le­gal rea­son­ing in ver­bally gifted chil­dren, re­spec­tive­ly. An ar­ti­cle by Joseph Adel­son ti­tled “Dis­cus­sion of Pa­pers on Hu­man­is­tic Tal­ent” is in­clud­ed.

Fox 1976b

“Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious: Male or Fe­male?”, Fox 1976b:

Re­ported are re­sults of a study com­par­ing in­ci­dence and char­ac­ter­is­tics of male and fe­male math­e­mat­i­cally gifted ju­nior high stu­dents, and sug­gested are ways to en­cour­age fe­male par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics. It is ex­plained that the Study for Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth iden­ti­fied sig­nifi­cantly more males than fe­males with out­stand­ing math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity and also noted differ­ing at­ti­tudes (such as greater so­cial val­ues and less in­cli­na­tion to seek out math­e­mat­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ences) on the part of highly gifted girls. An ac­cel­er­ated class for girls only is re­ported to have been mod­er­ately effec­tive in pro­mot­ing math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment among girls. It is con­cluded that the ob­served sex differ­ences may be bi­o­log­i­cally based or due to such en­vi­ron­men­tal vari­ables as less parental en­cour­age­ment for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted girls.

Fox 1976c

“Chang­ing Be­hav­iors and At­ti­tudes of Gifted Girls”, Fox 1976c:

In­ves­ti­gated with 26 gifted sev­en­th-grade girls was the in­flu­ence of an ex­per­i­men­tal sum­mer math­e­mat­ics ac­cel­er­a­tion pro­gram on later math­e­mat­ics course-tak­ing be­hav­ior. Classes were de­signed to pro­vide so­cial stim­u­la­tion through such meth­ods as us­ing a woman teacher and as­sis­tants for role mod­els, in­for­mal struc­ture, or­ga­ni­za­tion for small group and in­di­vid­u­al­ized in­struc­tion, stress­ing co­op­er­a­tive ac­tiv­i­ties, and em­pha­siz­ing ways in which math­e­mat­ics could be used to solve so­cial prob­lems. Among con­clu­sions after a 3-year fol­low-up were that the course-tak­ing be­hav­ior of gifted girls can be mod­i­fied by early in­ter­ven­tion, and that ca­reer in­ter­est ap­pears to be more diffi­cult to in­flu­ence.

Smith 1976

“My In­tro­duc­tion to Com­put­ing”/“A Bach­e­lor’s De­gree at 14”, Smith 1976:

In al­most every is­sue of ITYB there ap­pears an ar­ti­cle by a ju­nior- or se­nior-high­-school or col­lege stu­dent. Two of them are re­pro­duced be­low. Daniel W. Smith was an eighth grad­er. Kath­leen Marie Mon­tour, a Mo­hawk In­dian from Canada was a 19-year-old se­nior at Johns Hop­kins. She re­ceived her B.S. de­gree, with ma­jor in psy­chol­o­gy, on 1976-05-21 at age 20 1⁄4. Cur­rent­ly, Ms. Mon­tour is a grad­u­ate stu­dent in hu­man de­vel­op­ment at Tufts Uni­ver­si­ty, Med­ford, Mass­a­chu­setts.

Montour 1976

“Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf: A Bach­e­lor’s De­gree At 14”, Mon­tour 1976:

In Sep­tem­ber of 1945 Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf of Cleve­land, Ohio, be­came quite pos­si­bly the youngest Amer­i­can ever to re­ceive the bac­calau­re­ate when he took his B.A. in mu­sic from Yale Col­lege at the age four­teen (s­ince his birth­date was 1931-08-28, he had just turned four­teen). Be­cause Yale was on a spe­cial ac­cel­er­ated sched­ule dur­ing World War II, Wolf com­pleted his de­gree re­quire­ments in less than the usual num­ber of aca­d­e­mic years.

Keating et al 1976

In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent: Re­search and De­vel­op­ment, ed Keat­ing 1976 (ISBN 0-8018-1743-9): an­thol­ogy record­ing the early re­sults of the tal­ent search and the im­me­di­ate suc­cess of ac­cel­er­at­ing gifted stu­dents into Johns Hop­kins col­lege, the over­all health of the par­tic­i­pants, and SMPY’s un­suc­cess­ful strug­gle to get rid of the male over­rep­re­sen­ta­tion at their ex­treme of math scores.

  1. Pref­ace

  2. Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and Mea­sure­ment of In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “Use of Tests to Dis­cover Tal­ent”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley
    2. “Dis­cov­er­ing Quan­ti­ta­tive Pre­coc­ity”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
    3. “Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and Pro­gram Plan­ning: Mod­els and Meth­ods”, Lynn H. Fox
    4. “Iden­ti­fy­ing Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent on a Statewide Ba­sis”, William C. George & Ce­cilia H. Solano
    5. “A Pi­aget­ian Ap­proach to In­tel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
  3. Pro­grams for Fa­cil­i­ta­tion of In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “Cur­ricu­lum Ex­per­i­men­ta­tion for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, William C. George & Su­sanne A. Den­ham
    2. “Spe­cial Fast-Math­e­mat­ics Classes Taught by Col­lege Pro­fes­sors to Fourth- through Twelfth-graders”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley
    3. “Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Se­lec­tion and De­scrip­tion”, Pe­ter V. McGinn
    4. “Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Pre­coc­i­ty: Bridg­ing the Gap”, Lynn H. Fox
    5. “Ed­u­ca­tors’ Stereo­types of Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted Boys”, Richard J. Haier & Ce­cilia H. Solano
  4. The Psy­chol­ogy of In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “A Sum­mary Pro­file of the Non­in­tel­lec­tual Cor­re­lates of Math­e­mat­i­cal Pre­coc­ity in Boys and Girls”, Richard J. Haier & Su­sanne A. Den­ham
    2. “Ca­reer-re­lated In­ter­ests of Ado­les­cent Boys and Girls”, Lynn H. Fox, Sara R. Paster­nak, and Nancy L. Peiser
    3. “Cre­ative Po­ten­tial of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
    4. “The Val­ues of Gifted Youth”, Lynn H. Fox
    5. “Ran­dom vs. Non­ran­dom Study of Val­ues Pro­files”, Joan A. W. Lin­sen­meier
  5. Cri­tique and Dis­cus­sion

    1. “A His­tor­i­cal Step be­yond Ter­man”, El­lis Bat­ten Page
    2. SMPY in So­cial Per­spec­tive”, Carl E. Bere­iter
    3. “Gen­eral Dis­cus­sion” [Page, Bere­iter et al]

Solano 1976

“Teacher and Pupil Stereo­types of Gifted Boys and Girls”, Solano 1976:

This re­search is con­cerned with the stereo­types of gifted chil­dren held by av­er­age abil­ity stu­dents and by teach­ers. The re­sults of this study show that gifted boys are viewed pos­i­tively by their age-mates, whereas gifted girls are quite dis­liked. At­ti­tudes were elicited from ed­u­ca­tors fa­mil­iar with gifted stu­dents, and from ed­u­ca­tors with no per­sonal con­tact with such stu­dents. The find­ings show a neg­a­tive stereo­type of gifted boys among ed­u­ca­tors that dis­si­pates on con­tact, while there is a pos­i­tive stereo­type of gift­ed-girls that dis­ap­pears after work­ing with them. Col­lege courses on the gifted child were used as an in­ter­ven­tion tech­nique to change at­ti­tudes to­ward the gift­ed. Teacher at­ti­tudes to­ward gifted boys im­proved con­sid­er­ably, whereas at­ti­tudes to­ward gifted girls im­proved only sight­ly, sug­gest­ing that gen­eral in­for­ma­tion about gifted girls does not have the same effect as per­sonal con­tact.

[See also Haier & Solano 1976.]

Stanley 1976c

“Con­cern for in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths: How it orig­i­nated and fluc­tu­ated”, Stan­ley 1976c:

[short his­tory of in­ter­est in prodi­gies & ge­nius: , , , , SMPY]

Stanley 1976d

“Bril­liant Youth: Im­prov­ing the Qual­ity and Speed of Their Ed­u­ca­tion”, Stan­ley 1976d:

Speech pre­sented at the an­nual meet­ing of the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., on 1976-09-03.

The three phases (find­ing sev­enth and eighth grade math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents, study­ing them, and help­ing then ed­u­ca­tion­al­ly) of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) are de­tailed, and ex­am­ples of the su­pe­ri­or­ity of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion over ed­u­ca­tional en­rich­ment are pointed out. Re­sults of stan­dard­ized in­tel­li­gence tests are seen to be less help­ful than scores on the math­e­mat­ics part of the Col­lege En­trance Ex­am­i­na­tion Board’s Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test in iden­ti­fy­ing gifted stu­dents for SMPY. Four types of en­rich­ment (busy work, ir­rel­e­vant aca­d­e­mic, cul­tur­al, and rel­e­vant aca­d­e­mic) are de­scribed and con­trasted with aca­d­e­mic ac­cel­er­a­tion. Pre­sented is the case of a 11 1⁄2-year-old boy who was helped ed­u­ca­tion­ally by en­ter­ing col­lege_be­fore com­plet­ing high school. Stressed is the need for flex­i­bil­ity that makes a va­ri­ety of ed­u­ca­tion­ally ac­cel­er­a­tive pos­si­bil­i­ties (such as grade skip­ping and col­lege courses for cred­it) avail­able for the stu­dent.

George 1977

“Parental Sup­port­—­Time And En­ergy”, George 1977:

(Reprinted from In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin 3:10, July 1977, by spe­cial per­mis­sion)

[tips for par­ents of SMPYers: large time in­vest­ments may be nec­es­sary for gifted chil­dren; plan ahead and try to get along with the lo­cal school sys­tem and ne­go­ti­ate ac­cel­er­a­tion; touch-typ­ing is use­ful for SMPYers to learn]

Stanley 1977

“The Study and Fa­cil­i­ta­tion of Tal­ent for Math­e­mat­ics”, Stan­ley 1977:

Brief dis­cus­sions of gen­eral vs. spe­cial abil­ity and of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity form the in­tro­duc­tion of this pa­per on the ed­u­ca­tion of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents. The sec­ond sec­tion of the pa­per de­scribes the an­nual math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches con­ducted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). The third sec­tion cov­ers SMPY’s spe­cial ed­u­ca­tional pro­vi­sions for the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed, in­clud­ing the ba­sic com­po­nents of the pro­gram, im­por­tance of fast pace, and other as­pects of the offer­ings (skip­ping grades, part-time col­lege study, credit by ex­am­i­na­tion, early col­lege en­trance, col­lege grad­u­a­tion in less than four years, and by­pass­ing the bach­e­lor’s de­gree). Two il­lus­tra­tions of how se­lected stu­dents pro­gressed through the pro­gram com­prise the fourth sec­tion of this pa­per, while the fi­nal sec­tion sum­ma­rizes SMPY’s po­si­tion con­cern­ing the ed­u­ca­tion of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth.

Stanley 1977b

“Books Tell The SMPY Story”, Stan­ley 1977b: short de­scrip­tion of the pre­vi­ously pub­lished SMPY an­tholo­gies, Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent/In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent/The Gifted and the Cre­ative.

Stanley et al 1977

The Gifted and the Cre­ative: a Fifty-Year Per­spec­tive, ed Stan­ley et al 1977 (ISBN 080181975X): an­thol­ogy (Davis 1979 book re­view):

  1. “Ra­tio­nale of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) Dur­ing Its First Five Years of Pro­mot­ing Ed­u­ca­tional Ac­cel­er­a­tion”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley:

    The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SM PY) be­gan offi­cially at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Sep­tem­ber 1971 un­der a five-year grant from the Spencer Foun­da­tion. Its staff, headed by Pro­fes­sor (of psy­chol­o­gy) Ju­lian C. Stan­ley, seeks highly effec­tive ways to fa­cil­i­tate the ed­u­ca­tion of youths who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. To do so, it is of course nec­es­sary first to iden­tify such youths and un­der­stand them well. Dur­ing SMPY’s ini­tial five years, much ser­vice was ren­dered to the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented in the State of Mary­land, es­pe­cially sev­enth and eighth graders in the Greater Bal­ti­more area. This en­abled the SMPY staff to de­velop and re­fine prin­ci­ples, tech­niques, and prac­tices with which to im­prove the ed­u­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents there and else­where. SMPY’s un­der­ly­ing ra­tio­nale is not fully ob­vi­ous from the two books that re­port its sub­stan­tive achieve­ments. Thus it seems de­sir­able to state that ra­tio­nale clearly so that its as­sump­tions can be ex­am­ined by all per­sons who con­sider us­ing SMPY’s prac­tices. This chap­ter is the ini­tial at­tempt to set forth ex­plic­itly the point of view guid­ing SMPY’s ac­tiv­i­ties.

  2. “Sex Differ­ences: Im­pli­ca­tions for Pro­gram Plan­ning for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Gifted”, Lynn H. Fox:

    Stud­ies of gifted chil­dren have typ­i­cally ig­nored sex differ­ences, yet in the past gifted women have achieved far less than men. This pa­per re­views the re­search on sex differ­ences in in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties, achieve­ment, val­ues, and in­ter­ests that have rel­e­vance to ed­u­ca­tional plan­ning for gifted chil­dren. Early ad­mis­sion to kinder­garten or first grade, and early col­lege en­trance both ap­pear to be valu­able for gifted boys and girls. Grade skip­ping, sub­jec­t-mat­ter ac­cel­er­a­tion, and ad­vanced place­ment pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics and the sci­ences in the ju­nior high school years, how­ev­er, are more effec­tive for gifted boys than for gifted girls. Ho­mo­ge­neously grouped ac­cel­er­ated pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics can pro­mote achieve­ment of gifted girls as well as gifted boys in some class­room en­vi­ron­ments but not in oth­ers. Part of the differ­en­tial aca­d­e­mic suc­cess of the sexes in sub­jects like math­e­mat­ics is a re­sult of the sex-role stereo­typ­ing ac­tiv­i­ties in early child­hood and ado­les­cence. The re­duc­tion of sex-role stereo­typ­ing should in­crease both male and fe­male cre­ativ­ity and achieve­ment in many ar­eas. Early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of chil­dren and coun­sel­ing of par­ents is need­ed. Ca­reer ed­u­ca­tion and early planned in­ter­ven­tion are par­tic­u­larly cru­cial for gifted girls. Teach­ers need to help gifted stu­dents, es­pe­cially girls, be­come bet­ter in­tel­lec­tual risk tak­ers.

  3. “Gen­eral Dis­cus­sion Im­me­di­ately After the Ter­man Memo­r­ial Sym­po­sium”, edited by J. W. Get­zels

Stanley et al 1978

Ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams and in­tel­lec­tual prodi­gies, ed Stan­ley et al 1978 (a “sup­ple­ment” to The Gifted and the Cre­ative):

  1. Con­trib­u­tors (vi)

  2. “Back­ground Re­marks”, William C. George (pg3)

  3. Pro­grams for Fa­cil­i­tat­ing In­tel­lec­tual tal­ent

    2. “A Statewide Pro­gram in the Dis­cov­ery and Guid­ance of Gifted Stu­dents”, Mar­shall P. San­born (pg7) 3. “Ed­u­cat­ing Gifted Chil­dren in Cal­i­for­nia”, Eliz­a­beth I. Kear­ney & Jane S. Brockie (pg18) 4. “Pro­vid­ing In­di­vid­ual En­rich­ment with an In­de­pen­dent Project For­mat”, Larry Finch & Ce­cilia H. Solano (pg29) 5. “The Gov­er­nor’s School of North Car­oli­na: A Sum­mer Pro­gram for Gifted and/or Tal­ented High School Stu­dents”, James L. Bray (pg34) 6. “The Sat­ur­day Work­shop of the Gifted Child So­ci­ety of New Jer­sey”, Al­bert J. Pra Sisto (pg38)

  4. The Highly Pre­co­cious: How Well Did They Suc­ceed?

    7. “In­tro­duc­tory Com­ments”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley (pg48) 8. “Chat­ter­ton and Ga­lois: Ge­niuses of Pre­coc­ity Who Died Young”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg49) 9. “Suc­cess vs. Tragedy: Wiener and Sidis”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg52) 10. “Phillipa Duke Schuyler”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg54) 11. “Two Men Who as Boys Were Cel­e­brated Quiz-Pro­gram Con­tes­tants”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg55) 12. <q>“Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf: A Bach­e­lor’s De­gree at 14”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg57) 13. “A Few Other Ref­er­ences from SMPY on Prodi­gies”

  5. Name In­dex

Time 1977

“Smor­gas­bord for an IQ of 150”, Time, 0040781X, 6/6/1977, Vol. 109, Is­sue 23:

Paul Di­etz, a slen­der youth in wire-rimmed glass­es, loves war games of all kind­s—from World War II pla­toon fights to dun­geons and drag­ons. Says he: “I like to look at the mis­takes com­man­ders made in the past, as an in­tel­lec­tual ex­er­cise.” Colin Camerer has a more di­rect in­ter­est in com­bat, since he lists as his main con­cerns “busi­ness and pow­er.” He adds: “Some­one’s go­ing to be mak­ing de­ci­sions, and frankly I want to be there.” Eu­gene Stark, by con­trast, has a more mod­est pol­i­cy: “I try to ap­pear as nor­mal as pos­si­ble. If you go around broad­cast­ing that you’re a weirdo, then peo­ple look at you like you’re a weirdo.”

Test­ing Feat. The rea­son why some peo­ple might look on the three stu­dents as a lit­tle odd is that they grad­u­ated last week from Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity at the age of 17. All have IQs of more than 150. And all three­—a­long with five other pre­co­cious se­niors—were found at the early age of 12 or 13 to be math­e­mat­i­cal wiz­ards, ca­pa­ble of feats such as scor­ing well on al­ge­bra tests with­out ever hav­ing taken the sub­ject.

Their grad­u­a­tion is a mile­stone in a unique pro­gram at Johns Hop­kins, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth. It was be­gun in 1971 by Psy­chol­ogy Pro­fes­sor Ju­lian Stan­ley, 58, who re­mem­bered his bore­dom in Geor­gia pub­lic schools and de­cided “to save these kids from the same ex­pe­ri­ence.” Stan­ley, a sta­tis­ti­cian, sought out 12-to 13-year-old chil­dren in the Bal­ti­more area who had al­ready shown promise in math. He asked them to take the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test nor­mally given to col­lege-bound high school stu­dents. The re­sult: a group of seven boys scored well over 700 (out of a pos­si­ble 800), a feat matched by only 5% of 18-year-old males. Be­sides Di­etz, Camerer and Stark, the test also iden­ti­fied two other young­sters who are grad­u­at­ing from Johns Hop­kins this year—Michael Kotschen­reuther, 18, and Robert Ad­dis­on, 19—as math­e­mat­i­cally gift­ed. Stan­ley also helped other youth­ful math wiz­ards, whom his test­ing turned up, get into other col­leges. Among them: Eric Jablow, 15, who this year be­came the youngest boy ever to grad­u­ate from New York’s Brook­lyn Col­lege.

As Stan­ley’s pro­gram has be­come in­creas­ingly well known, hun­dreds of sev­en­th-graders have been pour­ing in from a wider and wider area to take his tests and sam­ple what Stan­ley calls a “smor­gas­bord of ed­u­ca­tion­ally ac­cel­er­ated op­por­tu­ni­ties.” Some, who live near by, are fer­ried by their par­ents to spe­cial two-hour Sat­ur­day tu­to­r­ial classes at Johns Hop­kins. Tu­tored by other prodi­gies just a few years older than they, these gifted stu­dents now race through ad­vanced al­ge­bra and geom­e­try. Oth­ers leapfrog over grades, and some will at­tend a spe­cial sum­mer ses­sion at Johns Hop­kins.

“We don’t have any par­tic­u­lar pro­gram,” says Stan­ley, whose re­cruits now to­tal about 500. “If you’re gifted and mo­ti­vat­ed, we’ll help you do any­thing that fits you.” The pur­pose of this speedup, says Stan­ley, is “so that math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths can de­vote their most pro­duc­tive years to re­search.” He adds: “Lots of peo­ple in this world worry mostly about those who have low abil­i­ty. Some­body has to worry about the gift­ed.”

Sta­ble In­tro­verts. One of Stan­ley’s main dis­ap­point­ments is that for still dis­puted rea­sons, few girls test well on math (TIME, March 14). Those who do qual­ify for the spe­cial tu­to­ri­als tend to drop out, and their feel­ing for the boys in the pro­gram is “al­most one of re­vul­sion,” he says, be­cause the girls view their male coun­ter­parts as so­cially im­ma­ture. So far, he main­tains, the boys seem to have few emo­tional prob­lems. “Sci­en­tists are sta­ble in­tro­verts,” says Stan­ley. “They are not highly im­pul­sive and tend to act ra­tio­nal­ly.” Fur­ther­more, he adds, it has been “demon­strated em­pir­i­cally” that math­e­mat­i­cally gifted boys be­come in­ter­ested in girls much later in life. “This has been a great as­set in the ear­ly-en­trance pro­gram be­cause it gives them more time to study,” he says ap­prov­ing­ly.

Stan­ley’s five Johns Hop­kins pro­tégés seem al­most too ded­i­cated to their call­ing. Spare-time read­ing tends to­ward math and sci­ence books, with a lit­tle sci­ence fic­tion thrown in for leav­en­ing. Fa­vorite hob­bies in­clude, not sur­pris­ing­ly, chess and bridge. Stark and Camer­er, how­ev­er, seem drawn to non­sci­en­tific pas­times—S­tark to soft­ball and rag­time mu­sic on the trom­bone. Camerer to jour­nal­ism. He has been writ­ing sto­ries about fash­ions and fish­ing for the Beach­comber, a free weekly pub­lished in Ocean City, Md.

For the fu­ture, most of the Johns Hop­kins prodi­gies en­vi­sion high­-pow­ered re­search ca­reers fol­low­ing Ph.D. stud­ies at—­var­i­ous­ly—the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago, Cor­nell, M.I.T. and Prince­ton. Three­—Di­etz, Stark and Kotschen­reuther—have re­ceived Na­tional Sci­ence Foun­da­tion fel­low­ships, pres­ti­gious grants awarded each year for ad­vanced re­search. And Stan­ley is will­ing to bet on them al­l—us­ing prob­a­bil­ity the­o­ry, of course—­for “orig­i­nal con­tri­bu­tions.”

Stanley 1985c

“How Did Six Highly Ac­cel­er­ated Gifted Stu­dents Fare in Grad­u­ate School?”, Stan­ley 1985c:

This ar­ti­cle re­ports fol­low-up in­for­ma­tion on six very young col­lege grad­u­ates. The myth of “early ripe, early rot” is clearly re­futed by the out­stand­ing suc­cess of each of these six young ac­cel­er­ants. [, Eric Robert Jablow, Michael Thomas Kotschen­reuther, Paul Fred­er­ick Di­etz, Eu­gene William Stark, Mark Tollef Ja­cob­son]

Albert 1978

“Ob­ser­va­tions and sug­ges­tions re­gard­ing gift­ed­ness, fa­mil­ial in­flu­ence and the achieve­ment of em­i­nence”, Al­bert 1978:

This pa­per was in­spired by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). Two main ques­tions cen­ter on the pos­si­ble ca­reers for such gifted youth, al­though the same ques­tions may be asked of any gifted youth. The first ques­tion is whether or not they will be­come com­pe­tent but un­ex­cep­tion­ally cre­ative adults, as many gifted chil­dren do; or, “world-class”, em­i­nent adults, as very few gifted chil­dren do. The other ques­tion raised is whether or not we now know enough about the early fam­ily back­grounds of gifted youth and em­i­nent adults to pre­dict pos­si­ble ca­reers.

Cohn 1978

“Cog­ni­tive Char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Top-S­cor­ing Third of the 1976 Tal­ent Search Con­tes­tants”, Cohn 1978:

Reprinted from ITYB by spe­cial per­mis­sion.

Ini­tial re­sults from the 1976 Tal­ent Search pro­vided ev­i­dence for con­sid­er­able pre­coc­ity in math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity among the math­e­mat­i­cally apt sev­en­th-grade-age boys and girls who par­tic­i­pated in the first screen­ing of that com­pe­ti­tion (Ge­orge & Cohn, 1977). This ini­tial screen­ing pro­ce­dure con­sisted of both the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion (SAT-M) and the ver­bal sec­tion (SAT-V) of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test. A sec­ond screen­ing pro­ce­dure was em­ployed to dis­tin­guish from among the 873 con­tes­tants those youths who might best profit from im­me­di­ate in­ter­ven­tion by SMPY to fa­cil­i­tate ac­cel­er­a­tive op­por­tu­ni­ties in their ed­u­ca­tion…N­early 33% of the orig­i­nal 873 con­tes­tants were se­lected into what be­came known as the “retest group”, thereby rep­re­sent­ing the top 1% of same age youths in the na­tion with re­spect to math­e­mat­i­cal ap­ti­tude. 97%, that is all but 6 boys and 2 girls, of the 286 stu­dents in­vited to re­turn to The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity cam­pus for an en­tire day of fur­ther high­-level test­ing de­cided to take ad­van­tage of this op­por­tu­nity to ex­plore more fully de­scrip­tive eval­u­a­tion of their cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, at­ti­tudes, and in­ter­ests. The ra­tio of boys to girls in­creased from ap­prox­i­mately 1.39:1 in the orig­i­nal pool of con­tes­tants to 2.09:1 in retest group.

…On diffi­cult tests of spe­cific cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, tests de­vel­oped orig­i­nally for use with older young­sters, sev­en­th-grade-age con­tes­tants who scored in the up­per third in the 1976 Tal­ent Search demon­strated con­sid­er­able pre­coc­i­ty. In fact, many of them showed sub­stan­tial or even high lev­els of com­pe­tence in Al­ge­bra I even be­fore hav­ing taken a course in it…

Mills 1978

“Is Sex Role Re­lated To In­tel­lec­tual Abil­i­ties?”, Mills 1978:

Reprinted by spe­cial per­mis­sion from The In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin 3:10, July 1977.

…New mea­sure­ment tech­niques such as the Bem Sex Role In­ven­tory (1974) offer an op­por­tu­nity to ex­am­ine in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in both per­son­al­ity de­vel­op­ment and sex role as they are re­lated to in­tel­lec­tual func­tion­ing, thus em­pha­siz­ing the sim­i­lar­i­ties be­tween the sexes a re­ver­sal of past em­pha­sis on the po­lar­i­ties.

A study has been un­der­taken by the au­thor to in­ves­ti­gate the re­la­tion­ship be­tween per­son­al­ity and in­tel­lec­tual de­vel­op­ment. The study will uti­lize two main sam­ples of ado­les­cents. The first sam­ple con­sists of 278 male and fe­male con­tes­tants who par­tic­i­pated in the De­cem­ber 1976 Math­e­mat­ics Tal­ent Search con­ducted by The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and were in­vited back for fur­ther test­ing. For com­par­i­son pur­pos­es, as well as in­creased gen­er­al­iz­abil­i­ty, a sec­ond sam­ple of ap­prox­i­mately 200 “av­er­age” abil­ity boys and girls have been ran­domly se­lected from two ju­nior high schools in the area

…in col­lege sam­ples it has been found that ap­prox­i­mately 60% of the group will have a stereo­typic sex role iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Thus, 40% of the group has a bal­anced per­son­al­ity style, char­ac­ter­ized by an equal de­vel­op­ment of both the ex­pres­sive and in­stru­men­tal do­mains. In the Math Tal­ent Search group, ap­prox­i­mately 45% had ei­ther a stereo­typic mas­cu­line or stereo­typic fem­i­nine sex role iden­ti­ty, and 55% had a bal­anced de­vel­op­ment. It was in­ter­est­ing to note, how­ev­er, that a higher per­cent­age of girls had a bal­anced per­son­al­ity style. Within the boys 50% had a stereo­typic sex role iden­tity and 50% had a bal­ance. Within the girls ap­prox­i­mately 32% had a stereo­typic sex role iden­tity (and about one-half of these had a stereo­typic mas­cu­line iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, or cross-sex iden­ti­ty), and 68% had a bal­anced de­vel­op­ment. This is con­sis­tent with. the hy­poth­e­sis that some cross-sex iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or the de­vel­op­ment 01 in­stru­men­tal traits is re­lated to math rea­son­ing abil­ity in girls. …

Stanley 1978a

“Ed­u­ca­tional Non-ac­cel­er­a­tion: An In­ter­na­tional Tragedy”, Stan­ley 1978a:

This ar­ti­cle rep­re­sents an up­dated ver­sion of Dr. Stan­ley’s in­vited ad­dress to the Sec­ond World Con­fer­ence on Gifted and Tal­ented Chil­dren held at the Uni­ver­sity of San Fran­cis­co, Au­gust 2, 1977.

…Many in­tel­lec­tu­ally bril­liant youths ea­ger to pro­ceed faster ed­u­ca­tion­ally have been pre­vented from do­ing so by their par­ents, ed­u­ca­tors, or psy­chol­o­gists. The United States is a se­ri­ous offender in this re­spect, but I know from per­sonal ob­ser­va­tion that the sit­u­a­tion is even worse in a num­ber of other coun­tries. This brings to mind the hor­ri­ble Greek leg­end about Pro­crustes, who forced his guests to lie on a very long or a very short bed and fit­ted them to it by stretch­ing them if the bed was too long or by cut­ting off part of their legs if the bed was too short. The age-in-grade lock­step is a Pro­crustean so­lu­tion en­dorsed by all but a few. …

Stanley 1978b

“Rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion: Re­cent ed­u­ca­tional in­no­va­tion at JHU, Stan­ley 1978b:

[“Based on an in­for­mal talk at a meet­ing of alumni of The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., on 1977-09-20”] For six years at Johns Hop­kins my Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (ab­bre­vi­ated as SMPY) has been seek­ing through­out the State of Mary­land and else­where stu­dents in ju­nior high school who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Tonight I shall talk briefly with you about sev­eral of the most re­mark­able of these young men and women to il­lus­trate the ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ments of which they are eas­ily ca­pa­ble but which are usu­ally de­nied them.

Stanley & George 1978

“Now We Are Six: The Ever-Ex­pand­ing SMPY: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY] The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Stan­ley & George 1978:

The First For­mal Fol­low-Up: The sixth year for the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was an even more ac­tive, pro­duc­tive, and suc­cess­ful twelve-month pe­riod than were the pre­vi­ous five. By June, 1977 vir­tu­ally all of the 450 con­tes­tants from SMPY’s March, 1972 math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence tal­ent searches had been grad­u­ated from high school or had be­come ful­l-time col­lege stu­dents with­out com­plet­ing high school. … [ques­tion­naire re­sults: sci­ence/­math con­test par­tic­i­pa­tion, col­lege grad­u­ates & hon­ors, me­dia pro­files, SMPY coun­sel­ing work & re­cruit­ing men­tors, plans for the fourth tal­ent search, a chem­istry vs physics en­rich­ment ex­per­i­ment, more on me­dia cov­er­age of SMPY]

Cohn 1979

“Search­ing for Sci­en­tifi­cally Tal­ented Youth?”, Cohn 1979:

[De­scrip­tion of SMPY ini­tially screen­ing for sci­en­tific ap­ti­tude; re­fo­cus on math­-on­ly; strik­ing ab­sence of any in­ter­est in chem­istry and lit­tle in physics in SMPYers; the 1978 physic­s-chem­istry sum­mer camp; im­por­tance of tak­ing vo­ca­tional in­ter­est­s/pref­er­ences into ac­count in screen­ing]

Durden 1979

“Gifted Pro­grams: The Johns Hop­kins pro­gram for ver­bally gifted youth”, Dur­den 1979:

Re­spon­si­ble ap­proaches to the ed­u­ca­tion of our na­tion’s ver­bally gifted youth have long been needed to pro­vide chal­lenges com­pa­ra­ble to those al­ready offered to math­e­mat­i­cally gifted youth…The Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY), be­gun in the fall of 1978, was es­tab­lished in part to rec­tify this diffi­cult state of affairs. First-year re­sults are en­cour­ag­ing, and not only sug­gest pos­si­ble strate­gies for the ed­u­ca­tion of ver­bally gifted youth that could be du­pli­cated across the coun­try, but also point to the need for a rad­i­cal re­vi­tal­iza­tion of the hu­man­i­ties in Amer­i­ca, be­gin­ning at the sec­ondary lev­el, if not ear­li­er.

For­ma­tion of the pro­gram: Three Hop­kins De­part­ments par­tic­i­pated in the for­ma­tion of PVGY—The Writ­ing Sem­i­nars, Clas­sics and Ger­man. Since it was ini­tially de­cided that the pri­mary ped­a­gog­i­cal aim would be to offer ver­bally gifted young­sters of the ju­nior high school level an op­por­tu­nity to per­fect their writ­ing skills in a uni­ver­sity frame­work, courses were se­lected which di­rectly sup­ported this ori­en­ta­tion—Writ­ing Skills, Latin and Greek in Cur­rent Use (Mythol­ogy in the sec­ond se­mes­ter), and be­gin­ning Ger­man. Each course is equiv­a­lent to a course avail­able to reg­u­lar Johns Hop­kins stu­dents, and the PVGY’s stu­dents’ per­for­mance is mea­sured by col­lege cri­te­ri­a….These tests [SAT-V/Test of Stan­dard Writ­ten Eng­lish (TSWE)] are taken dur­ing a stu­den­t’s sev­en­th-grade year; a score of 430 or bet­ter on the SAT-V and 35 or bet­ter on TSWE are the min­i­mum ac­cept­able cri­te­ria.

Goals of PVGY: The Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth does not at­tempt to teach cre­ativ­i­ty. While imag­i­na­tion and in­di­vid­u­al­ized thought are in­deed en­cour­aged, PVGY’s five main goals are prac­ti­cal. The pro­gram seeks to pro­vide the in­di­vid­ual stu­dent with a ver­bal en­vi­ron­ment stim­u­lat­ing enough to elicit in­nate ver­bal abil­i­ties; to give the ver­bally tal­ented stu­dent a sound foun­da­tion in the me­chan­ics of the Eng­lish lan­guage; to nur­ture the de­vel­op­ment of all va­ri­eties of ver­bal tal­ent; to give the ver­bally gifted child the op­por­tu­nity to be­come fa­mil­iar with a lin­guis­tic tra­di­tion through the treat­ment of et­y­mol­o­gy, mythol­o­gy, for­eign lan­guages, and lit­er­a­tures; and to al­low a qual­i­fied young stu­dent ac­cess to col­lege-level course­work. These goals are not re­stricted merely to an au­di­ence of fu­ture writ­ers and po­ets, but also ap­peal to any youth wish­ing to de­velop pre­ci­sion and ac­cu­racy in com­mu­nica­tive skills for his or her per­sonal and pro­fes­sional life.

To mea­sure con­cretely the aca­d­e­mic suc­cess or fail­ure of the ini­tial year of the Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY), stu­dents were given Col­lege Board Test­ing, when avail­able, at the end of the sec­ond se­mes­ter. The 20 stu­dents in the 2 sec­tions of Writ­ing Skills were given the Col­lege Level Ex­am­i­na­tion (CLEP) Gen­eral Ex­am­i­na­tion in Eng­lish Com­po­si­tion (mul­ti­ple choice) and an es­say ques­tion de­signed by the in­struc­tors. The es­says were sub­jec­tively scored by the in­struc­tors and were mea­sured against the level ex­pected of a Johns Hop­kins sopho­more stu­dent com­plet­ing the Con­tem­po­rary Amer­i­can Let­ters course—the Writ­ing Sem­i­nar’s ba­sic writ­ing/read­ing course re­quired of all ma­jors be­fore they can con­tinue to up­per level course­work. Mea­sured against a scale of 1–10 (10 the max­i­mum), with 5 be­ing a “com­pe­tent” score, 12 of the 20 stu­dents scored above 5 (rang­ing from 6 to 8), 3 of the stu­dents scored be­low 5 (low­est 4 and 2 at 4.5), and 4 stu­dents scored 5. In the CLEP ex­am­i­na­tion, scores ranged from a high of 647 to a low of 448. Of the 20 stu­dents, 6 scored be­tween 448 and 500 (50th per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores tak­ing test), 7 scored be­tween 500 and 600 (86th per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores), and 7 scored be­tween 601 and 647 (93rd per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores).

…The ini­tial year of PVGY was es­sen­tially an ex­per­i­men­ta­tion stage in which the va­lid­ity of the idea of such a pro­gram was test­ed. The ex­per­i­ment yielded pos­i­tive re­sults in a va­ri­ety of ways. It re­vealed, first, that there is a pro­nounced need for greater at­ten­tion to ver­bally gifted youth in Amer­i­ca. PVGY has also taught us some of the things we must know to train teach­ers for this spe­cial kind of in­struc­tion.

Con­clu­sion: In the fall of 1979, PVGY be­gan its sec­ond year. While be­gin­ning courses in Ger­man, Writ­ing Skills and Latin and Greek in Cur­rent Use were again offered, stu­dents chose ad­vanced lev­els of Ger­man and Writ­ing Skills, as well as a new ad­di­tion on Latin lan­guage. It is ev­i­dent that PVGY has struck a re­spon­sive chord in the Amer­i­can ed­u­ca­tional scene. Thus far crit­i­cal re­ac­tion around the coun­try as well as in­ter­na­tion­al­ly, has been over­whelm­ingly pos­i­tive. There is ob­vi­ously a will­ing­ness on be­half of many ed­u­ca­tors to com­mit them­selves to re­build­ing Amer­i­ca’s foun­da­tion in ver­bal skills. It is our hope that the Hop­kins’ Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth will con­tribute a con­crete model for this re­newed effort, thereby not only aid­ing ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents, but also pro­vid­ing stan­dards for all stu­dents, for whom ac­cu­rate com­mu­nica­tive skills are es­sen­tial.

[The PVGY ap­pears to have been closed some­time in the early 1980s, and pos­si­bly rolled into the CTY pro­grams, as CTY re­port­edly has writ­ing classes with Latin & an­cient Greek courses offered.]

Eisenberg & George 1979

“Early En­trance to Col­lege: The Johns Hop­kins Ex­pe­ri­ence; Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Eisen­berg & George 1979:

The effects of short­en­ing gifted stu­dents’ over­all time for com­plet­ing el­e­men­tary, sec­ondary, and col­le­giate ed­u­ca­tion are ad­dressed. A study of the per­for­mance of such ac­cel­er­ated stu­dents in Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty’s pro­gram in­di­cates that most of the early en­trants have done well with­out en­coun­ter­ing se­ri­ous emo­tional and so­cial diffi­cul­ties.

George & Stanley 1979

“The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, George & Stan­ley 1979: stan­dard sum­mary & ad­ver­tise­ment for SMPY in Gifted Child Quar­terly.

Fox 1979

“Women and Math­e­mat­ics: The Im­pact of Early In­ter­ven­tion Pro­grams Upon Course-Tak­ing and At­ti­tudes in High School. Fi­nal Re­port”, Fox 1979:

This study in­ves­ti­gated the effec­tive­ness of sev­eral in­ter­ven­tion pro­grams, in terms Of in­creas­ing girls’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics. The pro­grams in­cluded two classes de­vel­oped at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (an al­l-girls’ ac­cel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics class and a girls’ ca­reer aware­ness class) , and four school sys­tem-based pro­grams based on the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth. The pop­u­la­tions are con­sid­ered to te well-above av­er­age with re­spect to math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Analy­sis in­cluded in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the im­pact of pro­grams on plans to take such courses as pre-cal­cu­lus, cal­cu­lus, chem­istry, physics, and com­puter sci­ence, in high school. Im­pact of the pro­grams upon vari­ables re­lated to ac­cel­er­a­tion in math­e­mat­ics was also as­sessed along with the rate of pop­u­la­tion at­tri­tion within the pro­grams. The achieve­ment of stu­dents in the school sys­tem-based ac­cel­er­ated classes was eval­u­ated for pos­si­ble sex differ­ences. Ques­tion­naire re­sponses ard the Fen­nema-Sh­er­man Math­e­mat­ics At­ti­tude Scale were used to mea­sure at­ti­tudes and in­ter­ests. Com­par­isons were made be­tween re­sponses on some at­ti­tude mea­sures and re­lated fac­tors such as ac­cel­er­a­tion, ca­reer goals, and life style plans. The ma­jor find­ing is that spe­cial pro­grams for the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted do have an im­pact on the course-tak­ing be­hav­iors and plans and as­pi­ra­tions of girls.

Fox & Pyryt 1979

“Guid­ance of Gifted Youth”, Fox & Pyryt 1979

George 1979

“The Tal­en­t-Search Con­cept: an Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Strat­egy for the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gifted”, George 1979:

Us­ing the em­pir­i­cally based ev­i­dence that has re­sulted from the pre­vi­ous five Tal­ent Searches of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, the ar­ti­cle de­vel­ops the ra­tio­nale and suc­cess be­hind the tal­en­t-search con­cept as a use­ful strat­egy for iden­ti­fy­ing the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed. Its prac­ti­cal­ity as a model is fur­ther demon­strated through the sys­tem­atic cur­ric­u­lar pro­gram­ming that has re­sulted at school-dis­trict lev­els after stu­dents have been iden­ti­fied as tal­ented in a spe­cific ap­ti­tude area. The iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is­sue is dis­cussed as it per­tains to effi­ciency and effec­tive­ness re­lated to cost, pre­dic­tive va­lid­i­ty, and fea­si­bil­i­ty.

George et al 1979

Ed­u­cat­ing the Gift­ed: Ac­cel­er­a­tion and En­rich­ment, ed George et al 1979 (ISBN 0801822602): an­thol­o­gy.

Laycock 1979

Gifted Chil­dren, Lay­cock 1979, in­cludes a short de­scrip­tion of SMPY (pg52–54), and a long pro­file of a fe­male SMPYer, “Lisa Skarp” (pg21–24), de­scrib­ing her early child­hood, join­ing SMPY, and suc­cess­ful ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion.

Mills 1979

“Sex-role-re­lated per­son­al­ity cor­re­lates of in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in ado­les­cents”, Mills 1979:

A re­cent study il­lus­trates the in­ter­re­lat­ed­ness of per­son­al­ity vari­ables and in­tel­lec­tual abil­ity for both boys and girls.

..S­ince ado­les­cence is a time when sex roles are es­pe­cially salient, groups of sev­enth and eighth grade males and fe­males from two sep­a­rate pop­u­la­tions were cho­sen for study. One group were semi­fi­nal­ists (188 males, 90 fe­males) who par­tic­i­pated in the De­cem­ber 1976 Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent Search con­ducted by The Study for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

…In the present study, all par­tic­i­pants re­ceived: 1. the Bern Sex-Role In­ven­tory (BSRI) (Bern, 1974), al­low­ing the in­de­pen­dent mea­sure­ment of “mas­culin­ity” and “fem­i­nin­ity” in terms of be­hav­ioral traits (e.g., com­pas­sion­ate, yield­ing, ag­gres­sive, self- suffi­cien­t); and 2. the Fem­i­nin­ity Scale (Fe) from the Cal­i­for­nia Psy­cho­log­i­cal In­ven­tory (Gough, 1952), a mea­sure of what is as­sumed to be a uni­di­men­sion­al, bipo­lar trait rang­ing from ex­treme mas­culin­ity at one end to ex­treme fem­i­nin­ity at the op­po­site end. In ad­di­tion, the SMPY or gifted group was given the All­port-Ver­non-Lindzey Study of Val­ues, a test for which con­sis­tent sex differ­ences are re­port­ed.

…Some ev­i­dence for a re­la­tion­ship be­tween math scores and mas­cu­line vari­ables for girls, and ver­bal scores with fem­i­nine vari­ables for boys, was found in the pub­lic school com­par­i­son group. In this group, the BSRI fem­i­nin­ity score was pos­i­tively re­lated to ver­bal scores for boys, and the BSRI mas­culin­ity score was pos­i­tively re­lated to math scores for girls. In ad­di­tion, the “ma­tu­rity” fac­tor on the BSRI, which con­tained nine of the orig­i­nal mas­culin­ity items, had a strong pos­i­tive cor­re­la­tion with math scores for pub­lic school girls. This fac­tor also had a strong pos­i­tive cor­re­la­tion with ver­bal scores for the girls. In other words, the very pos­i­tive, but also “in­stru­men­tal”, char­ac­ter­is­tics on this fac­tor were strongly re­lated to in­tel­lec­tual vari­ables over­all for these girls. …

Stanley & George 1979

“The Fu­ture of Ed­u­ca­tion”, Stan­ley & George 1979 (let­ter to Sci­ence)

1980

Albert 1980

, Al­bert 1980 (fol­lowup: Al­bert 1994):

In an effort to ex­plore some of the pos­si­ble ear­ly-ex­pe­ri­en­tial and fam­ily vari­ables in­volved in the achieve­ment of em­i­nence we have de­vel­oped a model of cog­ni­tive and per­son­al­ity de­vel­op­ment and have un­der­taken a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of two dis­tinct groups of ex­cep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies. In this re­port, early sim­i­lar­i­ties and differ­ences be­tween two groups of ex­cep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies will be ex­plored. Method­ol­ogy: This is a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of two sam­ples of healthy, ex­cep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies. One group con­sisted of 26 of the high­est scor­ers in the 1976 Math Tal­ent Search con­ducted by Ju­lian Stan­ley (1974, 1977); the sec­ond group of 26 boys liv­ing in south­ern Cal­i­for­nia were se­lected only on the ba­sis of IQ’s of 150 or high­er.

…Fac­tors in­cluded for study were par­ents’ and grand-par­ents’ ed­u­ca­tional at­tain­ment, par­ents’ and sub­jects’ birth-order, sub­jects’ and par­ents’ cre­ative po­ten­tial, and sub­jects’ cog­ni­tive gift­ed­ness.

  • Both sam­ples were well-e­d­u­cated and had at­tained sig­nifi­cantly more for­mal ed­u­ca­tion than the na­tional norms.
  • The birth-orders of the two sam­ples are what one would ex­pect from the lit­er­a­ture of gifted chil­dren and they are not sig­nifi­cantly differ­ent from one an­oth­er.
  • A sur­pris­ingly re­mark­able sim­i­lar­ity ex­ists be­tween the two sam­ples of cog­ni­tively gifted boys, al­though they were se­lected a year apart, a con­ti­nent apart, and on the ba­sis of dis­tinctly differ­ent test per­for­mances. We ex­pected them to per­form bet­ter on the fig­ural and the math­/­science sub­tests of the Wal­lach-Ko­gan and BIC mea­sures, re­spec­tive­ly, and the high­-IQ sam­ple to per­form sig­nifi­cantly bet­ter on the ver­bal and the art/writ­ing sub­tests. In­stead, the differ­ences be­tween the sam­ples are slight and not sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant. At min­i­mum, these re­sults sug­gest that the two sam­ples are each made of highly tal­ent­ed, cog­ni­tively gifted boys in the ares of art/writ­ing and math­/­science as mea­sured by stan­dard in­stru­ments. Sec­ond, these re­sults fur­ther in­di­cate the ver­sa­til­ity that ac­com­pa­nies ex­cep­tional gift­ed­ness…Table 1 shows that the par­ents of both groups of ex­cep­tion­ally gifted boys are them­selves ex­cep­tion­ally cre­ative. Par­ents of both groups out­per­formed Duke Uni­ver­sity sub­jects. Fur­ther­more, the par­ents defi­nitely showed more cre­ative po­ten­tial than their chil­dren. It is the par­ents of the high­-IQ boys who have the high­est cre­ativ­ity scores of all.

…We be­lieve the re­sults of the present study and those of Mil­gram et al. show that cog­ni­tive gift­ed­ness and cre­ative gift­ed­ness are very much re­lated to one an­other and may be man­i­fes­ta­tions of the same com­plex, mul­ti­-faceted abil­i­ties. There­fore, it should not sur­prise us that there is a large de­gree of fam­ily cog­ni­tive and cre­ative sim­i­lar­i­ty.

Becker 1980

“Per­for­mance of a Group of Math­e­mat­i­cally Able Youths on the Math­e­mat­ics Us­age and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings Tests of the Amer­i­can Col­lege Test Bat­tery vs. the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test”, Becker 1980:

In Feb­ru­ary of 1977 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity used for the first time in its tal­ent searches two tests from the Amer­i­can Col­lege Test (ACT) bat­tery: the Math­e­mat­ics Us­age (ACT-M) and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings (ACT-NS) tests. In ad­di­tion, three tests from the Differ­en­tial Ap­ti­tude Test (DAT) bat­tery and an Al­ge­bra I achieve­ment test were ad­min­is­tered to the top-s­cor­ing 278 con­tes­tants from the 1976–77 Math­e­mat­ics Tal­ent Search con­ducted by SMPY.

…A num­ber of points seem ap­par­ent from the above dis­cus­sions. The first is that the Math­e­mat­ics Us­age and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings Tests of the ACT bat­tery have ad­e­quate ceil­ing and floor for this group of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents who are four or five years younger than the usual ACT ex­am­i­nees. The Math­e­mat­ics Us­age test of the ACT cor­re­lates well with both the SAT-M and a test of Al­ge­bra I achieve­ment. A fac­tor analy­sis grouped these three tests on a math­e­mat­ics fac­tor for both boys and girls in the SMPY Tal­ent Search group. The Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings test cor­re­lates highly with the SAT-V, and is grouped with the SAT-V in a ver­bal rea­son­ing fac­tor for both sex­es. The ACT-NS also cor­re­lates with the math­e­mat­ics mea­sures, sug­gest­ing that it may have a com­pu­ta­tional or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing com­po­nent as well as its mainly ver­bal com­po­nent.

SMPY will con­tinue to use SAT-M as the ini­tial screen­ing in­stru­ment for math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches among sev­en­th-graders in the Mid­dle At­lantic Re­gion who are al­ready known to score in the top 3% on na­tional norms for the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of an achieve­men­t-test bat­tery, such as the Iowa Test of Ba­sic Skills. This will be done chiefly be­cause the sub­ject mat­ter de­mands of SAT-M are less than those of ACT-M. ACT-M can be quite use­ful, how­ev­er, for fur­ther study of the high scor­ers on SAT-M (e.g., those earn­ing at or above 500, slightly above the av­er­age for col­lege-bound male 12th-grader­s). ACT-NS is a good ba­sic screen­ing test of sci­ence ap­ti­tude for this able group. It may be fol­lowed by a more sub­jec­t-mat­ter-ori­ented test such as Level 1 of Ed­u­ca­tional Test­ing Ser­vice’s Se­quen­tial Tests of Ed­u­ca­tional Progress (STEP) in sci­ence. Fur­ther com­par­a­tive study of SAT and ACT tests is planned.

Benbow 1980

“Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Abil­i­ty: Fact or Ar­ti­fact?”, Ben­bow 1980:

A sub­stan­tial sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (s­core on the math­e­mat­ics test of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test) in fa­vor of boys was found in a study of 9927 in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ju­nior high school stu­dents. Our data con­tra­dict the hy­poth­e­sis that differ­en­tial course-tak­ing ac­counts for ob­served sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, but sup­port the hy­poth­e­sis that these differ­ences are some­what in­creased by en­vi­ron­men­tal in­flu­ences.

Benbow & Stanley 1980

“In­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents: Fam­ily pro­files”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1980:

In this pa­per fam­ily pro­files com­piled from analy­sis of the ques­tion­naires com­pleted by the SMPY De­cem­ber of 1976 Tal­ent Search par­tic­i­pants will be de­scribed. This tal­ent search, ge­o­graph­i­cally more di­verse than the three pre­vi­ous search­es, cov­ered the mid-At­lantic re­gion, in­clud­ing Mary­land and sur­round­ing ar­eas in Penn­syl­va­nia, Delaware, Vir­ginia, West Vir­ginia, and the Dis­trict of Co­lum­bia. [si­b­ling dis­tri­b­u­tion; parental ed­u­ca­tion & as­sor­ta­tive mat­ing; par­en­t-child education/SAT cor­re­la­tion; pa­ter­nal oc­cu­pa­tion] …The highly able group of 873 par­tic­i­pants in the 1976 Tal­ent Search, most of whom were sev­en­th-graders, came from fam­i­lies in which, on the av­er­age, the par­ents were liv­ing and well ed­u­cat­ed. The fa­thers’ oc­cu­pa­tional sta­tus tended to be high. The fam­i­lies were rel­a­tively large (i.e., av­er­ag­ing more than three chil­dren, rather than the cur­rent na­tional mean of 1.7). There were no strong cor­re­la­tions be­tween fam­ily size or sib­ling po­si­tion and abil­ity of the stu­dents. Par­ents’ ed­u­ca­tional level and pa­ter­nal oc­cu­pa­tional sta­tus were re­lated to mea­sured ap­ti­tude; these re­la­tion­ships were stronger for boys. Fa­thers’ ed­u­ca­tional level cor­re­lated more highly with their chil­dren’s abil­ity than did moth­ers’ ed­u­ca­tional lev­el. Fi­nal­ly, SAT-M scores for both sexes re­lated more closely to par­ents’ ed­u­ca­tional level and fa­thers’ oc­cu­pa­tional sta­tus than did SAT-V scores.

Fox et al 1980

Women and the Math­e­mat­i­cal Mys­tique, ed Fox et al 1980 (ISBN 0801823617): an­thol­o­gy.

  1. “Sex Differ­ences in the De­vel­op­ment of Pre­co­cious Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent”, Fox & Cohn:

    In 1972 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) be­gan its search to iden­tify highly able math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ers. With some vari­a­tions in the tar­get pop­u­la­tion and the se­lec­tion pro­ce­dures, the tal­ent searches have con­tin­ued to the pre­sent. This chap­ter re­views the re­sults of the 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, and 1979 tal­ent search­es, with par­tic­u­lar em­pha­sis on sex differ­ences. Fol­low-up data avail­able on the 1972, 1973, and 1974 par­tic­i­pants are an­a­lyzed, par­tic­u­larly as they re­late to sex-role iden­tity and will­ing­ness to ac­cel­er­ate. At­tempts to fos­ter pre­co­cious achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics by means of spe­cial, ac­cel­er­ated classes for mixed-sex and same-sex groups are de­scribed.

  2. “An Ac­cel­er­a­tive In­ter­ven­tion Pro­gram for Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted Girls”, Brody & Fox

    An in­ter­ven­tion pro­gram de­signed to in­crease gifted girls’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics was con­ducted at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in the sum­mer of 1973. The pro­gram con­sisted of a course in al­ge­bra I for twen­ty-six sev­en­th-grade girls and in­cluded spe­cial at­ten­tion to the so­cial needs of the girls, fe­male role mod­els, some ca­reer aware­ness train­ing, and an em­pha­sis on the so­cial ap­pli­ca­tions of math­e­mat­ics. Con­trol groups of boys and girls who did not par­tic­i­pate in the pro­gram were se­lected for pur­poses of com­par­i­son in as­sess­ing the pro­gram. In 1977, when the stu­dents had com­pleted the eleventh grade, there were sig­nifi­cant differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion be­tween the con­trol boys and the con­trol girls and be­tween the ex­per­i­men­tal girls and the con­trol girls, but not be­tween the ex­per­i­men­tal girls and the con­trol boys. Differ­en­tial val­ues, ca­reer in­ter­ests, and en­cour­age­ment are ex­plored as pos­si­ble con­tribut­ing fac­tors to sex differ­ences in course-tak­ing be­hav­ior.

McClain & Durden 1980

“Ger­man for ver­bally gifted young­sters at Hop­kins: The first year”, Mc­Clain & Dur­den 1980:

Dur­ing the aca­d­e­mic year 1978–79 the De­part­ment of Ger­man of the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity offered a course in Be­gin­ning Ger­man as part of the Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY). PVGY was ini­ti­ated at Hop­kins in the fall of 1978 by the Writ­ing Sem­i­nars and the De­part­ments of Ger­man and Clas­sics. An an­nounce­ment of the Ger­man course ap­peared in the fall 1979 is­sue of Un­ter­richt­spraxis [Teach­ing Ger­man]. After a year’s ex­pe­ri­ence we are now able to re­port in greater de­tail on our pro­gram.

…Be­cause all of our young­sters were highly mo­ti­vat­ed, and also be­cause they felt com­fort­able with one an­other in spite of their differ­ent lev­els of abil­i­ty, we were able to spark a com­pet­i­tive spirit in class with­out affect­ing morale. One effec­tive teach­ing de­vice was the use of team-type learn­ing sit­u­a­tion­s….From their re­sponse to the and other works of Ger­man lit­er­a­ture we con­cluded that ver­bally gifted young­sters might well be able to ac­quire at the eighth grade lev­el, or per­haps even ear­lier, some of the more prac­ti­cal skills nec­es­sary for lit­er­ary analy­sis, and hence be spared the ne­ces­sity of ac­quir­ing these at a later time in their de­vel­op­ment when they might de­vote them­selves more ap­pro­pri­ately to the more com­plex prob­lems posed by lit­er­ary texts.

…Both the first and sec­ond year PVGY Ger­man classes are pro­gress­ing very well. One of our sat­is­fac­tions has been the sense of ac­com­plish­ing at least a few of the ob­jec­tives pro­posed for the pro­fes­sion by the MLA/ACLS Task Forces. Chief among these is that of offer­ing young­sters the chance to study a for­eign lan­guage at an op­ti­mal age. It is also sat­is­fy­ing to re­al­ize that in offer­ing a col­lege-level course to eighth graders we are en­cour­ag­ing closer co­op­er­a­tion be­tween sec­ondary schools and col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties. Our pro­gram has been suc­cess­ful be­cause it is a co­op­er­a­tive effort. Its suc­cess has con­vinced us that, by pool­ing re­sources, schools and col­leges can per­form more effec­tively than ei­ther of them can in­de­pen­dent­ly, the vi­tally im­por­tant task of de­vel­op­ing the hu­man tal­ent which the na­tion now needs per­haps more ur­gently than at any other time in his­to­ry.

Mezynski & Stanley 1980

“Ad­vanced Place­ment Ori­ented Cal­cu­lus for High School Stu­dents”, Mezyn­ski & Stan­ley 1980:

A sup­ple­men­tary cal­cu­lus course was con­ducted to give highly able stu­dents the op­por­tu­nity to learn the equiv­a­lent of two se­mes­ters of col­lege cal­cu­lus while still in high school. Two differ­ent stu­dent pop­u­la­tions were sam­pled; the av­er­age age of the mem­bers of Class I was 14.9 years, whereas for mem­bers of Class II it was 16.7 years. Class I mem­bers had more pre­vi­ous ex­po­sure to fast-paced math­e­mat­ics in­struc­tion than had mem­bers of Class II. Both classes took the Col­lege Board’s AP Cal­cu­lus Ex­am­i­na­tion, Level BC, at the end of the course. The re­sults of the AP ex­am­i­na­tion in­di­cated that most stu­dents learned col­lege-level cal­cu­lus well. Con­sid­er­a­tions for the es­tab­lish­ment of sim­i­lar pro­grams are dis­cussed.

Stanley 1980a

“On Ed­u­cat­ing the gifted”, Stan­ley 1980a:

This ar­ti­cle ex­plores cur­rent think­ing on ways to im­prove the ed­u­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths. The term “in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented” seems, for sev­eral rea­sons, prefer­able to the more com­monly used ex­pres­sion “gift­ed.” In this ar­ti­cle, I con­sider just those spe­cific de­vel­oped abil­i­ties that make some stu­dents es­pe­cially ed­u­ca­ble within the broad con­text of schools…

[use of stan­dard­ized test­ing; ben­e­fits of ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment like SMPY’s ac­cel­er­ated sum­mer math class­es]

Stanley 1980b

“Ma­nip­u­late im­por­tant ed­u­ca­tional vari­ables”, Stan­ley 1980b:

For nine years per­son­nel of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins have found thou­sands of youths, chiefly sev­en­th-graders, who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. SMPY strives in var­i­ous ways to help these stu­dents pro­ceed con­sid­er­ably faster and bet­ter in math­e­mat­ics and re­lated sub­jects than is usu­ally per­mit­ted or en­cour­aged. Its work is offered as an ex­am­ple of im­por­tant prob­lems that, in the judg­ment of the au­thor, ed­u­ca­tional psy­chol­o­gists should at­tack vig­or­ous­ly. SMPY’s four-D model is de­scribed, which em­pha­sizes ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion of youths who are highly able and ea­ger to move ahead quick­ly.

House 1981

“One Small Step for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted”, House 1981:

In Min­neso­ta, a re­cent pro­gram demon­strated that some needs of cer­tain math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented pupils could be ac­com­mo­dated with mod­est pro­vi­sions. The out­comes of that pro­gram have im­pli­ca­tions for math­e­mat­ics ed­u­ca­tors else­where.

…The MTYMP offered three spe­cial fast-paced math­e­mat­ics class­es, two in the Min­neapolis-St. Paul met­ro­pol­i­tan area and one in Du­luth. These classes were mod­eled on sim­i­lar ac­cel­er­ated classes offered by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) con­ducted at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (See Stan­ley, Keat­ing and Fox, 1974; Keat­ing, 1976). The SMPY is the most ex­ten­sive re­cent pro­gram for math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth, and the MTYMP is the first repli­ca­tion of the SMPY class­es.

Fox 1981

“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted”, Fox 1981:

Var­i­ous cri­te­ria for iden­ti­fy­ing the aca­d­e­m­i­cally gift­ed, such as scores on gen­eral in­tel­li­gence and cre­ativ­ity tests, teacher rec­om­men­da­tions, and scores on stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests, have been used. The au­thor points out their lim­i­ta­tions and rec­om­mends an iden­ti­fi­ca­tion process de­vel­oped by J. C. Stan­ley (1976) that equates pre­coc­ity with aca­d­e­mic tal­ent by fo­cus­ing on chil­dren with ex­cep­tion­ally high per­for­mance on ad­vanced tests of spe­cific sub­ject mat­ter. Pro­grams that be­gin with this process and then sup­ple­ment it with fur­ther di­ag­nos­tic test­ing, clin­i­cal meth­ods, and eval­u­a­tion of stu­dents’ prod­ucts are dis­cussed. It is noted that use of these pro­ce­dures with dis­ad­van­taged pop­u­la­tions has iden­ti­fied more aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted stu­dents than other pro­ce­dures had found.

Stanley 1981

“The pre­dic­tive value of the SAT for bril­liant sev­en­th-and eighth-graders”, Stan­ley 1981, The In­ter­na­tional schools jour­nal (ISSN: 0264-7281), 1981, p.39:

At the Jan­u­ary 1978 ad­min­is­tra­tion of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test there were, for the first time, more than a few 12- and 13-year-olds. They were among the 2,000 gifted stu­dents in that age group, who, through the efforts of Ju­lian Stan­ley, di­rec­tory of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, may be able to ac­cel­er­ate in school at a rate that al­lows them to achieve at their own pace, and study at the un­der­grad­u­ate and grad­u­ate lev­els when they are ready. SMPY’s tal­ent search­es, of which the pri­mary eval­u­a­tive tool is the SAT-mathematical score, have broad­ened be­yond the Bal­ti­more area since 1971 to in­clude stu­dents from many other States. Maths teach­ers abroad will wel­come this sim­ple pro­ce­dure for iden­ti­fy­ing gifted young math­e­mati­cians.

Bartkovich & Mezynski 1981

“Fast-Paced Pre­cal­cu­lus Math­e­mat­ics for Tal­ented Ju­nior High Stu­dents: Two Re­cent SMPY Pro­grams”, Bartkovich & Mezyn­ski 1981:

…Dur­ing the sum­mers of 1978 and 1979, math­e­mat­ics classes spon­sored by SMPY were held pri­mar­ily for sev­en­th-grade-age (12 or 13 years old) stu­dents. The ob­jec­tive of both sum­mer pro­grams was that each par­tic­i­pant learn well and at a high level of un­der­stand­ing as much pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics as was fea­si­ble dur­ing the eight-week pro­gram. The stu­dents who were se­lected to par­tic­i­pate were ex­cep­tion­ally able in math­e­mat­ics rel­a­tive to na­tional age-grade norms. The 1978 group was the abler, as dis­cussed later in this pa­per, in terms of their scores on the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of the SAT, and achieve­ment dur­ing the sum­mer pro­gram.

Benbow 1981

Ben­bow, C.P. (1981) “De­vel­op­ment of su­pe­rior math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity dur­ing ado­les­cence”, the­sis, The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, Bal­ti­more, MD:

Be­tween 1972 and 1974 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2000 7th and 8th grade stu­dents who scored as well as a na­tional sam­ple of 11th and 12th grade fe­males on the Col­lege Board’s SAT-Mathematics or SAT-Verbal tests. The aca­d­e­mic and so­cial de­vel­op­ment of these in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents over the fol­low­ing 5 years was lon­gi­tu­di­nally in­ves­ti­gat­ed. Over 91% (1996 out of the 2188 SMPY stu­dents) par­tic­i­pat­ed.

Five years later the SMPY stu­dents reaffirmed their ini­tial aca­d­e­mic su­pe­ri­or­ity by scor­ing on the av­er­age 200 points (SAT-M) or 170 points (SAT-V) bet­ter than col­lege-bound 12th grade stu­dents. Their mean scores on the Col­lege Board Achieve­ment Tests for all such tests were 100 points above the av­er­age for col­lege-bound se­niors. The high­est scores were not nec­es­sar­ily in math­e­mat­ics. On not one test did the SMPY group score lower than the av­er­age of col­lege-bound se­niors.

The mean num­ber of se­mes­ters of math­e­mat­ics taken by SMPY stu­dents was two more than col­lege-bound se­niors. SMPY stu­dents were ten times more likely to take cal­cu­lus in high school than high school stu­dents in gen­er­al. Their achieve­ment in high school sci­ence courses was al­most as out­stand­ing and com­pared fa­vor­ably to that of col­lege-bound se­niors.

Math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence were their fa­vorite courses in high school. Math­e­mat­ics was most pre­ferred but bi­ol­o­gy, chem­istry, and physics were also well liked. SMPY stu­dents fre­quently par­tic­i­pated in sci­ence fairs and math­e­mat­ics con­tests. Within this ho­mo­ge­neous group, how­ev­er, SAT-M scores could not pre­dict the de­gree of in­ter­est for math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence.

Many SMPY stu­dents ac­cel­er­ated their ed­u­ca­tion. These ac­cel­er­ants be­lieved they had ben­e­fited in their ed­u­ca­tion­al, so­cial, and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment, and they achieved sim­i­larly in high school to their non-ac­cel­er­ated coun­ter­parts who went to col­lege, but in less time.

SMPY stu­dents en­gaged in a wide va­ri­ety of out­-of-school ac­tiv­i­ties. Read­ing, so­cial, and per­form­ing arts ac­tiv­i­ties were the most pop­u­lar. Most SMPY stu­dents re­ceived one or more awards or hon­ors. A high per­cent­age of these awards were aca­d­e­m­ic. From the tal­ent search SAT scores the num­ber of aca­d­e­mic awards won could not be pre­dict­ed. Over­all, SMPY stu­dents did not ex­hibit a nar­row range of in­ter­ests and par­tic­i­pated in a wide range of ac­tiv­i­ties.

By 1980 over 90& of the stu­dents were at­tend­ing col­lege, typ­i­cally at aca­d­e­m­i­cally and so­cially pres­ti­gious uni­ver­si­ties, and said they were en­joy­ing it. At least half of the SMPY stu­dents in­tended to ma­jor in the math­e­mat­i­cal sci­ences, sci­ence, or en­gi­neer­ing. Fur­ther­more, since at least 96% of the group wanted to re­ceive at least a bach­e­lor’s de­gree, their ed­u­ca­tional as­pi­ra­tions were high. A doc­toral de­gree was their most fre­quently named goal. Tal­ent search SAT scores re­lated to their high school achieve­ments.

Sex differ­ences fa­vor­ing males were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment tests. SMPY fe­males re­ceived bet­ter grades in their math­e­mat­ics cours­es, while SMPY boys be­came slightly more ac­cel­er­at­ed. Few sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences were found in at­ti­tudes to­ward math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. A re­la­tion­ship be­tween the sex differ­ence on SAT-M and sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment was es­tab­lished. The in­flu­ence of SMPY upon these stu­dents was per­ceived as ben­e­fi­cial. Most felt SMPY had helped ed­u­ca­tion­al­ly, while not de­tract­ing from their so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment.

Benbow & Stanley 1982a

“In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Boys and Girls: Ed­u­ca­tional Pro­files”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1982a:

…An im­por­tant as­pect of any lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search pro­gram is to de­scribe the sub­jects ini­tially be­cause that pro­vides base­line da­ta. For the SMPY pro­gram, this char­ac­ter­i­za­tion can also be of great util­ity when eval­u­at­ing the long-term effec­tive­ness of its de­vel­op­ment role, in study­ing sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b, 1981) and math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment (Ben­bow, 1981; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, in press, a, b; Fox, 1977), and when iden­ti­fy­ing pos­si­ble de­ter­mi­nants of later be­hav­ior in the group. In the present work we try to meet this need by de­scrib­ing and con­trast­ing by sex the ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences and at­ti­tudes of the par­tic­i­pants in an SMPY tal­ent search…

[SAT-M scores split by sex, grade, school type; school/­math­/bi­ol­o­gy/­chem­istry/­physic­s-lik­ing at­ti­tudes; use of G&T or other spe­cial ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties]

Benbow & Stanley 1982b

“Con­se­quences in high school and col­lege of sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal per­spec­tive”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1982b:

Be­tween 1972 and 1974 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2,000 7th and 8th graders who scored as well as a na­tional sam­ple of 11th and 12th grade fe­males on the Col­lege Board’s Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT) Math­e­mat­ics or Ver­bal tests. A sub­stan­tial sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity was found (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b, 1981). The con­se­quences and de­vel­op­ment of this sex differ­ence over the fol­low­ing 5 years were in­ves­ti­gated lon­gi­tu­di­nal­ly. Over 91% (1,996 out of 2,188 SMPY stu­dents) par­tic­i­pat­ed. This study es­tab­lished that the sex differ­ence per­sisted over sev­eral years and was re­lated to sub­se­quent sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics achieve­ment. The sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­ics did not re­flect differ­en­tial math­e­mat­ics course tak­ing. The abil­i­ties of males de­vel­oped more rapidly than those of fe­males. Sex differ­ences fa­vor­ing males were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics achieve­ment and Ad­vanced Place­ment Pro­gram ex­am­i­na­tions. SMPY fe­males re­ceived bet­ter grades in their math­e­mat­ics courses than SMPY males did. Few sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences were found in at­ti­tudes to­ward math­e­mat­ics.

Moore 1982

“The Joys and Chal­lenges in Rais­ing a Gifted Child”, Moore 1982:

[Parental mem­oir of rais­ing a gifted girl: ad­vanced one grade in el­e­men­tary school, this proved in­suffi­cient, lead­ing to bore­dom, be­hav­ioral prob­lems, and care­less­ness; a trans­fer to a pri­vate school wors­ened mat­ters; dis­cov­ered in SMPY’s test­ing at 12, she took a SMPY sum­mer course where she blos­somed, lead­ing her par­ents to bat­tle for early en­roll­ment in high school, tak­ing se­nior & col­lege courses on the side and grown into a happy teenag­er.]

Sawyer & Daggett 1982

“Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram”, Sawyer & Daggett 1982:

[Re­vised ver­sion of a speech given by Dr. Robert N. Sawyer at the Tenth An­nual Hy­man J. Blum­berg Sym­po­sium On Re­search in Early Child­hood Ed­u­ca­tion at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, Nov. 14–16, 1980.]

In No­vem­ber of 1979 the se­nior au­thor trav­elled to The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity to ob­serve the ac­tiv­i­ties of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youths (SMPY) and the Office of Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and De­vel­op­ment (OTID)…The de­ci­sion was made that Duke should move ahead as swiftly as pos­si­ble to iden­tify ver­bally and math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths in a thir­teen-s­tate area. The goals of the Duke pro­gram were set forth as fol­lows:

  1. iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of gifted youths;
  2. de­vel­op­ment of the in­tel­lec­tual po­ten­tial of the stu­dents iden­ti­fied;
  3. as­sis­tance in the place­ment of these youths in in­sti­tu­tions of higher ed­u­ca­tion with pro­grams con­sis­tent with the stu­dents’ in­ter­ests and ca­pa­bil­i­ties; and
  4. re­search per­tain­ing to the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the gift­ed, na­ture of gift­ed­ness, and cur­ricu­lum for the gift­ed.

…The tar­get area rep­re­sents 25% of the United States and ap­prox­i­mately 28% of the 12-year-olds in the United States…­More than 380 par­tic­i­pants ob­tained com­bined SAT(M+V) scores greater than 1000. The high­est scor­ing young­ster re­ceived a com­bined SAT (M+V) score of 1400.

One hun­dred and fifty-one very high­-s­cor­ing 12- and 13-year old stu­dents from 25 states com­pleted an in­ten­sive, fast-paced course in ei­ther Math­e­mat­ics, Ex­pos­i­tory Writ­ing, Amer­i­can His­to­ry, or Ger­man. One hun­dred and eigh­teen stu­dents com­pleted the fast-paced pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics pro­gram…All but one com­pleted at least one pre­cal­cu­lus math course such as Al­ge­bra I in three weeks; some com­pleted as many as four. The math pro­gram was set up in ac­cor­dance with the Di­ag­nos­tic Test­ing fol­lowed by Pre­scrip­tive In­struc­tion (DT PI) model ex­cel­lently out­lined in Bartkovich and George (1980)…We at TIP look for­ward to ex­panded efforts in the de­vel­op­ment and re­search ar­eas, as well as the de­vel­op­ment of a coun­sel­ing pack­age for our stu­dents and their fam­i­lies.

Stanley & Benbow 1982

“Ed­u­cat­ing Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youths: Twelve Pol­icy Rec­om­men­da­tions”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1982:

Pol­icy Rec­om­men­da­tions: On the ba­sis of SMPY’s 13 years of work with tal­ented stu­dents and their lon­gi­tu­di­nal fol­low-up, we offer the fol­low­ing ed­u­ca­tional pol­icy rec­om­men­da­tions: 1. Stu­dents who are ca­pa­ble of achiev­ing at a high level and are good prospects for ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­ta­tion should be iden­ti­fied early na­tion­wide. … 2. Stu­dents should be al­lowed to take math­e­mat­ics courses ap­pro­pri­ate to their abil­ity and achieve­ment lev­els, re­gard­less of their age. … 3. In­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents should be able to sub­sti­tute courses such as col­lege al­ge­bra and cal­cu­lus, taken as a part-time col­lege stu­dent, for high school courses that are ei­ther un­avail­able or too el­e­men­tary. … 4. Tak­ing Ad­vanced Place­ment Pro­gram (AP) ex­am­i­na­tions by highly able stu­dents should be en­cour­aged in all pos­si­ble ways. … 5. Some aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents should en­ter col­lege as ful­l-time stu­dents while still younger than the typ­i­cal age, with or with­out hav­ing earned a high school diplo­ma. … 6. The age re­stric­tions on all the Na­tional Sci­ence Foun­da­tion (NSF) sum­mer in­sti­tutes should be low­ered. … 7. NSF should re­quire that at least half of the NSF sum­mer in­sti­tutes be highly ac­cel­er­a­tive. … 8. Stu­dents who com­plete both a bach­e­lor’s and a mas­ter’s de­gree in eight se­mes­ters or less should be el­i­gi­ble for NSF fel­low­ships. … 9. Gov­ern­ment agen­cies and pri­vate foun­da­tions should con­sider al­lo­cat­ing more fi­nan­cial sup­port for the de­scrip­tive and long-term fol­low-up as­pects of lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies such as char­ac­ter­ize SMPY’s learn­ing how its high­-s­cor­ing tal­ent search par­tic­i­pants turn out in the year 2000. … 10. Re­search should be con­ducted to dis­cover why fe­males tend to have less well de­vel­oped math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity than males and to dis­cover pos­si­ble reme­dies. … 11. Teach­ing gifted chil­dren how to use study time effec­tively should be a pri­or­i­ty. … 12. Re­search should be pur­sued on the causes of the great hos­til­ity to­ward pre­co­cious in­tel­lec­tual achieve­ment that is en­demic in this coun­try and on ways to coun­ter­act it. …

With these 12 pol­icy rec­om­men­da­tions, some of which have sev­eral parts, we con­clude the pre­sen­ta­tion of cer­tain ed­u­ca­tional im­pli­ca­tions that have grown out of SMPY’s decade of work with many thou­sands of boys and girls who, iden­ti­fied when most of them were 12-year-old sev­en­th-graders, rea­soned ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Stu­dents such as these form the ma­jor ba­sis for our coun­try’s sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal fu­ture. We can and must help them use their abil­i­ties far bet­ter than is per­mit­ted at pre­sent. Oth­er­wise, the United States is likely to fall far be­hind the So­viet Union and sev­eral other coun­tries in sci­en­tific re­search and tech­no­log­i­cal de­vel­op­ment…

Academic Precocity, Benbow & Stanley 1983a

Aca­d­e­mic Pre­coc­i­ty: As­pects of its De­vel­op­ment, ed Ben­bow & Stan­ley et al 1983 (ISBN 0801829909): an­thol­o­gy.

  1. “In­tro­duc­tion”, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley

  2. “Ado­les­cence of the Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious: A Five-Year Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow

    SMPY’s first set of lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings are strong in­di­ca­tors that SMPY’s iden­ti­fi­ca­tion mea­sure is effec­tive in se­lect­ing stu­dents in the sev­enth grade who achieve at a su­pe­rior level in high school, es­pe­cially in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. Ques­tion­naire data ob­tained from 1,996 stu­dents who as sev­en­th- or eighth-graders had scored bet­ter on the SAT than a ran­dom sam­ple of eleven­th- and twelfth-grade fe­males were an­a­lyzed. Rel­a­tive to the com­par­i­son groups SMPY stu­dents were su­pe­rior in both abil­ity and achieve­ment, ex­pressed stronger in­ter­est in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ences, were ac­cel­er­ated more fre­quent­ly, and were more highly mo­ti­vated ed­u­ca­tion­al­ly, as in­di­cated by their de­sire for ad­vanced de­grees from diffi­cult schools. Sex differ­ences were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment tests. The ma­jor­ity of the stu­dents felt that SMPY had helped them ed­u­ca­tion­ally while not de­tract­ing from their so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment. The SAT-M score of an in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented sev­en­th- or eighth-grader has much pre­dic­tive va­lid­i­ty.

  3. “Man­i­fes­ta­tion of Cre­ative Be­hav­iors by Ma­tur­ing Par­tic­i­pants in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, William B. Michael:

    The cre­ative per­for­mance of math­e­mat­i­cally apt ado­les­cents was in­ves­ti­gat­ed. In or­der to pro­vide a frame­work for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and eval­u­a­tion of the pre­dic­tors of cre­ative be­hav­ior re­ported by SMPY stu­dents, two em­pir­i­cal stud­ies based on SMPY data were re­viewed briefly. A sum­mary of the sta­tis­ti­cal re­sults of the first three tal­ent searches and of the fol­low-up showed that SAT-M score is neg­a­tively re­lated to par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence fairs for girls and pos­i­tively re­lated to par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics con­tests for boys. Ma­jor at­ten­tion was given to the prob­lems en­coun­tered in an­a­lyz­ing these stud­ies. The am­bi­gu­ity and in­con­clu­sive­ness of the re­sults were at­trib­uted to sub­stan­tive lim­i­ta­tions as­so­ci­ated with the con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of cre­ativ­i­ty, the op­er­a­tional­iza­tion of the con­struct, and the na­ture of the learn­ing en­vi­ron­ment. Method­olog­i­cal diffi­cul­ties oc­cur­ring in re­la­tion to the un­re­li­a­bil­ity of the mea­sures, the re­stricted abil­ity range, and the vi­o­la­tion of as­sump­tions cen­tral to the sta­tis­ti­cal pro­ce­dures used were iden­ti­fied. In con­clu­sion, sev­eral rec­om­men­da­tions for fu­ture in­ves­ti­ga­tions were offered.

  4. “Math­e­mat­ics Taught at a Fast Pace: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Eval­u­a­tion of SMPY’s First Class”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow, Su­san Perkins, and Ju­lian C. Stan­ley:

    Fast-paced classes have been ad­vo­cated in SMPY’s pro­pos­als for cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­i­ty. To eval­u­ate the long-term effects of such a class, the re­sponses to two ques­tion­naires com­pleted nine years later by both the par­tic­i­pants and the non­par­tic­i­pants of SMPY’s first two math­e­mat­ics classes were an­a­lyzed. The par­tic­i­pants scored sig­nifi­cantly higher in high school on the SAT-M, ex­pressed greater in­ter­est in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, and ac­cel­er­ated their ed­u­ca­tion much more than the non­par­tic­i­pants. Gaps in knowl­edge of math­e­mat­ics by the par­tic­i­pants were not found. All groups at­tended se­lec­tive col­leges, but the stu­dents who com­pleted the fast-paced class chose the most aca­d­e­m­i­cally diffi­cult. It is con­cluded that when highly able youths are pre­sented the op­por­tu­ni­ty, many of them will ac­cu­mu­late ed­u­ca­tional ad­van­tage.

  5. “Fast-Paced Math­e­mat­ics Classes for a Rural County”, John F. Lun­ny:

    A fast-paced math­e­mat­ics pro­gram adapted from the SMPY model was de­vel­oped to meet the needs of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents in a rural coun­ty. After meet­ing screen­ing re­quire­ments, eighth-grade stu­dents are se­lected on the ba­sis of PSAT scores. Com­bin­ing en­rich­ment and ac­cel­er­a­tion, the pro­gram offers weekly two hour evening classes in math­e­mat­ics to stu­dents who take re­lated classes dur­ing the day. The en­tire pre­cal­cu­lus se­quence as well as com­puter sci­ence can be com­pleted at the end of three years in this pro­gram. Cal­cu­lus can then be pur­sued for col­lege cred­it, free of charge, at the lo­cal com­mu­nity col­lege. The use of pre- and post-tests with ap­pro­pri­ate re­view ses­sions en­ables the stu­dents’ progress to be mon­i­tored close­ly. Ap­prox­i­mately 25% of each year’s ini­tial pro­gram en­roll­ment com­pletes the three­-year pro­gram, through com­puter sci­ence. Thus SMPY’s model works fairly effec­tively even when the num­ber of stu­dents is small.

  6. “Help­ing Youths Score Well on AP Ex­am­i­na­tions in Physics, Chem­istry, and Cal­cu­lus”, Karen Mezyn­ski, Ju­lian C. Stan­ley, and Richard F. Mc­Coart

    Spe­cial sup­ple­men­tary courses in physics, chem­istry, and cal­cu­lus were de­vel­oped to pre­pare math­e­mat­i­cally apt high­-school stu­dents for the AP ex­am­i­na­tions in those ar­eas. The cours­es, texts, and in­struc­tional ap­proaches are de­scribed. Over­all, SMPY stu­dents who re­mained in the classes through­out the year scored as high as or higher than the av­er­age highly able stu­dent tak­ing the ex­am­i­na­tion; most scored well enough to qual­ify for col­lege cred­it. The stu­dents for whom the AP-level classes proved most ben­e­fi­cial were young, ori­ented to­ward ca­reers in sci­ence or math­e­mat­ics, aca­d­e­m­i­cally mo­ti­vat­ed, and highly able math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Sev­eral spe­cific rec­om­men­da­tions for im­prov­ing fu­ture courses of this type are offered.

  7. “An Ac­cel­er­ated Math­e­mat­ics Pro­gram for Girls: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Eval­u­a­tion”, Lynn H. Fox, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow, and Su­san Perkins

    Mod­er­ately gifted sev­en­th-grade girls were in­vited to at­tend a fast-paced sum­mer class in al­ge­bra I that pro­vided for the spe­cial needs of girls. In ad­di­tion to em­pha­siz­ing al­ge­bra, the pro­gram catered to the so­cial needs of girls, pro­vided in­ter­ac­tion with fe­male role mod­els who had ca­reers in the math­e­mat­i­cal sci­ences, and en­cour­aged the girls to study a num­ber of years of math­e­mat­ics. Two con­trol groups, one of boys and one of girls, sim­i­lar in abil­ity and parental vari­ables, were cho­sen. Seven years after the class, its long-term effects were in­ves­ti­gated by an­a­lyz­ing the group’s re­sponses to two ques­tion­naires. Girls who com­pleted the pro­gram suc­cess­fully (i.e., were placed in al­ge­bra II the fol­low­ing fall) were more ac­cel­er­ated and took more math­e­mat­ics courses in high school and col­lege. Those were, how­ev­er, the only ma­jor differ­ences be­tween the girls who con­sti­tuted the ex­per­i­men­tal group and the two con­trol groups. No such effects were found for the girls who at­tended the class but were not suc­cess­ful in it. There were no ma­jor differ­ences in ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences, ed­u­ca­tional as­pi­ra­tions, or ca­reer goals. Girls per­ceived the lack of role mod­els as the great­est bar­rier women face when con­tem­plat­ing a ca­reer in math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence. Boys, how­ev­er, felt that for women the diffi­culty of com­bin­ing ca­reer and fam­ily re­spon­si­bil­i­ties was the great­est bar­ri­er. It is con­cluded that in or­der for girls to re­ceive the long-term ben­e­fits of an early in­ter­ven­tion pro­gram, they must com­plete the pro­gram suc­cess­fully and also be math­e­mat­i­cally abler than most of these girls were.

  8. “A Case for Rad­i­cal Ac­cel­er­a­tion: Pro­grams of the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton”, Hal­bert B. Robin­son:

    Com­mon ar­gu­ments for and against ac­cel­er­ated pac­ing are pre­sent­ed. The con­clu­sion is reached that ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams must be adapted to fit the needs of the in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dent. SMPY at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the Child De­vel­op­ment Re­search Group at the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, both of which es­pouse cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity and em­pha­size rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion, are de­scribed and ex­em­pli­fied by in­di­vid­ual case stud­ies. The de­scrip­tion of the Wash­ing­ton pro­gram stresses the Rad­i­cal Ac­cel­er­a­tion Group of the Early En­trance Pro­gram (EEP). This as­pect of the pro­gram in­volves early en­trance to the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton for those stu­dents 14 years old and un­der, not yet in the tenth grade, who score bet­ter than col­lege fresh­men on the Wash­ing­ton Pre-Col­lege Test. Pro­vid­ing a struc­tured sup­port sys­tem, the pro­gram aids in the tran­si­tion from ju­nior-high to col­lege-level work. Al­though some prob­lems have been en­coun­tered, over­all the stu­dents have made sat­is­fac­tory aca­d­e­mic and so­cial progress in col­lege.

  9. “The Effects of Ac­cel­er­a­tion on the So­cial and Emo­tional De­vel­op­ment of Gifted Stu­dents”, Lynn Daggett Pollins:

    From the two per­spec­tives of a lit­er­a­ture re­view and a lon­gi­tu­di­nal com­par­i­son of ac­cel­er­ants and nonac­cel­er­ants, an ex­am­i­na­tion of the po­ten­tial effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on the so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment of gifted stu­dents re­vealed no iden­ti­fi­able neg­a­tive effects. The lit­er­a­ture re­view dis­cusses sev­eral ma­jor stud­ies with re­spect to is­sues cen­tral to the prob­lem: the differ­en­tial effects of vary­ing meth­ods of ac­cel­er­a­tion, the de­fi­n­i­tion of the “so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment” con­struct, and’ the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ap­pro­pri­ate ref­er­ence groups. The lon­gi­tu­di­nal com­par­i­son presents the re­sults of a study of twen­ty-one male rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­ants and twen­ty-one nonac­cel­er­ants matched on age and abil­ity at the time of the tal­ent search. A com­par­i­son on sev­eral vari­ables re­vealed that the two groups were very sim­i­lar at age 13. Five years lat­er, how­ev­er, differ­ences fa­vor­ing the ac­cel­er­ants were found in ed­u­ca­tional as­pi­ra­tions and in the per­ceived use of ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties, amount of help they re­ported hav­ing re­ceived from SMPY, and their eval­u­a­tion of SMPY’s in­flu­ence on their so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment.

  10. “Statewide Repli­ca­tion in Illi­nois of the Johns Hop­kins Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Joyce Van Tas­sel-Baska:

    After the suc­cess­ful pi­lot test­ing of a pro­gram mod­eled after the SMPY ap­proach, Illi­nois be­gan in 1978 a statewide math­e­mat­ics search us­ing as a Se­lec­tion cri­te­rion for ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­ta­tion a score of 420 or bet­ter on the School and Col­lege Abil­ity Test-Math­e­mat­ics. Spe­cial fast-paced math­e­mat­ics classes were es­tab­lished in ar­eas where there were enough high scor­ers. Al­though these classes var­ied in num­ber of stu­dents and amount of ma­te­r­ial cov­ered, a large per­cent­age of their par­tic­i­pants com­pleted the pro­gram suc­cess­ful­ly. Be­cause of this suc­cess a ver­bal pro­gram was be­gun in 1979. Fol­low­ing brief de­scrip­tions of the ver­bal and math­e­mat­ics class­es, sev­eral prob­lems and con­cerns en­coun­tered in the func­tion­ing of the classes are pre­sent­ed. The au­thor con­cludes with the pos­i­tive im­pli­ca­tions of such a pro­gram.

  11. “Eclec­ti­cism: A Com­pre­hen­sive Ap­proach to Ed­u­ca­tion of the Gifted”, John F. Feld­husen:

    The ar­gu­ment is ad­vanced that an eclec­tic, or in­te­gra­tive, ap­proach, uti­liz­ing all pos­si­ble re­sources, is most ap­pro­pri­ate for meet­ing the needs of gifted stu­dents. Char­ac­ter­is­tics of the in­te­gra­tive ap­proach and de­scrip­tions of classes uti­liz­ing it are pro­vid­ed. The Pro­gram for Aca­d­e­mic and Cre­ative En­rich­ment (PACE) and the In­di­vid­ual Ed­u­ca­tional Pro­gram for the Gifted (IEPG), both based on the au­thor’s three­-stage model for ed­u­cat­ing the gift­ed, are pre­sent­ed. The au­thor con­cludes that since “gift­ed, cre­ative, tal­ent­ed, and high­-a­bil­ity stu­dents have di­verse needs, they should have in­di­vid­ual coun­sel­ing and guid­ance.”

  12. “An Eight-Year Eval­u­a­tion of SMPY: What Was Learned?”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow and Ju­lian C. Stan­ley

Benbow & Stanley 1983b

“Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing: More Facts”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983b:

Al­most 40,000 se­lected sev­en­th-grade stu­dents from the Mid­dle At­lantic re­gion of the United States took the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test as part of the Johns Hop­kins re­gional tal­ent search in 1980, 1981, and 1982. A sep­a­rate na­tion­wide tal­ent search was con­ducted in which any stu­dent un­der age 13 who was will­ing to take the test was el­i­gi­ble. The re­sults ob­tained by both pro­ce­dures es­tab­lish that by age 13 a large sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity ex­ists and that it is es­pe­cially pro­nounced at the high end of the dis­tri­b­u­tion: among stu­dents who scored greater than or equal to 700, boys out­num­bered girls 13 to 1. Some hy­poth­e­sized ex­pla­na­tions of such differ­ences were not sup­ported by the da­ta.

Benbow & Stanley 1983c

“Con­struct­ing Ed­u­ca­tional Bridges Be­tween High School and Col­lege”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983c:

For many in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, high school is pe­riod of mark­ing time. The courses are not chal­leng­ing enough and the pace of in­struc­tion is slow. As a con­se­quence, some lose in­ter­est in ed­u­ca­tion and/or de­velop poor study skills. For those who are ea­ger and well mo­ti­vated to fur­ther their ed­u­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment there are sev­eral ways to cir­cum­vent this sit­u­a­tion. De­rived while work­ing for more than a dozen years with the thou­sands of gifted stu­dents in re­gional tal­ent searches con­ducted by The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, the mech­a­nisms ba­si­cally in­volve the con­cept of en­ter­ing col­lege early and/or with ad­vanced stand­ing.

We shall out­line var­i­ous op­tions the staffs of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and the Cen­ter for the Ad­vance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth (CTY) (the lat­ter now con­ducts the tal­ent searches and the as­so­ci­ated ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams) present to those stu­dents who ex­press a de­sire for more rapid ed­u­ca­tional growth. Ex­ten­sive ex­pe­ri­ence has shown how suc­cess­ful SMPY’s ap­proach has been for many stu­dents in a va­ri­ety of set­tings (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1983; Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1982 a, b; 1983 a, b). The main at­trac­tion of these al­ter­na­tives is that they are ex­tremely flex­i­ble. Each stu­dent can choose and adapt them in ways best suited to their in­di­vid­ual abil­i­ty, needs, and in­ter­ests.

  1. The al­ter­na­tive least un­set­tling for many stu­dents is to take as many stim­u­lat­ing high school courses as pos­si­ble, yet enough oth­ers to en­sure high school grad­u­a­tion. At the same time, he or she takes one or two col­lege courses a se­mes­ter from a lo­cal in­sti­tu­tion on re­leased time from school, at night or dur­ing sum­mers. …
  2. In lieu of the above op­tion, or in ad­di­tion to it, the bright stu­dent may also try to re­ceive col­lege credit for high school course-work through ex­am­i­na­tion. …
  3. Take cor­re­spon­dence courses at the high school or col­lege level from a ma­jor uni­ver­si­ty, such as Wis­con­sin or Cal­i­for­nia. …
  4. The mech­a­nism of choice for many gifted stu­dents is sub­jec­t-mat­ter ac­cel­er­a­tion. …
  5. Con­dense grades 9–12 into three years, thereby grad­u­at­ing from high school a year ear­ly. …
  6. At­tend an early en­trance col­lege or pro­gram in lieu of high school. …
  7. En­ter col­lege at the end of the tenth or eleventh grade with­out the high school diplo­ma. …

[2 short case stud­ies]

Benbow & Stanley 1983d

“Open­ing Doors for the Gifted”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983d; ab­strac­t/­sum­mary from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Ob­jec­tive: To make a case for pro­vid­ing a flex­i­ble cur­ricu­lum for gifted stu­dents.

De­sign: A re­view of re­search lit­er­a­ture re­gard­ing the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Set­ting: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

As­sess­ment of Vari­ables: Re­search ar­ti­cles were re­viewed for ev­i­dence re­gard­ing iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and char­ac­ter­is­tics of gifted stu­dents, ed­u­ca­tional op­tions for the gift­ed, and ac­cel­er­a­tion.

Main Re­sults: The au­thors be­gin by out­lin­ing a case for a flex­i­ble cur­ricu­lum based on de­vel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gy. They as­cribe to the be­liefs that learn­ing is a se­quen­tial and de­vel­op­men­tal process; there are large differ­ences in learn­ing sta­tus among in­di­vid­u­als; effec­tive teach­ing in­volves as­sess­ing stu­dents’ sta­tus in the learn­ing process and pos­ing prob­lems that slightly ex­ceed their level of mas­tery. These prin­ci­ples are seen to have im­por­tant im­pli­ca­tions for teach­ers of gifted stu­dents. It is par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant to ad­dress is­sues con­cern­ing ac­cess to an ap­pro­pri­ately chal­leng­ing cur­ricu­lum. It is ar­gued that it is im­pos­si­ble for highly gifted chil­dren to ac­cess such a cur­ricu­lum in the reg­u­lar class­room.

Be­fore a cur­ricu­lum can be adapted to bet­ter suit gifted chil­dren, is­sues of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and char­ac­ter­i­sa­tion should be ad­dressed. Gifted stu­dents need to be iden­ti­fied in a sys­tem­atic man­ner. Re­search shows that teacher rec­om­men­da­tion is in­effec­tive for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. SMPY has de­vel­oped the Tal­ent Search method for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of stu­dents with out­stand­ing math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Stu­dents in 7th and 8th grades take the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT), math­e­mat­ics and ver­bal sec­tions. This is a test de­signed for stu­dents in 11th and 12th grades. Younger stu­dents who do well on this test have al­ready de­vel­oped ap­ti­tudes in line with stu­dents who are up to five years old­er.

Stu­dents iden­ti­fied by SMPY as pos­sess­ing pre­co­cious math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity are in­vited to take fur­ther test­ing in an effort to iden­tify char­ac­ter­is­tics need­ing to be ad­dressed by ed­u­ca­tion pro­grams. These stu­dents have been found to be ad­vanced not only in math­e­mat­ics but also in spe­cific abil­ity ar­eas and in their knowl­edge of sci­ence. They are gen­er­ally more in­ter-per­son­ally effec­tive and so­cially ma­ture than their non-gifted peers. They tend to pre­fer in­ves­tiga­tive ca­reers. These stu­dents tend to come from larger than av­er­age fam­i­lies with well-e­d­u­cated par­ents. SAT scores have been found to re­late pos­i­tively to par­ents’ ed­u­ca­tional level and fa­thers’ oc­cu­pa­tional sta­tus, but not to the num­ber of sib­lings in the fam­ily or sib­ling po­si­tion.

Once stu­dents have been iden­ti­fied and their char­ac­ter­is­tics not­ed, an ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram can be de­vised. SMPY has found that the best method for do­ing this is to offer stu­dents a large choice of ac­cel­er­a­tive op­tions from which they can choose. These in­clude grade-skip­ping, grad­u­at­ing early from high school, en­ter­ing courses a year or more ear­ly, com­plet­ing two or more years of a sub­ject in one year, be­ing tu­tored, tak­ing col­lege courses on a part-time ba­sis while still en­rolled at school, and earn­ing col­lege credit through ex­am­i­na­tion cours­es.

The staff at SMPY work with schools to im­ple­ment the cho­sen op­tions. There is no at­tempt to change pro­gram­ming at schools, as this would take too long. If a school is will­ing to be flex­i­ble each stu­dent can be catered for within the pre-ex­ist­ing struc­tures. It is sug­gested that most schools tend not to be flex­i­ble enough in their ap­proach to the teach­ing of ex­cep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents. The best sce­nario would be a school that is flex­i­ble about place­ment, al­low­ing a stu­dent of any age to progress to higher grades as their abil­ity de­vel­ops. The au­thors il­lus­trate this process by pre­sent­ing a case of a stu­dent for whom op­tions led to rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion and early en­try to uni­ver­si­ty.

Re­searchers at SMPY have found that op­tions al­low­ing for ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion are best for ad­dress­ing the needs of highly gifted chil­dren. The au­thors quote a num­ber of stud­ies that show no detri­men­tal effect of ac­cel­er­a­tion on a stu­den­t’s so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment.

Con­clu­sion: Aca­d­e­m­i­cally ad­vanced stu­dents need to be iden­ti­fied in a sys­tem­atic man­ner. The Tal­ent Search process de­vel­oped by SMPY il­lus­trates how iden­ti­fi­ca­tion might take place. Char­ac­ter­is­tics of each gifted child need to be doc­u­mented and this re­quires fur­ther as­sess­ment. Once this process has been car­ried out, a plan can be for­mu­lat­ed, based on pre-ex­ist­ing school frame­works, to meet the needs of highly gifted chil­dren. Schools need to al­low for cur­ricu­lum flex­i­bil­ity rather than chang­ing stan­dard learn­ing pro­grams. Op­tions that al­low for rad­i­cal ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion work best for ex­cep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents.

Com­men­tary: This ar­ti­cle doc­u­ments the process of tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment as un­der­taken at SMPY. In­sight is gained into the the­ory guid­ing this process, along with re­search find­ings that have in­formed pro­gram change. As such, this ar­ti­cle is valu­able for the guid­ance it can offer oth­ers who are in­volved in co­or­di­nat­ing ed­u­ca­tion for gifted stu­dents.

Benbow et al 1983a

“Struc­ture of in­tel­li­gence in in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren and in their par­ents”, Ben­bow et al 1983a:

Stu­dents rep­re­sent­ing the top 0.03% of their age group in in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, who were iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980), were tested along with their par­ents us­ing a bat­tery of specifi­cally de­signed cog­ni­tive tests. These highly in­tel­li­gent chil­dren had less in­tel­li­gent, but yet quite bright par­ents. Ver­non’s (1961) model of in­tel­li­gence best fits our re­sults. His fol­low­ing two fac­tors ex­plained most of the vari­ance in the per­for­mance of the stu­dents and par­ents: ver­bal-e­d­u­ca­tional and prac­ti­cal-s­pa­tial-me­chan­i­cal. More­over, there was po­ten­tial ev­i­dence for a gen­eral fac­tor. Among the chil­dren, who were mostly past pu­ber­ty, age re­lated to de­vel­op­ment of ver­bal abil­i­ties, but not spa­tial or me­chan­i­cal abil­i­ties. Sex differ­ences fa­vor­ing the males were found on the spa­tial abil­ity and me­chan­i­cal com­pre­hen­sion tests.

Benbow et al 1983b

“As­sor­ta­tive mar­riage and the fa­mil­ial­ity of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties in fam­i­lies of ex­tremely gifted stu­dents”, Ben­bow et al 1983b:

The top 1% of the ex­tremely bright stu­dents iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b) were tested along with their par­ents, us­ing a bat­tery of specifi­cally de­signed cog­ni­tive tests. These stu­dents rep­re­sented the top 0.03% of their age group in in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty. The re­sults showed that the par­ents were ex­tremely able and re­sem­bled one an­other sig­nifi­cantly more than par­ents in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion. In ad­di­tion, the in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren re­sem­bled their par­ents to a lesser ex­tent than chil­dren of av­er­age abil­ity re­sem­ble their par­ents. These re­sults sug­gest that con­sid­er­able as­sor­ta­tive mat­ing has oc­curred among the par­ents of these ex­tremely gifted youth, but that ex­treme gift­ed­ness can­not be pre­dicted re­li­ably solely as a re­sult of the mat­ing of bright par­ents.

Vining 1985

“Fa­mil­ial­ity es­ti­mates from re­stricted sam­ples”, Vin­ing 1985:

In a re­cent pa­per here, Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley (1983) re­port that the co­effi­cient of re­gres­sion of off­spring IQ on parental IQ is much lower among the gifted than in the pop­u­la­tion at large. Thus, Ben­bow, Stan­ley, Kirk, and Zon­der­man con­clude in a sec­ond pa­per, the gifted re­sem­ble their par­ents less than do peo­ple in gen­er­al. In this pa­per, I show that this re­sult is an ar­ti­fact of the par­tic­u­lar es­ti­ma­tor of the re­gres­sion co­effi­cient em­ployed by Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley. The least­-squares es­ti­ma­tor, which they em­ploy, is se­verely bi­ased down­ward, if the sam­ple on the de­pen­dent vari­able is re­stricted to the up­per tail of the dis­tri­b­u­tion, and this is pre­cisely the na­ture of Ben­bow et al.’s sam­ple. That is to say, in a bi­vari­ate nor­mal dis­tri­b­u­tion with con­stant re­gres­sion co­effi­cient, sam­ples re­stricted to val­ues of the de­pen­dent vari­able (here, child’s IQ) above a cer­tain value will al­ways pro­duce a lower re­gres­sion co­effi­cient than un­re­stricted sam­ples drawn from the en­tire but same dis­tri­b­u­tion. I in­tro­duce an un­bi­ased es­ti­ma­tor that can be cal­cu­lated from the sam­ple sta­tis­tics re­ported in the Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley ar­ti­cle and find that the co­effi­cient of re­gres­sion of gifted child’s IQ on parental IQ is, in fact, higher than the re­gres­sion co­effi­cients re­ported in the lit­er­a­ture for un­re­stricted sam­ples. That is, Ben­bow et al.’s data sug­gest that the gifted in fact re­sem­ble their par­ents more than do per­sons in gen­er­al.

Gleser 1985

“As­sess­ing Fa­mil­ial­ity of Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity”, Gleser 1985:

In a re­cent pa­per in this jour­nal, Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley (1983) con­clude that in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren re­sem­ble their par­ents to a lesser ex­tent than do chil­dren of lesser abil­i­ty. In re­ply, Vin­ing (1985) as­serts that Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley’s re­sults are ar­ti­facts of se­lec­tion and their sta­tis­ti­cal method­ol­o­gy, and that a more ap­pro­pri­ate sta­tis­ti­cal method­ol­ogy yields quite the op­po­site con­clu­sion. The present pa­per has two pur­pos­es: (1) to show that Vin­ing’s crit­i­cism is mis­di­rect­ed, stem­ming from a mis­un­der­stand­ing of how Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley se­lected their Sub­jects, and (2) to point out some prob­lems in the mod­el, in­dices of fa­mil­ial­ity and de­sign used by Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley which need to be ad­dressed be­fore fu­ture com­par­a­tive stud­ies of fa­mil­ial­ity are at­tempt­ed.

Stanley 1983

“Ed­u­ca­tion in the Fast Lane: Method­olog­i­cal Prob­lems of Eval­u­at­ing Its Effects”, Stan­ley 1983:

…be­cause of my work since 1971 with youths who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cally I face no dearth of eval­u­a­tion prob­lems. In his lon­gi­tu­di­nal, one-co­hort gift­ed-child re­search that be­gan in 1921, the late Lewis M. Ter­man of Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity had plenty of trou­ble con­vinc­ing armies of doubt­ing Thomases that his high­-IQ sub­jects were as suc­cess­ful and free of emo­tional prob­lems as they seemed to be. His was meant to be purely a study of the in­tel­li­gent hu­man an­i­mal in its na­tive habi­tat, with­out in­ter­ven­tion on their be­half.’ Our Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), which be­gan 50 years lat­er, was in­tended from the start to ex­ert pow­er­ful aca­d­e­m­i­cally ac­cel­er­a­tive forces on in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young stu­dents to help them pur­sue their ed­u­ca­tions far faster and bet­ter than is usu­ally per­mit­ted in the reg­u­lar class­room. Of course, the word “bet­ter” plunged us into the area of value judg­ments right away.

Stanley 1983b

“New Pro­jects: Seek­ing Youths Who Rea­son Ex­tremely Well Math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley & Whit­man 1983: ad­ver­tise­ment for SMPY tal­ent search.

Stanley & Benbow 1983a

“Ex­tremely young col­lege grad­u­ates: Ev­i­dence of their suc­cess”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1983a:

Place­ment ac­cord­ing to the in­di­vid­u­al’s level of com­pe­tence is a prin­ci­ple widely ac­cepted in many do­mains, such as mu­sic or ath­let­ics. With re­gard to aca­d­e­mic en­deav­ors, how­ev­er, there ex­ist strong prej­u­dices against ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion even though a solid re­search base sup­ports the prac­tice (e.g., Stan­ley, 1974; Solano and George, 1976; Eisen­berg and George, 1979; George, Cohn, and Stan­ley, 1979; Mer­cu­rio, 1980; Ben­bow and Stan­ley, In press). Show­ing that ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion does usu­ally re­sult in highly effec­tive in­di­vid­u­als could per­haps ease fears about the use of ac­cel­er­a­tion and open col­lege doors to young and able stu­dents. Study­ing the later suc­cess of young grad­u­ates from col­lege would pro­vide im­por­tant da­ta.

Re­sults: …It is clear from Ta­ble I that the early grad­u­ates ex­pe­ri­enced suc­cess at Hop­kins. Of the 31 for whom hon­ors records were avail­able, 20 (65 per cent) grad­u­ated with hon­ors, 11 with mem­ber­ship in Phi Beta Kap­pa, and 4 with NSF grad­u­ate schol­ar­ships (most of the 31 were not tech­ni­cally el­i­gi­ble for this award). One young lady be­came a Rhodes scholar and one young man a Churchill schol­ar. In­spec­tion of Ta­ble I will also show that the early grad­u­ates earned mem­ber­ship in var­i­ous other honor so­ci­eties and won other fel­low­ships. Clear­ly, suc­cess at the un­der­grad­u­ate level by these early grad­u­ates was quite re­mark­able.

But how suc­cess­ful are these “rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­ants” likely to be­come, pro­fes­sion­ally and per­son­al­ly? Clues to this can be gleaned from the known records of the 12 old­est of the 32 per­sons listed in Ta­ble I. For ex­am­ple, Hask­ins, fourth in the table, Ph.D. de­gree at age 19, had a dis­tin­guished ca­reer as both a me­dieval his­to­rian and the dean of the Grad­u­ate School of Arts and Sci­ences at Har­vard. No. 6, Stern­berg, be­came a pro­fes­sor of math­e­mat­ics at Har­vard by age 30. He is the au­thor of a widely known book on ce­les­tial me­chan­ics and also a noted Torah schol­ar. Ea­gle is a promi­nent bi­ol­o­gist, widely known for de­vel­op­ing the Ea­gle medi­um. Dry­den was an em­i­nent physi­cist. Kur­relmeyer had a long ca­reer as a pro­fes­sor of physics. Schaffer, who com­pleted his M.D. de­gree at age 21, was well known in pe­di­atrics. Fax, Wasser­man (M.D. at age 22, and still prac­tic­ing at 83), Raffel, Thom­sen, Zafren, and Birx (Ph.D. de­gree at age 23) have all done well. There are no hints of “early ripe, early rot.” It is ap­par­ent that these early grad­u­ates have led or are still lead­ing highly effec­tive adult lives.

…In this pa­per we show that stu­dents who have used var­i­ous com­bi­na­tions of en­ter­ing col­lege early and forg­ing ahead fast in the cur­ricu­lum have led or are lead­ing highly effec­tive lives. Par­ents and ed­u­ca­tors should have less fear when at­tempt­ing to ac­cel­er­ate a child. Col­lege ad­min­is­tra­tors would be well ad­vised to open their doors to young, but ex­tremely able, stu­dents. Col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties that pro­vide ap­pro­pri­ate sup­port sys­tems for in­tel­lec­tu­ally highly tal­ent­ed, well-mo­ti­vated stu­dents ea­ger to study ful­l-time, often be­fore earn­ing a high­-school diplo­ma, are likely to mine a rich vein of tal­ent in the years ahead.

Stanley & Benbow 1983b

SMPY’s first decade: Ten years of pos­ing prob­lems and solv­ing them”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1983b:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) be­gan in 1971 with the pur­pose of de­vis­ing ways of iden­ti­fy­ing and fa­cil­i­tat­ing the ed­u­ca­tion of such stu­dents. The so­lu­tions and their lon­gi­tu­di­nal eval­u­a­tion are de­scribed. Use of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT) was shown to be an effec­tive way of iden­ti­fy­ing stu­dents in the 7th grade who would achieve aca­d­e­m­i­cally at a su­pe­rior level in high school. More­over, ac­cel­er­a­tion was deemed an effec­tive al­ter­na­tive for ed­u­cat­ing gifted chil­dren. Cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity rather than spe­cial pro­grams for the gifted has proved the most effec­tive way to fa­cil­i­tate the ed­u­ca­tion of pre­co­cious stu­dents. For the math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious, SMPY de­vised fast-paced math­e­mat­ics class­es. These were shown to have long-term effects. SMPY has also dis­cov­ered large sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity and in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ments in high school.

Stanley & Durden 1983

“Sup­ple­men­tal Teach­ers of Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Stan­ley & Dur­den 1983

Tursman 1983

“Chal­leng­ing Gifted Stu­dents”, Turs­man 1983, School Ad­min­is­tra­tor, v40 n1 p9 (1983-01-12): TODO

Start­ing on the cov­er, this ar­ti­cle de­scribes pro­grams de­vel­oped by Ju­lian Stan­ley’s Study for Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (Mary­land) for the early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and ac­cel­er­ated train­ing of math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally gifted stu­dents. Also dis­cussed are SMPY spin­off pro­grams and the short­age of math and sci­ence teach­ers.

Benbow & Benbow 1984

“Bi­o­log­i­cal Cor­re­lates of High Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity”, Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has gath­ered ex­ten­sive data show­ing that large sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity which fa­vor males, ex­ist be­fore age 13. In this pa­per we eval­u­ate some of the ma­jor “en­vi­ron­men­tal” hy­pothe­ses that have been pro­posed to ac­count for this differ­ence. We will con­clude that these “en­vi­ron­men­tal” hy­pothe­ses need to be re­for­mu­lated in or­der to ac­count for the find­ings with our pop­u­la­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths. While it is pos­si­ble to adapt these ex­clu­sively en­vi­ron­men­tal hy­pothe­ses to fit our data, we pro­pose to take an al­ter­na­tive ap­proach, which in­volves both en­vi­ron­men­tal and bi­o­log­i­cal causes for the ob­served sex differ­ence. …We now wish to pro­pose that a com­bi­na­tion of ex­oge­nous and en­doge­nous fac­tors also de­ter­mines the sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. In sup­port of this hy­poth­e­sis we present some new find­ings on pos­si­ble bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of ex­tremely high math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ties.

[re­view of greater male vari­ance, im­bal­ance in SAT-M scores at in­creas­ing thresh­olds; dis­cus­sion of how math courses can­not cause the sex differ­ence, so­cial­iza­tion pres­sures hy­poth­e­sis is con­tra­dicted by sim­i­lar fa­vor­able at­ti­tudes in SMPY par­tic­i­pants and lack of math anx­i­ety, min­i­mal differ­ence in fam­ily back­grounds, sta­bil­ity of the SAT-M im­bal­ance; pos­si­bil­i­ties: sex-linked genes, lat­er­al­iza­tion, hor­mones; phys­i­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates in SMPY in­clude dou­bled rates of left­-hand­ed­ness/am­bidex­ter­ity with el­e­vated rate in rel­a­tives, al­lergies, near­sight­ed/­glass­es, but no blood­-group cor­re­lates. Ben­bow & Ben­bow pro­pose a model in which higher fe­tal testos­terone lev­els re­tard left­-hemi­sphere growth, lead­ing to less lat­er­al­iza­tion and more de­pen­dency on right-brain-con­nected vi­su­ospa­tial cog­ni­tion, and ul­ti­mately more math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty.]

[See also “Spa­tial Abil­ity and Testos­terone”, Gowan 1984.]

Benbow & Stanley 1984

“Gen­der and the sci­ence ma­jor: a study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1984; in Ad­vances in Mo­ti­va­tion and Achieve­ment: Women in Sci­ence, ed Steinkamp & Maehr 1984 (ISBN 0892322888): TODO

Holmes et al 1984

“Colin Camer­er: The early years of a rad­i­cal ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­ant”, Holmes et al 1984 (see also Time 1977); sum­ma­ry/­com­men­tary from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Ob­jec­tive: To present an in­stance of rad­i­cal ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion.

De­sign: Case study.

Set­ting: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Par­tic­i­pant: Colin Far­rell Camerer

As­sess­ment of Vari­ables: The par­tic­i­pant and his moth­er, Mary Far­rell Camerer were in­ter­viewed and stu­dent records at SMPY were ac­cessed to re­veal de­tails about Colin Far­rell Camer­er. In­for­ma­tion was pre­sented on his early life, col­lege and grad­u­ate years, and his views on ac­cel­er­a­tion.

Main Re­sults: Colin was an un­usu­ally quiet child but oth­er­wise had a nor­mal child­hood. His par­ents were un­aware of any signs of pre­coc­ity un­til the age of 5, when he was found to be read­ing TIME mag­a­zine. His par­ents do not know when he be­gan to read and Colin can­not re­mem­ber ever learn­ing to read. Colin be­gan school at the usual age. His kinder­garten teacher thought him very in­tel­li­gent and arranged for him to be as­sessed by the school psy­chol­o­gist. He was found to be un­usu­ally bright and the school al­lowed him to work ahead of his age peers. He was com­plet­ing fourth and fifth grade work in sec­ond grade.

After the sec­ond grade, Colin moved with his fam­ily to Bal­ti­more. His school re­ferred him to Mr Ray­mond Trim­mer, the ed­u­ca­tional di­rec­tor of the Mary­land Acad­emy of Sci­ences, in the hope that he could help Colin to ac­cess cur­ricu­lum ap­pro­pri­ate for his age and abil­i­ty. Mr Trim­mer, in turn, in­tro­duced Colin and his par­ents to Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley, a re­searcher at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity with a spe­cial in­ter­est in gifted chil­dren. Dr Stan­ley as­sessed Col­in’s ca­pa­bil­i­ties us­ing achieve­ment tests de­signed for older stu­dents as well as tests of abil­i­ty. At the age of 11 years Colin was found to have a Stan­ford-Bi­net IQ of 160. At age 13 he scored 750 out of a pos­si­ble 800 on the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude 95Test-Math­e­mat­ics (SAT-M) and 610 out of 800 on the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test-Ver­bal (SAT-V) (cor­re­spond­ing to the 99th and 93rd per­centiles, re­spec­tive­ly, for col­lege-bound 12th-grade males).

Colin pro­ceeded to ac­cel­er­ate his ed­u­ca­tion, un­der the guid­ance of Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley. He moved from sixth grade in el­e­men­tary school to the eighth grade in ju­nior high. He fin­ished stud­ies in pre-cal­cu­lus in 120 hours at Sat­ur­day morn­ing ‘speed­ed-math’ class. He also took an in­tro­duc­tory com­puter course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Colin then skipped the last year of ju­nior high and the first year of se­nior high. He took Ad­vanced Place­ment (AP) cal­cu­lus at school, worked through AP physics on his own, and at­tended Tow­son Uni­ver­sity at night. His AP scores were 5 out of 5 for Cal­cu­lus AB and 4 out of 5 for Physics B. Con­fi­dent that he could han­dle the ad­vanced course­work, Colin ap­plied for ad­mis­sion to Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Colin en­tered uni­ver­sity at age 14 with 34 cred­its and sopho­more stand­ing. He grad­u­ated at the age of 17 years and 1 month and went on to at­tend the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago for its out­stand­ing Ph.D. pro­gram. Colin re­ceived his M.B.A. from the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago at age 19 and com­pleted his Ph.D. in Be­hav­ioural De­ci­sion The­ory two years lat­er. While com­plet­ing his Ph.D., and at the age of 21, Colin ac­cepted a po­si­tion as an as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of busi­ness pol­icy in the Kel­logg Grad­u­ate School of Man­age­ment at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. Dur­ing this time he had sev­eral ar­ti­cles pub­lished in aca­d­e­mic jour­nals. At the time this ar­ti­cle was writ­ten (1984) Colin was in­volved in nu­mer­ous re­search projects and was teach­ing Mas­ter’s-level re­search sem­i­nars.

Colin holds pos­i­tive views of his ex­pe­ri­ences of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion. He be­lieves that, with­out ac­cel­er­a­tion his life would be vastly differ­ent and he would prob­a­bly be em­ployed in a low-level man­age­ment po­si­tion. He has found so­cial ad­just­ment some­what diffi­cult all his life. He be­lieves this is due to his nat­ural lon­er/in­tro­vert ten­den­cies and does not blame the ac­cel­er­a­tion process. Colin feels that the op­tions to rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ate which were made avail­able to him should be avail­able to many more chil­dren, al­though he con­cludes that ac­cel­er­a­tion is not suit­able for all stu­dents. He sug­gests that it is par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant for stu­dents to be emo­tion­ally sta­ble be­fore ac­cel­er­a­tion is con­sid­ered. He con­tributes the suc­cess of his ac­cel­er­a­tion to the sup­port offered him by Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley and oth­ers at SMPY, as well as en­cour­age­ment from his par­ents.

Con­clu­sion: A case is pre­sented of a highly suc­cess­ful, rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ated pro­tégé. Col­in’s case is a strong ar­gu­ment in favour of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion. The au­thors name an­other three males who share sim­i­lar suc­cess sto­ries and make the point that Col­in’s ac­cel­er­a­tion pro­gram is not an iso­lated in­stance. They sug­gest the need to fol­low up and re­port on other in­di­vid­u­als who have rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ated their ed­u­ca­tion.

Com­men­tary: This de­tailed study of a sin­gle case of rad­i­cal ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion tracks one pos­si­ble path for ac­cel­er­a­tion whilst re­veal­ing that there are many ac­cel­er­a­tion op­tions avail­able. It al­lows for a re­al­i­sa­tion of the huge scope of ac­cel­er­a­tive op­tions, and blend of op­tions from which stu­dents might be able to choose to ac­cel­er­ate their ed­u­ca­tion. This case re­veals fac­tors that were ob­vi­ously cru­cial for suc­cess­ful rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion. These fac­tors in­clude the per­sonal char­ac­ter­is­tics of the stu­dent, in­clud­ing a de­sire to ac­cel­er­ate and suc­ceed. Also im­por­tant is the sup­port of cru­cial oth­ers, in this case ed­u­ca­tion­al­ists knowl­edge­able about ac­cel­er­a­tion op­tions and par­ents who pro­vide steady en­cour­age­ment.

Reynolds et al 1984

Writ­ing in­struc­tion for ver­bally tal­ented youth: The Johns Hop­kins Model, Reynolds et al 1984:

The book by Ben Reynolds con­tains spe­cific les­son plans, stu­dent as­sign­ments, and cri­te­ria and sug­ges­tions for eval­u­a­tion of stu­dent work. The book con­tains the com­plete con­tent of the first writ­ing courses for ver­bally tal­ented youth de­signed by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in the early 1980’s. This course was de­signed orig­i­nally for 7th grade stu­dents who scored 430 or above on the ver­bal sec­tion of the SAT.

Wood & Bran­sky 1987 book re­view:

Writ­ing In­struc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth is differ­ent. Au­thors Reynolds, Kopelke, and Dur­den as­sume that highly ver­bal young­sters al­ready have ideas and some ex­pe­ri­ence in ex­press­ing them in writ­ing. What they offer goes be­yond this el­e­men­tary level to the real work of writ­ing, cri­tique, and re­vi­sion. The book de­scribes the method and ex­er­cises used in an in­tro­duc­tory writ­ing course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty’s Cen­ter for the Ad­vance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth (CTY). While the method and ex­er­cises were de­vel­oped for use with ver­bally tal­ented youth, for whom they are es­pe­cially ap­pro­pri­ate, they are also ap­plic­a­ble to av­er­age-a­bil­ity youth. A cen­tral fea­ture of the method is the work­shop in which stu­dents cri­tique and edit each oth­er’s work.

Writ­ing In­struc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth has 13 chap­ters, di­vided into sec­tions Ex­cep­tional Chil­dren Frank H. Wood De­part­ment Ed­i­tor en­ti­tled “Prepar­ing to Write”, “Writ­ing”, and “Rewrit­ing”. Each chap­ter is a les­son with clearly stated ob­jec­tives, notes for the teacher, ex­er­cis­es, ex­am­ples where ap­pro­pri­ate, con­clud­ing com­ments and/or post-as­sign­ments, and ref­er­ences. As the au­thors state, the lessons need not be used in the or­der pre­sent­ed; rather, they will be most effec­tive when used in re­sponse to writ­ing ques­tions and prob­lems aris­ing in the work­shop ses­sions.

…Writ­ing In­struc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth is not a primer. It as­sumes that the teacher has some so­phis­ti­ca­tion in lit­er­ary analy­sis and in the writ­ing process. The value of the book is in its ap­proach to the teach­ing of writ­ing, and the ex­er­cises and ma­te­ri­als that will en­able the knowl­edge­able teacher to guide stu­dents through the writ­ing, cri­tique, and re­vi­sion process­es. It should be a wel­come source of ideas and di­rec­tion for the sec­ondary-level Eng­lish teacher or the fac­ulty spon­sor of a school lit­er­ary pub­li­ca­tion. It would also be a good ad­di­tion to an in­struc­tional meth­ods course for Eng­lish ma­jors who will teach writ­ing at the sec­ondary (in­clud­ing ju­nior high) or col­lege level …

From the Pref­ace:

…The pro­grams de­vel­oped by CTY are dis­tinc­tive. In the pre­cal­cu­lus course, stu­dents com­plete high school math­e­mat­ics at a pace com­men­su­rate with their abil­i­ties. The ver­bal and sci­ence course­work can also be ac­cel­er­a­tive; stu­dents may ob­tain col­lege credit through the Col­lege Board’s Ad­vanced Place­ment Pro­gram ex­am­i­na­tions. How­ev­er, most ver­bal and sci­ence course­work is not meant to ac­cel­er­ate a stu­den­t’s progress through the school grades, but in­stead to es­tab­lish the in­tel­lec­tual foun­da­tion for fu­ture ad­vanced work in these dis­ci­plines. The classes are in­ten­sive and, for the most part, com­pa­ra­ble to col­lege fresh­man-level work.

CTY se­lects teach­ers from the Johns Hop­kins com­mu­ni­ty, from the Mary­land Acad­emy of Sci­ences, and from among the lead­ing ad­vanced-place­ment high school teach­ers through­out the United States. They are dis­tin­guished by their in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, their mas­tery of a sub­ject area, and their en­thu­si­asm for teach­ing. Many of the staff are for­mer pro­teges of the pro­grams and thus serve as out­stand­ing role mod­els for their stu­dents. For ex­am­ple, a ma­jor­ity of the math teach­ers com­pleted un­der­grad­u­ate stud­ies at an early age, and some earned grad­u­ate de­grees much ear­lier than usu­al. A few have been hon­ored as Rhodes Schol­ars at Ox­ford Uni­ver­si­ty, Eng­land, and as Churchill Schol­ars at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty, Eng­land.

Com­muter classes are offered on week­ends dur­ing the aca­d­e­mic year and week­days dur­ing the sum­mer at Johns Hop­kins sites in Bal­ti­more and Wash­ing­ton, D.C., at satel­lite cen­ters in Los An­ge­les and Philadel­phia, and at five sites in New Jer­sey. A spe­cial fea­ture of CTY is the 3-to-6 week sum­mer res­i­den­tial pro­grams lo­cated on two col­lege cam­puses in Penn­syl­va­nia, at Dick­in­son Col­lege in Carlisle and at Franklin & Mar­shall Col­lege in Lan­cast­er, where gifted stu­dents may both pur­sue a rig­or­ous aca­d­e­mic course and in­ter­act so­cial­ly. A com­ment from the par­ent of a for­mer stu­dent of the pro­gram rep­re­sents the im­pact of CTY’s efforts:

The pro­gram was im­por­tant [to my child’s] ed­u­ca­tion. … I wanted to ex­press our grat­i­tude in other than trite words, but old stand­bys like “mean­ing­ful” kept com­ing to mind. The ex­pe­ri­ence was mean­ing­ful; in ad­di­tion to putting our child a lit­tle far­ther down the road by the ac­cel­er­a­tion of his stud­ies, the pro­gram also gave him a chance to mix with his peers, those in­tel­lec­tu­ally his equal and/or su­pe­ri­ors. In all, the ex­pe­ri­ence was an eye­-opener for all three of us (moth­er, fa­ther, and child). Our child had a chance, al­so, to put his in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in a bet­ter per­spec­tive. He has made some choices about what he wants in the fu­ture, in what his goals are, and in what he wants to do with his life.

Such a strong im­pact re­sults from two points in the ed­u­ca­tional phi­los­o­phy of PVGY. The first is the con­vic­tion that at an early age ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity can be guided ben­e­fi­cially by a dis­ci­plined and sys­tem­atic ex­po­sure to the ba­sic tools of writ­ten com­mu­ni­ca­tion. “Ba­sic” here does not mean sim­ple and un­equiv­o­cal, but rather that which is fun­da­men­tal to lan­guage con­ceived as a pow­er­ful com­mu­nica­tive tool. The sec­ond point is that writ­ing is not an in­su­lar sub­ject, but rather a com­plex of re­lated dis­ci­plines com­bin­ing to in­form the stu­dent of a lan­guage’s tra­di­tions, lim­i­ta­tions, and pos­si­bil­i­ties. Thus, in ad­di­tion to its Writ­ing Skills pro­gram, PVGY offers courses in Ger­man, Chi­ne­se, An­cient Greek, Lat­in, et­y­molo­gies, and Amer­i­can his­to­ry.

The ped­a­gog­i­cal ob­jec­tive of the Writ­ing Skills pro­gram, as of all PVGY cours­es, is to pro­vide ver­bally gifted youth aca­d­e­mic chal­lenges com­pa­ra­ble to those al­ready offered youths with other types of tal­ent. Writ­ing Skills does not at­tempt to teach cre­ativ­ity as an ob­jec­tive. While imag­i­na­tion and in­di­vid­ual thought are en­cour­aged, the pro­gram’s goals are prac­ti­cal. Form is given to the cre­ative im­pulse; that form is an effec­tive and imag­i­na­tive writ­ing style. With par­tic­u­lar de­light, we present in this book a de­scrip­tion of lessons from the Writ­ing Skills I course. We hope it as­sists every­one who is con­cerned about the writ­ing skills of our na­tion’s youth, and we re­mind you of an old (and some­times for­got­ten) max­im: A les­son is only as good as its teacher. The tech­niques de­scribed here work effec­tively when highly tal­ented and mo­ti­vated stu­dents are joined with teach­ers who be­lieve in gifted chil­dren and who are ex­tremely knowl­edge­able about what they teach….

Stanley 1984a

“Use of gen­eral and spe­cific ap­ti­tude mea­sures in iden­ti­fi­ca­tion: Some prin­ci­ples and cer­tain cau­tions”, Stan­ley 1984a:

[IQ test­ing for se­lec­tion, false pos­i­tives & neg­a­tives; use of DAT & SAT; pit­falls of test­ing: younger test­ing means more in­ter­ven­tion op­por­tu­nity but lower re­li­a­bil­i­ty, com­pos­ite IQ scores mask sub­jec­t-spe­cific strength­s/weak­nesses and pref­er­ences, risk of hit­ting ceil­ings, and of shoe­horn­ing into cours­es]

Stanley 1984b

“In Brief: The ex­cep­tion­ally tal­ented”, Stan­ley 1984b: [1pg sum­mary & ad­ver­tise­ment for SMPY]

Durden 1985

“Early in­struc­tion by the col­lege: Johns Hop­kin­s’s cen­ter for tal­ented youth”, Dur­den 1985:

The Cen­ter for the Ad­vance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth demon­strates the con­tri­bu­tion that col­leges can make to the ed­u­ca­tion of stu­dents who are ready for a level and pac­ing of in­struc­tion not read­ily avail­able in the schools. Its suc­cess also re­flects the bur­geon­ing de­mand for such in­struc­tion.

Stanley 1985a

“Find­ing In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youths and Help­ing Them Ed­u­ca­tion­ally”, Stan­ley 1985a:

This is a dis­cus­sion of the first 14 years (1971–1985) of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the spread of its in­flu­ence across the coun­try. Many youths who rea­soned ex­cep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally were iden­ti­fied, stud­ied fur­ther, and aid­ed.

Stanley 1985b

“A bak­er’s dozen of years ap­ply­ing all four as­pects of the study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth (SMPY)”, Stan­ley 1985b:

Since its in­cep­tion in 1971, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has ex­panded from a lo­cal pro­gram serv­ing 19 mostly sev­enth graders to a na­tional pro­gram with an en­roll­ment of 1600. This ar­ti­cle dis­cusses trends ex­pe­ri­enced dur­ing the thir­teen-year pe­riod and their im­pli­ca­tions for the pro­gram’s fu­ture.

Stanley 1985d

“Young En­trants to Col­lege: How Did They Fare?”, Stan­ley 1985d:

A fol­lowup study of Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity stu­dents who be­gan col­lege two or more years ahead of their age group ex­am­ined their aca­d­e­mic pro­gress, ages at grad­u­a­tion, ma­jors, course loads, grades, pro­gram length, and the progress of a spe­cial group of stu­dents iden­ti­fied through a study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth.

Stanley & McGill 1986

“More About ‘Young En­trants to Col­lege: How Did They Fare?’”, Stan­ley & McGill 1986:

This study re­ports on a group of 25 ed­u­ca­tion­ally ac­cel­er­ated en­trants to Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. It sup­ports the abil­ity of stu­dents who en­ter a highly se­lec­tive col­lege two to five years early to make good grades, win hon­ors, and grad­u­ate prompt­ly.

Benbow 1986

SMPY’s model for teach­ing math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents”, Ben­bow 1986 (in ed Ren­zulli et al 1986, Sys­tems and Mod­els for De­vel­op­ing Pro­grams for the Gifted and Tal­ented (First Edi­tion)):

One prac­ti­cal model for pro­vid­ing sound pro­gram­ming for most in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents can sim­ply be ac­com­plished by schools’ al­low­ing cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­i­ty. For over a dozen years, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins has uti­lized al­ready avail­able ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams to meet the needs of its tal­ented stu­dents through ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion. SMPY stu­dents are offered a “smor­gas­bord” of spe­cial ed­u­ca­tional Op­por­tu­ni­ties from which to choose what­ever com­bi­na­tion, in­clud­ing noth­ing, best suits the in­di­vid­ual.

Some of the op­tions are en­ter­ing a course a year or more ear­ly, skip­ping grades, grad­u­at­ing early from high school, com­plet­ing two or more years of a sub­ject in one year, tak­ing col­lege courses on a part-time ba­sis while still in sec­ondary school, tak­ing sum­mer cours­es, and credit through ex­am­i­na­tion. Clear­ly, SMPY uti­lizes al­ready avail­able ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams to meet the spe­cial needs of tal­ented stu­dents. Be­cause this ap­proach is ex­tremely flex­i­ble, teach­ers or ad­min­is­tra­tors can choose and adapt the var­i­ous op­tions in ways to fit their schools’ unique cir­cum­stances and their stu­dents’ in­di­vid­ual abil­i­ties, needs, and in­ter­ests.

More­over, this method avoids the com­mon crit­i­cism of elit­ism and costs lit­tle for a school sys­tem to adopt. Ac­tu­al­ly, the var­i­ous ac­cel­er­a­tive and en­rich­ing op­tions de­vised by SMPY may save the school sys­tem mon­ey, Yet this rather sim­ple ad­just­ment, i.e., ad­vanc­ing a gifted child in each school sub­ject to the level of his/her in­tel­lec­tual peers, is rarely made be­cause of bias against ac­cel­er­a­tion. It is im­por­tant to note, how­ev­er, that no re­search study to date has found prop­erly effected ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion detri­men­tal, but rather the con­trary.

Benbow & Minor 1986

“Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented males and fe­males and achieve­ment in the high school sci­ences”, Ben­bow & Mi­nor 1986:

Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth, whether male or fe­male, tend to have fa­vor­able at­ti­tudes to­ward sci­ence and to par­tic­i­pate in the sci­ences at a level much higher than av­er­age. There were no over­all sex differ­ences in course-tak­ing or course-grades in the sci­ences. In­di­ca­tions of sex differ­ences fa­vor­ing males, how­ev­er, were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in high school physics, the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on high school and col­lege level sci­ence achieve­ment tests, and in­ten­tion to ma­jor in the more quan­ti­ta­tively ori­ented fields of physics and en­gi­neer­ing. No sub­stan­tial sex differ­ences in at­ti­tudes to­ward the sci­ences, ex­cept pos­si­bly physics, were de­tect­ed. Over­all at­ti­tude to­ward sci­ence did re­late some­what to par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence. More­over, sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity may ex­plain some of the sex differ­ence in sci­ence par­tic­i­pa­tion and achieve­ment. These re­sults may bear on why women are un­der­rep­re­sented in the sci­ences

Brody & Benbow 1986

“So­cial and emo­tional ad­just­ment of ado­les­cents ex­tremely tal­ented in ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing”, Brody & Ben­bow 1986:

Per­cep­tions of self­-es­teem, lo­cus of con­trol, pop­u­lar­i­ty, de­pres­sion (or un­hap­pi­ness), and dis­ci­pline prob­lems as in­dices of so­cial and emo­tional ad­just­ment were in­ves­ti­gated in highly ver­bally or math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented ado­les­cents. Com­pared to a group of stu­dents who are much less gift­ed, the highly gifted stu­dents per­ceive them­selves as less pop­u­lar, but no differ­ences were found in self­-es­teem, de­pres­sion, or the in­ci­dence of dis­ci­pline prob­lems. The gifted stu­dents re­ported greater in­ter­nal lo­cus of con­trol. Com­par­isons be­tween the highly math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents and the highly ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents sug­gested that the stu­dents in the lat­ter group per­ceive them­selves as less pop­u­lar. Within both the gifted and com­par­i­son groups, there were also slight in­di­ca­tions that higher ver­bal abil­ity may be re­lated to some so­cial and emo­tional prob­lems.

Stanley et al 1986

  • Stan­ley, J.C, Huang, J., & Zu, X. (1986). SAT-M scores of highly se­lected stu­dents in Shang­hai tested when less than 13 years old”. Col­lege Board Re­view, 140, 10–13 & 28–29, Sum­mer 1986:

    The ini­tial effort in ap­ply­ing the SAT-M to young Chi­nese stu­dents re­vealed that many of them rea­son ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily well math­e­mat­i­cally be­fore age 13 and be­fore hav­ing cov­ered the bulk of the high­-school math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum. The con­clu­sion seems to be that they must have keen an­a­lyt­i­cal abil­i­ty.

University of North Texas, Julian C. Stanley archival materials (1986–1989)

UNT dig­i­tal archives in­clude 11 en­tries per­tain­ing to Ju­lian C. Stan­ley, rang­ing from ar­ti­cle reprints to his CV to tes­ti­mony to let­ters re­gard­ing set­ting up tal­ent searches in Tex­as:

Benbow 1987a

“Pos­si­ble bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of pre­co­cious math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity”, Ben­bow 1987a (see Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984 for more de­tails)

Ex­treme math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, a crit­i­cal com­po­nent of math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent, has pos­si­bly six bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates. These are left­-hand­ed­ness, al­lergies, my­opia, and gen­der (i.e. be­ing male) and pos­si­bly hor­mones and bi-hemi­spheric rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cog­ni­tive func­tions. Ex­tremely high ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity shares these same bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates, ex­cept gen­der. These re­sults may bear on the bi­ol­ogy of ex­treme in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties.

Benbow & Benbow 1987b

“Ex­treme Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: A Hor­mon­ally In­duced Abil­i­ty?”, Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1987b:

[ex­tends Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984 with new cor­re­lates: SMPYers are more likely to be con­ceived in months with >12 hours day­light; first-borns (birth or­der effec­t); and are bet­ter at re­ac­tion time tasks draw­ing on the right hemi­sphere]

Brody & Benbow 1987

“Ac­cel­er­a­tive strate­gies: How effec­tive are they for the gift­ed?”, Brody & Ben­bow 1987:

Ac­cel­er­a­tive strate­gies offer gifted stu­dents the op­por­tu­nity to par­tic­i­pate in ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams suited to their par­tic­u­lar needs and in­ter­ests. Yet, fear of pos­si­ble neg­a­tive effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion pre­vents many ed­u­ca­tors from ad­vo­cat­ing these op­tions. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has eval­u­ated the long-term effects of a va­ri­ety of ac­cel­er­a­tive op­tions for a group of highly gifted stu­dents. Aca­d­e­mic achieve­ments, ex­tracur­ric­u­lar ac­tiv­i­ties, goals and as­pi­ra­tions, and so­cial and emo­tional ad­just­ment were con­sid­ered, and no dis­cernible neg­a­tive effects of var­i­ous ac­cel­er­a­tive strate­gies were found.

Fox 1987

“Sex differ­ences among the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted”, Fox 1987

Stanley 1987a

“Mak­ing the IMO team: The power of early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and en­cour­age­ment”, Stan­ley 1987a:

[brief de­scrip­tion of SMPY & of the 4 SMPYers on the 1986 US team, of 6 mem­bers to­tal]

Stanley 1987b

“State Res­i­den­tial High Schools for Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Youth”, Stan­ley 1987b:

How can states pro­mote the prepa­ra­tion of more highly qual­i­fied stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics? One way, says Mr. Stan­ley, would be to es­tab­lish res­i­den­tial high schools for the best and the bright­est.

[See also Brody & Mu­ra­tori 2004 and Stan­ley’s 1988 Mary­land tes­ti­mony ad­vo­cat­ing a res­i­den­tial high school.]

Stanley 1987c

“Note About Pos­si­ble Bias Re­sult­ing When Un­der­-S­ta­tis­ti­cized Stud­ies are Ex­cluded from Meta-Analy­ses”, Stan­ley 1987c:

Re­views and meta-analy­ses of re­search on a given topic may ex­clude’ a siz­able per­cent­age of re­ports be­cause they do not lend them­selves to the type of sum­ma­riz­ing pro­ce­dures used. If the ex­cluded ar­ti­cles con­tain rel­e­vant in­for­ma­tion, this may bias the con­clu­sions of the analy­sis. It seems likely that, when com­put­ing sta­tis­tics from their data, re­searchers will need to con­sider this as­pect. A sim­ple il­lus­tra­tion of how that can some­times be done read­ily is pre­sent­ed. A ro­bust cor­re­la­tion co­effi­cient eas­ily com­putable from pub­lished data is shown to in­di­cate a siz­able re­la­tion­ship that is con­trary to the main con­clu­sion of a meta-analy­sis.

Stanley 1987d

“Math­e­mat­i­cal Ap­ti­tude in China”, Stan­ley 1987d (UNT preprint):

[The de­vel­oper of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth Pro­gram (SMPY) re­counts his im­pres­sions dur­ing a tour of ed­u­ca­tion pro­grams in the Peo­ple’s Re­pub­lic of Chi­na, ad­dress­ing the ap­par­ent love of learn­ing, em­pha­sis on math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment, schol­arly ac­tiv­i­ties of uni­ver­sity fac­ul­ty, and test­ing is­sues.]

…If China can pre­serve its de­vo­tion to ed­u­ca­tion of the tal­ented and avoid an­other de­ba­cle such as the Cul­tural Rev­o­lu­tion, by the year 2025 or ear­lier it may have chal­lenged us in­dus­tri­ally far be­yond what Japan has al­ready done… My as­so­ci­ates-by-mail and I had al­ready found 21 twelve-year-olds in Shang­hai who scored 700 or more on SAT-M. They came from only 279 highly se­lected youths who took the test, trans­lated into Chi­nese (S­tan­ley, Huang, & Zu, 1986). We talked with 19 of them and their math­e­mat­ics teach­ers for 2 hours. They were vir­tu­ally in­dis­tin­guish­able from Chi­ne­se-Amer­i­cans in ap­pear­ance and de­meanor, but some­what less ad­vanced in their knowl­edge of math­e­mat­ics than many mem­bers of SMPY’s 700–800M group are (Moore & Stan­ley, 1986). They at­tend highly se­lec­tive mid­dle or high schools, but, as in many US schools, have a tight cur­ric­u­lar lock­step…

Stanley 1987e

“Sum­mary of Points Made in the Sym­po­sium”, Stan­ley 1987e; ERIC ab­stract:

This pa­per is an overview of some points made at the An­nual Meet­ing of the Amer­i­can Ed­u­ca­tional Re­search As­so­ci­a­tion in April of 1987. Gen­der effects were com­puted on 82 na­tion­ally stan­dard­ized tests de­signed to de­ter­mine pre­coc­ity among youth. The effect sizes ranged from a mag­ni­tude of 0.50 (fa­vor­ing fe­males) for spelling in grade 12 on the Differ­en­tial Ap­ti­tude Tests (DATs) to 0.89 (fa­vor­ing males) for me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing on the DATs in grade 12. The largest effect size on any of the other 80 tests was 0.76 (fa­vor­ing males) for the ad­vanced ex­am­i­na­tion in po­lit­i­cal sci­ence of the Grad­u­ate Record Ex­am­i­na­tions. The re­sults of this re­search in­di­cate that there was a strong ten­dency for tests taken mainly by males to yield the largest effect sizes fa­vor­ing males and for tests taken mainly by fe­males to yield small effect sizes, some of which fa­vored fe­males. All of the tests ex­am­ined, ex­cept the DATs, are used pri­mar­ily for se­lec­tion or award­ing of ad­vanced stand­ing in col­lege. Al­though re­search in­di­cates that girls and young women tend to be bet­ter stu­dents than do boys and young men, fe­male stu­dents tend to be out­per­formed by male stu­dents on most stan­dard­ized tests. Study re­sults also in­di­cate that women seem more ori­ented to­ward so­cial, aes­thet­ic, and re­li­gious sub­ject mat­ter, while men seem more in­ter­ested in sci­ence, prac­ti­cal­i­ty, con­spic­u­ous con­sump­tion, pow­er, and con­trol. The All­port-Ver­non-Lindzey in­ven­tory of eval­u­a­tive at­ti­tudes might help re­searchers un­der­stand fe­males’ pref­er­ences and sub­jec­t-mat­ter ori­en­ta­tions. (TJH)

[Un­known where a copy might be find­able for this.]

Benbow 1988

“Sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity in in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented pread­o­les­cents: Their na­ture, effects, and pos­si­ble causes”, Ben­bow 1988 (spe­cial is­sue—ar­ti­cle + com­men­taries/replies):

Sev­eral hun­dred thou­sand in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 12- to 13-year-olds have been tested na­tion­wide over the past 16 years with the math­e­mat­ics and ver­bal sec­tions of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT). Al­though no sex differ­ences in ver­bal abil­ity have been found, there have been con­sis­tent sex differ­ences fa­vor­ing males in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, as mea­sured by the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of the SAT (SAT-M). These differ­ences are most pro­nounced at the high­est lev­els of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing, they are sta­ble over time, and they are ob­served in other coun­tries as well. The sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity can pre­dict sub­se­quent sex differ­ences in achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence and is there­fore of prac­ti­cal im­por­tance. To date a pri­mar­ily en­vi­ron­men­tal ex­pla­na­tion for the differ­ence in abil­ity has not re­ceived sup­port from the nu­mer­ous stud­ies con­ducted over many years by the staff of Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and oth­ers. We have stud­ied some of the clas­si­cal en­vi­ron­men­tal hy­pothe­ses: at­ti­tudes to­ward math­e­mat­ics, per­ceived use­ful­ness of math­e­mat­ics, con­fi­dence, ex­pec­ta­tion­s/en­cour­age­ment from par­ents and oth­ers, sex-typ­ing, and differ­en­tial course-tak­ing. In ad­di­tion, sev­eral phys­i­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of ex­tremely high math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity have been iden­ti­fied (left­-hand­ed­ness, al­lergies, my­opia, and per­haps bi­lat­eral rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cog­ni­tive func­tions and pre­na­tal hor­monal ex­po­sure). It is there­fore pro­posed that the sex differ­ence in SAT-M scores among in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, which may be re­lated to greater male vari­abil­i­ty, re­sults from both en­vi­ron­men­tal and bi­o­log­i­cal fac­tors.

Thomas 1993

“A the­ory ex­plain­ing sex differ­ences in high math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity has been around for some time”, Thomas 1993 (re­ply to Ben­bow 1988 not in­cluded in the com­men­tary is­sue):

…Yet, even though a con­cep­tual in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the var­ied sex differ­ences in SAT-M is key to the en­tire tar­get ar­ti­cle, there is no ac­knowl­edg­ment of this work in the ar­ti­cle, com­men­tary, or re­sponse. The pu­ta­tive the­o­ret­i­cal mech­a­nism is an X-linked gene, in two al­le­les; only the re­ces­sive in fre­quency q is as­sumed to be fa­cil­i­ta­tive of su­pe­rior per­for­mance. Un­der a sim­ple ge­net­i­cal model it fol­lows eas­ily that the pro­por­tion of fa­cil­i­tated males and fe­males is, re­spec­tive­ly, q and q2. The el­e­men­tary but im­por­tant fact that dri­ves the the­o­ret­i­cal ma­chin­ery is that q > q2 for all 0 < q < 1.

The idea that a ge­net­i­cal X-linked model might pro­vide an ex­pla­na­tion for cer­tain sex differ­ences is an old one, and has some­times been rel­e­gated to the sci­en­tific scrap heap (e.g., Boles 1980). Van­den­berg’s (1988) com­ments sug­gest that that is where he puts the hy­poth­e­sis. But this judg­ment is pre­cip­i­tous and a poorly rea­soned one, be­cause there had not been a prop­erly de­vel­oped the­o­ry. …

Stanley 1988

“Some Char­ac­ter­is­tics of SMPY’s ‘700–800 on SAT-M Be­fore Age 13 Group’: Youths Who Rea­son Ex­tremely Well Math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley 1988:

Sta­tis­tics con­cern­ing back­ground char­ac­ter­is­tics of a re­mark­able group of 292 youths who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cally are pre­sent­ed. Iden­ti­fied ini­tially at age 12 or less, they re­side all over the United States and in two for­eign coun­tries. The sex ra­tio is 12 boys per 1 girl. The group tends to be quite able ver­bal­ly, but much more so math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Most of their par­ents are well ed­u­cat­ed. Some of these young stu­dents are vastly more ac­cel­er­ated in school grade place­ment than are the ma­jor­ity of the group. Other rel­e­vant char­ac­ter­is­tics are also dis­cussed.

Anonymous 1989

SMPY Branch Es­tab­lished in China”, Anony­mous 1989:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), es­tab­lished at Johns Hop­kins in 1971, has set up “SMPY at Tian­jin, Peo­ple’s Re­pub­lic of China”. A port, Tian­jin is the third most pop­u­lous city in Chi­na. SMPY at Tian­jin is the sec­ond non-Hop­kins base for SMPY.

…Head­ing the Tian­jin SMPY is Pro­fes­sor Feng Cheng De of the Teach­ers Ad­vanced Study Col­lege, Hong Qiao Dis­trict, Tian­jin 300123. Pro­fes­sor Feng and his wife, Yung Hua, are two of the lead­ing math­e­mat­ics ed­u­ca­tors in Chi­na. A ma­jor part of the work of the Tian­jin SMPY will be prepar­ing male and fe­male stu­dents from about age 12 to com­pete for the 6 places on Chi­na’s team in each year’s In­ter­na­tional Math­e­mat­i­cal Olympiad (IMO). In only its 3rd year of com­pe­ti­tion China tied for 2nd place among the 49 na­tions in the 1988 IMO, far ahead of the United States. One of the only 4 women who won a medal (sil­ver) that year in the IMO was Pro­fes­sor Feng’s stu­dent. In China there are al­ready al­most 200 mem­bers of SMPY’s “700–800 on SAT-M Be­fore Age 13 Group”…That is why they thrive on part-time ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­ta­tion out­side their reg­u­lar class-room rou­tine. In China this fa­cil­i­ta­tion is pro­vided by Spare Time Schools.

…Be­cause of SMPY at Tian­jin and other fac­tors, the United States can ex­pect from China a steady stream of grad­u­ate stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and re­lated sub­jects, such as com­puter sci­ence, elec­tri­cal en­gi­neer­ing, and physics. They will be some of the in­tel­lec­tu­ally ablest per­sons in the world, en­rich­ing our doc­toral pro­grams dur­ing a time when many of the bright­est Amer­i­cans pre­fer med­i­cine, law, busi­ness, or pol­i­tics to the long, aus­tere trek for the Ph.D.de­gree and the usu­ally lower in­comes there­after. …

[No SMPY pub­li­ca­tions dis­cuss what hap­pened to the Tian­jin SMPY; I asked Camilla Ben­bow about it at ISIR 2019, and she said there was noth­ing much to the sto­ry, it was sim­ply a 1 year visit by Stan­ley and was­n’t se­ri­ous, with no real fol­lowup. The Duke TIP was tem­porar­ily can­celed in 1989 due to the Tianan­men Square in­ci­dent, ac­cord­ing to Putal­laz et al 2005.]

Stanley 1989a

“A Look Back at … ‘Ed­u­ca­tional Non-Ac­cel­er­a­tion: an In­ter­na­tional Tragedy’”, Stan­ley 1989a:

In 1977 Dr. Stan­ley ad­dressed the Sec­ond World Con­fer­ence on Gifted and Tal­ented Chil­dren at the Uni­ver­sity of San Fran­cis­co. His top­ic, ed­u­ca­tional non-ac­cel­er­a­tion, was of in­ter­est to our read­ers and was de­vel­oped into an ar­ti­cle for C/C/T (the for­mer ti­tle of The Gifted Child To­day) in 1978. [“Ed­u­ca­tional Non-ac­cel­er­a­tion: An In­ter­na­tional Tragedy”, Stan­ley 1978] This ar­ti­cle re­views events sub­se­quent to Dr. Stan­ley’s speech.

[cre­ation of CTY; ex­pan­sion to Vir­gini­a/­Maine/Alaska/Ari­zon­a/­Cal­i­for­ni­a/Hawai­i/Ore­gon/Wash­ing­ton/Chi­na; Ari­zona found­ing of Project for the Study of Aca­d­e­mic Pre­coc­ity (PSAP); SMPY newslet­ters; cost pri­mary bar­rier to ex­pan­sion of sum­mer pro­grams]

Stanley 1989b

“How Greatly Do Chi­nese Stu­dents Eclipse Ours?”, Stan­ley 1989b:

[2 anec­dotes of Chi­nese grad stu­dents; IMO re­sults; 188 SMPY high­-s­cor­ers in Chi­na; re­cent Tian­jin SMPY found­ing]

Stanley 1989c

“Most Fare Bet­ter”, Stan­ley 1989c, brief com­men­tary/re­sponse to “On Be­ing a Mis­fit”, Jeanette D. Lind­blad 1989: case study dis­cussing the bat­tles with the school dis­trict for her son “Eric”; Stan­ley says hor­ror sto­ries like hers are ex­cep­tional and more rep­re­sen­ta­tive of SMPY par­tic­i­pants is the ex­pe­ri­ence of Ter­ence Tao.

1990

Benbow & Arjmand 1990

“Pre­dic­tors of High Aca­d­e­mic Achieve­ment in Math­e­mat­ics and Sci­ence by Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Stu­dents: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Ben­bow & Ar­j­mand 1990:

Ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences of a co­hort of 1,247 math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths (ini­tially iden­ti­fied in 7th/8th grade by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) were an­a­lyzed after high school and after col­lege to iden­tify fac­tors cor­re­lated with high and low aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in math and sci­ence in col­lege by stu­dents with ex­tremely high abil­i­ty. Al­most all stu­dents had achieved highly by con­ven­tional stan­dards (e.g., 85% had re­ceived bach­e­lor’s de­grees). Us­ing a quan­ti­ta­tive de­fi­n­i­tion of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in col­lege, we found that 22% were high aca­d­e­mic achiev­ers and 8% were low aca­d­e­mic achiev­ers in math and sci­ence. Vari­ables pre­dic­tive of high aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment (in or­der of strength) were pre-col­lege cur­ric­ula or ex­pe­ri­ences in math and sci­ences, fam­ily char­ac­ter­is­tics and ed­u­ca­tional sup­port vari­ables, at­ti­tudes to­ward math and sci­ence, and differ­ences in ap­ti­tude.

Benbow & Minor 1990

“Cog­ni­tive pro­files of ver­bally and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents: Im­pli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the gifted”, Ben­bow & Mi­nor 1990:

Per­for­mance on tests of spe­cific abil­i­ties com­monly as­so­ci­ated with in­tel­li­gence was con­trasted be­tween 13-year-olds iden­ti­fied as ex­tremely pre­co­cious (top 1 in 10,000) in ei­ther ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. Such stu­dents differ cog­ni­tive­ly. Ver­bally pre­co­cious stu­dents scored higher on ver­bal and gen­eral knowl­edge types of tests, and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents scored higher on tests of non­ver­bal rea­son­ing, spa­tial abil­i­ty, and mem­o­ry. Re­sults from the fac­tor analy­sis of test scores (ex­clud­ing mem­ory test scores) yielded three fac­tors: spa­tial/speed, ver­bal, and non­ver­bal. Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents had higher scores on the non­ver­bal and speed fac­tors; ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents had higher scores on the ver­bal fac­tor. Thus, at least two dis­tinct forms of gift­ed­ness seem to ex­ist (i.e., ver­bal and non­ver­bal). Their evo­lu­tion, more­over, ap­peared to fol­low differ­ent de­vel­op­men­tal paths, con­sis­tent with Gagné (1985).

Dark & Benbow 1990

“En­hanced prob­lem trans­la­tion and short­-term mem­o­ry: Com­po­nents of math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent”, Dark & Ben­bow 1990:

The per­for­mance of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented 12- and 13-year-olds on var­i­ous cog­ni­tive tasks was com­pared with that of av­er­age-a­bil­ity youth, ver­bally tal­ented youth, and col­lege stu­dents. In Ex­per­i­ment 1, the hy­poth­e­sis that math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent in­cludes en­hanced prob­lem-trans­la­tion skills was sup­port­ed: The math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were bet­ter than other groups at writ­ing equa­tions ex­press­ing com­plex re­la­tion­ships. Al­though the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented group out­per­formed their av­er­age-a­bil­ity peers, they were no bet­ter than the ver­bally tal­ented group or the col­lege stu­dents in rewrit­ing and re­call­ing the propo­si­tions in an al­ge­bra story prob­lem. In Ex­per­i­ment 2, the hy­poth­e­sis that math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent in­cludes en­hanced abil­ity to rep­re­sent and ma­nip­u­late in­for­ma­tion in short­-term mem­ory was strongly sup­port­ed: the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth out­per­formed the other youth and, in most cas­es, per­formed as well as or bet­ter than the col­lege stu­dents.

Dauber & Benbow 1990

“As­pects of per­son­al­ity and peer re­la­tions of ex­tremely tal­ented ado­les­cents”, Dauber & Ben­bow 1990:

Ex­cep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents may be at risk for prob­lems in so­cial and emo­tional de­vel­op­ment. To dis­cover if peer re­la­tions are affected by type and/or amount of gift­ed­ness, ex­tremely math­e­mat­i­cally or ver­bally tal­ented 13 year-olds (top 1 in 10,000) were com­pared to mod­estly gifted stu­dents (top 1 in 20) of sim­i­lar age on mea­sures of pop­u­lar­ity and peer ac­cep­tance, par­tic­i­pa­tion in group ac­tiv­i­ties, and per­son­al­ity traits. The ver­bally or math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were also con­trasted on the same mea­sures. Vir­tu­ally no differ­ences in group ac­tiv­i­ties or per­son­al­ity traits were found. In their rat­ings of peer per­cep­tions, the mod­estly gifted group ex­ceeded the ex­tremely gift­ed, es­pe­cially the ver­bally gift­ed, in be­ing con­sid­ered ath­letic and pop­u­lar, and in so­cial stand­ing. The mod­estly gifted also rated them­selves as more ex­tro­vert­ed, so­cially adept, and un­in­hib­it­ed. Per­cep­tions of peer rat­ings of im­por­tance and ac­cep­tance were higher for the math­e­mat­i­cally than the ver­bally gift­ed. Thus, ex­tremely pre­co­cious ado­les­cents, es­pe­cially the ver­bally pre­co­cious, may be at greater risk for de­vel­op­ing prob­lems in peer re­la­tions than mod­estly gifted youth.

Lubinski & Humphreys 1990

“A Broadly Based Analy­sis of Math­e­mat­i­cal Gift­ed­ness”, Lu­bin­ski & Humphreys 1990:

This ar­ti­cle ad­dresses sev­eral ques­tions raised by con­tem­po­rary re­search on math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness. Most is­sues are con­fronted em­pir­i­cal­ly, based on a strat­i­fied ran­dom sam­ple of 95,650 ten­th-grade stu­dents and a highly se­lect sub­sam­ple of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted in­di­vid­u­als (boys n = 497, girls n = 508) drawn from this larger pool. Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted were com­pared (by gen­der) to those of their nor­ma­tive co­horts. Typ­i­cal gen­der differ­en­ti­at­ing at­trib­utes (e.g., in­ter­est pat­terns) were less stereo­typed in gifted boys and girls; and stu­dents’ homes cov­ered a broad so­cioe­co­nomic spec­trum. Math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents were found to be in­tel­lec­tu­ally su­pe­rior across a wide range of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties; how­ev­er, ev­i­dence for some­what more math­e­mat­i­cal speci­ficity in the gifted than in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion was also de­tect­ed. The hy­poth­e­sis that spa­tial vi­su­al­iza­tion in­ter­acts syn­er­gis­ti­cally with math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity in the pre­dic­tion of so­phis­ti­cated lev­els of ad­vanced math­e­mat­ics was tested with neg­a­tive re­sults. “Clas­sic” male/fe­male differ­ences were ob­served on mea­sures of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity with the for­mer gen­er­at­ing larger means and vari­ances. We sug­gest that gen­der differ­ences re­flected by these two sta­tis­tics may have dis­tinct an­tecedents. The so­cial im­pli­ca­tions for not at­tend­ing to group differ­ences in abil­i­ty-dis­per­sion are dis­cussed in the con­text of abil­ity as­sess­ment in gen­eral and meta-an­a­lytic re­views in par­tic­u­lar. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal data (13 years) re­vealed that 8% of gifted males and 19% of gifted fe­males in the fol­low-up sam­ples did not ob­tain col­lege de­grees. For the era of the 60s this differ­ence is not sur­pris­ing, but the pro­por­tion of both sexes who did not make full use of their abil­i­ties is shock­ing. Many of our re­sults cor­re­spond to other lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings, such as Ter­man’s clas­sic stud­ies as well as on­go­ing con­tem­po­rary in­ves­ti­ga­tions on math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness.

Lupkowski et al 1990

“Ap­ply­ing A Men­tor Model For Young Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Stu­dents”, Lup­kowski et al 1990:

…As a first step in de­vel­op­ing a spe­cial­ized plan for stu­dents with ad­vanced abil­i­ties in math­e­mat­ics, par­ents and teach­ers often re­quest an in­tel­li­gence test as part of an eval­u­a­tion. Al­though an I.Q. score can be a use­ful ini­tial in­di­ca­tor of gen­eral aca­d­e­mic tal­ent, it does not pro­vide in­for­ma­tion spe­cific enough for eval­u­at­ing or plan­ning an ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram based upon a stu­den­t’s strengths. One op­tion for ob­tain­ing spe­cific in­for­ma­tion and meet­ing the learn­ing needs of a young­ster such as David is the di­ag­nos­tic/pre­scrip­tive ap­proach de­scribed in this ar­ti­cle. Ju­lian C. Stan­ley, founder and di­rec­tor of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, de­vel­oped a di­ag­nos­tic/pre­scrip­tive model for the teach­ing of math­e­mat­ics to stu­dents with ex­tra­or­di­nary math­e­mat­i­cal ap­ti­tude (S­tan­ley, 1978,1979). Since its found­ing in 1971, SMPY has ac­tively as­sisted math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented ju­nior high and high school stu­dents by iden­ti­fy­ing them as well as de­vis­ing and pro­vid­ing novel ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties for them in math­e­mat­ics and re­lated sub­jects (S­tan­ley & Ben­bow, 1986).

Lynch 1990

“Credit and Place­ment Is­sues for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Fol­low­ing Sum­mer Stud­ies in Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Lynch 1990:

The pur­poses of this study were to as­cer­tain the pro­por­tion of aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents aged 12 to 16 who pur­sued ap­pro­pri­ate school place­ment and/or cred­its for course­work com­pleted at spe­cial sum­mer aca­d­e­mic pro­grams, and to de­ter­mine how their schools re­sponded to their re­quests. In No­vem­ber 1986, 1215 stu­dents who at­tended sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics classes spon­sored by the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity dur­ing the sum­mer of 1986 were sent ques­tion­naires re­gard­ing their sub­se­quent sta­tus at their reg­u­lar schools per­tain­ing to credit and place­ment is­sues. Ad­vanced place­ment was given more often than cred­it, al­though in most cases both were award­ed, par­tic­u­larly for high school level course­work.

Richardson & Benbow 1990

“Long-term effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on the so­cial-e­mo­tional ad­just­ment of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youths”, Richard­son & Ben­bow 1990:

The study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2,000 12–14 year-olds who scored as well as a ran­dom sam­ple of high school fe­males on the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test. SMPY en­cour­aged these stu­dents to ac­cel­er­ate their ed­u­ca­tion; over 50% did. Their so­cial de­vel­op­ment at age 18 and at age 23 was then as­sessed. We in­ves­ti­gated the effects of amount and type of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion (grade skip­ping and sub­ject mat­ter) on psy­choso­cial in­dices (self-es­teem, lo­cus of con­trol, self­-ac­cep­tance/i­den­ti­ty, and so­cial in­ter­ac­tion). No gen­der differ­ences were sig­nifi­cant. Ac­cel­er­ants as well as nonac­cel­er­ants re­ported high self­-es­teem and in­ter­nal lo­cus of con­trol. Ac­cel­er­a­tion did not affect so­cial in­ter­ac­tions or self­-ac­cep­tance/i­den­tity and it also did not re­late to so­cial and emo­tional diffi­cul­ties.

Stanley 1990

“Leta Holling­worth’s con­tri­bu­tions to above-level test­ing of the gifted”, Stan­ley 1990:

Leta S. Holling­worth (1886–1939) pi­o­neered in above age-and grade-level test­ing of boys and girls in the New York City area whose IQs were ex­tremely high. Her deep in­sights about mea­sur­ing gen­eral and spe­cial abil­i­ties led to nu­mer­ous cur­rent aca­d­e­mic ac­tiv­i­ties on be­half of in­tel­lec­tu­ally highly tal­ented young per­sons, es­pe­cially in­clud­ing above-level cur­ric­ula for them.

[For more on Leta Holling­worth, see Ben­bow 1990.]

Stanley et al 1990

“Eight Con­sid­er­a­tions for Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Youth”, Stan­ley et al 1990:

…This ar­ti­cle fo­cuses on how ac­cel­er­a­tive and en­rich­ment op­tions com­ple­ment each other to pro­vide ap­pro­pri­ate chal­lenges for tal­ented stu­dents. The fol­low­ing eight im­por­tant points are pre­sented for par­ents, teach­ers, and math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents to con­sider in plan­ning an ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram:

  1. Al­low ex­tremely tal­ented el­e­men­tary stu­dents time to de­velop the math­e­mat­i­cal ma­tu­rity needed to study al­ge­bra. …
  2. Ex­tremely few el­e­men­tary stu­dents will have the nec­es­sary cog­ni­tive struc­tures al­ready well enough de­vel­oped to do more ab­stract math­e­mat­ics …
  3. For the math­e­mat­i­cally bril­liant youth, ac­cel­er­a­tion may pro­vide the best ed­u­ca­tional op­tion. …
  4. The math­e­mat­i­cally bril­liant youth should be kept on a steady diet of highly sat­is­fy­ing math­e­mat­ics at his or her ap­pro­pri­ate level of men­tal func­tion­ing. This does not nec­es­sar­ily mean rac­ing through the stan­dard se­quence in trun­cated pe­ri­ods of time. …
  5. The tal­ented el­e­men­tary stu­dent who moves ahead ex­tremely fast in the math­e­mat­i­cal se­quence is likely to be cat­a­pulted be­yond the offer­ings of the school sys­tem long be­fore he or she grad­u­ates from high school. …
  6. Teach­ers, men­tors, clubs, and com­pe­ti­tions can en­rich an ac­cel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum for tal­ented youths. …
  7. Sum­mer pro­grams offer var­ied op­por­tu­ni­ties for able stu­dents to forge ahead in math­e­mat­ics. …
  8. There are more-ad­vanced “pure” math­e­mat­ics in­sti­tutes for stu­dents aged about 14–18. …

Benbow et al 1991

“Ed­u­ca­tional pro­duc­tiv­ity pre­dic­tors among math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents”, Ben­bow et al 1991:

Wal­berg (1984) iden­ti­fied nine cor­re­lates of the ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ment dis­played by stu­dents in the United States and in a dozen other coun­tries and called them “pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors”. Us­ing data from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth’s lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of its stu­dents 10 years after iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, we tested five of the pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors for their abil­ity to pre­dict ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ment and ed­u­ca­tional and ca­reer as­pi­ra­tions of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents. We also ex­am­ined the va­lid­ity of the pre­vail­ing be­lief that gifted chil­dren achieve highly re­gard­less of the ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences pro­vid­ed. Thir­teen-year-old stu­dents (1,247) in the top 1% to 2% na­tion­wide in abil­ity were fol­lowed un­til age 23. Stu­dents’ achieve­ments and as­pi­ra­tions were uni­formly high at that time. Nonethe­less, the five pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors could sig­nifi­cantly pre­dict their ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ments and as­pi­ra­tions. The pre­dic­tors were, in or­der of use­ful­ness, qual­ity of in­struc­tion, home en­vi­ron­ment, mo­ti­va­tion, abil­i­ty, at­ti­tudes, and quan­tity of in­struc­tion. Gen­er­al­ly, the pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors ap­peared to op­er­ate sim­i­larly for males and fe­males, but had stronger im­pacts on fe­male as­pi­ra­tions. The re­sults in­di­cate that, even among gifted stu­dents, en­vi­ron­men­tal in­ter­ven­tions may en­hance ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ment, es­pe­cially that of fe­males.

Stanley 1991a

“An Aca­d­e­mic Model for Ed­u­cat­ing the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, Stan­ley 1991a:

A usu­ally un­rec­og­nized as­pect of the “school re­form” move­ment dur­ing the past two decades has been the huge in­crease in ex­tracur­ric­u­lar aca­d­e­mic efforts on be­half of in­tel­lec­tu­ally ex­cep­tion­ally able boys and girls. Whereas in 1971 few stu­dents less than 14 years old took the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT), by 1990 more than 100,000 did. Those who score well are offered spe­cial, sup­ple­men­tal ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties. The move­ment be­gan at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in 1971 with the cre­ation of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and spread within a dozen years to other pri­vate uni­ver­si­ties, i.e., Duke, North­west­ern, and the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver. Al­so, many pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties have be­gun such tal­ent search­ing and ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­tat­ing. This ar­ti­cle traces the ori­gin and de­vel­op­ment of the net­work of in­de­pen­dent cen­ters and projects based on the SMPY mod­el.

Stanley 1991b

“Cri­tique of ‘So­cioe­mo­tional Ad­just­ment of Ado­les­cent Girls En­rolled in a Res­i­den­tial Ac­cel­er­a­tion Pro­gram’”, Stan­ley 1991b:

The pro­fes­sional lit­er­a­ture on en­ter­ing col­lege un­der­age is re­viewed briefly. Sev­eral spec­tac­u­larly young col­lege grad­u­ates are men­tioned. Two high­-school­s-with­in-col­lege in­sti­tu­tions are dis­cussed. Then sev­eral crit­i­cal points about the ar­ti­cle are made. A few sug­ges­tions for con­duct­ing a longer-term, more de­fin­i­tive fol­low-up of ed­u­ca­tion­ally ac­cel­er­ated girls are giv­en. Fi­nal­ly, the value of so­cial ad­just­ment, as usu­ally de­fined, for the great oc­cu­pa­tional suc­cess of in­tel­lec­tu­ally ex­tremely able per­sons is ques­tioned.

Stanley 1991c

“Trib­ute to Hal­bert B. Robin­son (1925–1981)”, Stan­ley 1991c: obit­u­ary

At the Fifteenth An­niver­sary Com­mem­o­ra­tion and Re­nam­ing of the Cen­ter for the Study of Ca­pa­ble Youth to be the Hal­bert Robin­son Cen­ter for the Study of Ca­pa­ble Youth, Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, Oc­to­ber 3, 1990

[dis­cusses Stan­ley’s per­sonal his­tory with Robin­son, SMPY’s orig­in, and Robin­son’s Child De­vel­op­ment Re­search Group & Rad­i­cal Ac­cel­er­a­tion Group of the Early En­trance Pro­gram at the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton]

Swiatek & Benbow 1991a

“Ten-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal fol­low-up of abil­i­ty-matched ac­cel­er­ated and un­ac­cel­er­ated gifted stu­dents”, Swiatek & Ben­bow 1991a:

Gifted stu­dents iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth who un­der­went aca­d­e­mic ac­cel­er­a­tion in their ed­u­ca­tion were lon­gi­tu­di­nally com­pared across sev­eral do­mains with a group of equally gifted stu­dents who were never ac­cel­er­at­ed. Groups were matched for gen­der and abil­ity and were stud­ied for 10 yrs. At age 23 yrs, few sig­nifi­cant differ­ences were found be­tween the groups for the in­di­vid­ual aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial vari­ables stud­ied. Both the ac­cel­er­ates and the nonac­cel­er­ates re­ported im­pres­sive aca­d­e­mic achieve­ments, as well as high per­sonal sat­is­fac­tion with school and self. When aca­d­e­mic vari­ables are con­sid­ered as a group, the per­for­mance of ac­cel­er­ates is slightly higher than that of nonac­cel­er­ates. In both ac­cel­er­ated and un­ac­cel­er­ated groups, male stu­dents pur­sued math­e­mat­ic­s/­science more vig­or­ously than did fe­male stu­dents, but there was no differ­en­tial re­sponse to ac­cel­er­a­tion on the ba­sis of gen­der. Find­ings do not sup­port the com­mon con­cern that gifted stu­dents may be harmed by ac­cel­er­a­tive ex­pe­ri­ences.

Swiatek & Benbow 1991b

“A 10-Year Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Fol­low-up of Par­tic­i­pants in a Fast-Paced Math­e­mat­ics Course”, Swiatek & Ben­bow 1991b:

Stu­dents who par­tic­i­pated in a fast-paced math­e­mat­ics course for highly math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were sur­veyed 10 years lat­er, at ap­prox­i­mately age 23. Ar­eas con­sid­ered were (a) un­der­grad­u­ate ex­pe­ri­ence, (b) grad­u­ate ex­pe­ri­ence, (c) at­ti­tudes to­ward math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, and (d) self­-es­teem. Par­tic­i­pants at­tended more pres­ti­gious un­der­grad­u­ate col­leges than did non­par­tic­i­pants. Par­tic­i­pants were more likely to at­tend grad­u­ate school than were non­par­tic­i­pants; this find­ing stemmed from differ­ences among fe­males. Self­-es­teem rat­ings, al­though high for both groups, were found to be higher for stu­dents who qual­i­fied for the class but did not par­tic­i­pate. At­ti­tudes to­ward math and sci­ence were equiv­a­lent be­tween the two groups. Over­all, par­tic­i­pa­tion in the fast-paced math­e­mat­ics classes of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was as­so­ci­ated with stronger un­der­grad­u­ate ed­u­ca­tion for all stu­dents and with more ad­vanced ed­u­ca­tion among fe­males. The fast-paced classes caused gifted stu­dents no harm.

Brody et al 1991

“Gen­der differ­ences among tal­ented ado­les­cents: Re­search stud­ies by SMPY and CTY at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Brody et al 1992, in Com­pe­tence and re­spon­si­bil­i­ty: The Third Eu­ro­pean Con­fer­ence of the Eu­ro­pean Coun­cil for High Abil­ity, ed Heller & Hany 1992/4:

In the third pa­per, Linda Brody, Linda Bar­nett, and Carol Mills take a closer look at abil­ity differ­ences of tal­ented male and fe­male stu­dents. After re­view­ing data from sev­eral years taken from Tal­ent Search par­tic­i­pants at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, amongst oth­ers, and gath­ered from differ­ent sources, they con­clude that there are sex differ­ences of quan­ti­ta­tive abil­ity and math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment which have re­mained rather sta­ble through the last years. These differ­ences are more pro­nounced at the up­per lev­els of abil­ity and can there­fore affect ad­mis­sion to se­lec­tive in­sti­tutes of higher ed­u­ca­tion. Brody et al. de­scribe in de­tail sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics of the par­tic­i­pants of the CTY sum­mer pro­grams. First, more male than fe­male ap­pli­cants pass the cri­te­ria of be­ing ad­mit­ted to math­e­mat­ics cours­es. Sec­ond, of the par­tic­i­pants ad­mit­ted, more male than fe­male stu­dents ac­tu­ally choose math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence cours­es. Third, male stu­dents demon­strate higher achieve­ment than fe­males in math­e­mat­ics and physics class­es. The au­thors, as well as the other au­thors of this part of book, point to sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences of mo­ti­va­tion and self­-con­cept which may be more or less re­spon­si­ble even for the de­vel­op­ment of sex differ­ences of abil­i­ty.

Benbow 1992a

“Aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence be­tween ages 13 and 23: Are there differ­ences among stu­dents in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty?”, Ben­bow 1992a:

The pre­dic­tive va­lid­ity of the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­ics sub­test (SAT-M) was in­ves­ti­gated for 1,996 math­e­mat­i­cally gifted (top 1%) 7th and 8th graders. Var­i­ous aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment cri­te­ria were as­sessed over a 10-year span. In­di­vid­ual differ­ences in SAT-M scores ob­tained in ju­nior high school pre­dicted ac­com­plish­ments in high school and col­lege. Among stu­dents in the top 1% of abil­i­ty, those with SAT-M scores in the top quar­ter, in com­par­i­son with those in the bot­tom quar­ter, achieved at much higher lev­els through high school, col­lege, and grad­u­ate school. Of the 37 vari­ables stud­ied, 34 showed sig­nifi­cant differ­ences fa­vor­ing the high SAT-M group, which were sub­stan­tial. Some gen­der differ­ences emerged; these tended to be smaller than the abil­ity group differ­ences; they were not ob­served in the re­la­tion­ship be­tween math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity and aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. The pre­dic­tive va­lid­ity of the SAT-M for high­-a­bil­ity 7th and 8th graders was sup­port­ed.

Benbow 1992b

“Progress in Gifted Ed­u­ca­tion—Ev­ery­where but Here!”, Ben­bow 1992b:

[op-ed: de­spite progress in G&T ed­u­ca­tion like more states man­dat­ing gifted pro­grams, a new fed­eral office & re­search cen­ter, and in­sti­tu­tions like “gov­er­nor’s schools”, many gifted pro­grams are still be­ing elim­i­nat­ed, Amer­i­can so­ci­ety re­mains an­ti-in­tel­lec­tu­al, and gifted pro­grams re­main heav­ily crit­i­cized; Ben­bow ad­vo­cates ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion as a re­sponse to the ab­sence of gifted pro­gram­s.]

Kirschenbaum 1992

“An In­ter­view with Ju­lian C. Stan­ley”, Kirschen­baum 1992:

Dr. Stan­ley was in­ter­viewed in Boston dur­ing the An­nual Con­fer­ence of the Amer­i­can Ed­u­ca­tional Re­search As­so­ci­a­tion in April, 1990. Since then, he has up­dated the orig­i­nal tran­script a lit­tle.

[Found­ing of SMPY; choice of math test­ing and rar­ity of per­fect SAT-M scores <12yo, per Pi­aget; na­ture of math teach­ing and tal­ent; how to run an ac­cel­er­a­tion class]

Lubinski & Benbow 1992

“Gen­der Differ­ences in Abil­i­ties and Pref­er­ences Among the Gift­ed: Im­pli­ca­tions for the Math­-Science Pipeline”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 1992:

…The pur­pose of this re­view is to doc­u­ment some gen­der differ­ences among the gift­ed, which have re­mained pro­nounced for at least the past 20 years.2 Gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing are noted in par­tic­u­lar, but other at­trib­ut­es, cog­ni­tive and noncog­ni­tive (eg in­ter­ests and val­ues), also are re­viewed in the con­text of the­o­ret­i­cal dis­cus­sions at­tempt­ing to ex­plain them…­Males tend to be more vari­able on mea­sures of cog­ni­tive func­tion­ing, even on tests for which fe­males have higher means.6…In math­e­mat­i­cally gifted sam­ples, dis­parate male/fe­male pro­por­tions are well-known…The fol­low­ing pro­por­tions of males to fe­males at var­i­ous cut­ting score was ap­prox­i­mately as fol­lows: SAT-Math ≥ 500: 2⁄1; SAT-M ≥ 600, 4⁄1; SAT-M ≥ 700, 13⁄1…Table 1 con­tains data on abil­i­ties and val­ues of gifted stu­dents tested through SMPY at Iowa State Uni­ver­sity from 1998 through 1991…There are sub­stan­tial gen­der differ­ences in spa­tial and me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties…Two es­pe­cially im­por­tant val­ues in Ta­ble 1 de­serve par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion. In­tense the­o­ret­i­cal val­ues are char­ac­ter­is­tic of phys­i­cal sci­en­tists and are also more char­ac­ter­is­tic of males than fe­males. So­cial val­ues are neg­a­tively cor­re­lated with in­ter­ests in phys­i­cal sci­ence and are more char­ac­ter­is­tic of fe­males than males…Thus, males, com­pared with fe­males, tend to have abil­i­ties more con­gru­ent with op­ti­mal ad­just­ment in math and sci­ence ca­reer­s…The data in Ta­ble 2 show the gen­der dis­crep­ancy in math and sci­ence ed­u­ca­tional cre­den­tials for a sam­ple of males and fe­males in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Clear­ly, even fe­males who have greater gen­eral in­tel­lec­tual abil­ity and quan­ti­ta­tive abil­ity than the typ­i­cal phys­i­cal sci­en­tist are not en­ter­ing the math­-science pipeline…­For the most able stu­dents, how­ev­er, rel­e­vant abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files are in place be­fore high school…In our cul­ture at this junc­ture, the per­sonal at­trib­utes of males and fe­males are such that, for ed­u­ca­tional and ca­reer rea­sons, stress­ing ei­ther abil­i­ties or pref­er­ences will un­doubt­edly re­sult in dis­parate male/fe­male pro­por­tions in many dis­ci­plines; stress­ing both abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences will in­ten­sity these dis­par­i­ties.

Lubinski & Humphreys 1992

“Some bod­ily and med­ical cor­re­lates of math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness and com­men­su­rate lev­els of so­cioe­co­nomic sta­tus”, Lu­bin­ski & Humphreys 1992

Four groups of 10th-grade stu­dents were se­lected from the up­per tails of four dis­tri­b­u­tions based on a of the na­tion’s high schools (n = 95,650): Two groups con­sisted of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted sub­jects (boys n = 497, girls n = 508); the re­main­ing two groups com­prised en­vi­ron­men­tally priv­i­leged stu­dents (boys n = 647, girls n = 485). The for­mer rep­re­sented ap­prox­i­mately the top 1% on a stan­dard mea­sure of quan­ti­ta­tive abil­i­ty, whereas the lat­ter rep­re­sented ap­prox­i­mately the up­per 1% of a con­ven­tional SES in­dex. These four gift­ed/priv­i­leged groups were then com­pared to one an­oth­er, by gen­der, and to their gen­der equiv­a­lent nor­ma­tive co­horts on 43 in­dices of med­ical and phys­i­cal well-be­ing. Al­though higher lev­els of phys­i­cal health are found in both gifted and priv­i­leged groups (rel­a­tive to the nor­m), med­ical and phys­i­cal well-be­ing ap­pears to be more highly as­so­ci­ated with math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness than ex­treme lev­els of so­cioe­co­nomic priv­i­lege. To the ex­tent that these find­ings may be linked to the con­struct gen­eral in­tel­li­gence, they con­firm and ex­tend the view that the nomo­thetic span (net­work of cor­re­lates) of gen­eral in­tel­li­gence per­me­ates a va­ri­ety of im­por­tant and val­ued non­in­tel­lec­tual do­mains (cf. Brand, 1987).

Pyryt & Moroz 1992

“Eval­u­at­ing an ac­cel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­gram: A cen­tre of in­quiry ap­proach”, Pyryt & Mo­roz 1992, in Com­pe­tence and Re­spon­si­bil­i­ty: The Third Eu­ro­pean Con­fer­ence of the Eu­ro­pean Coun­cil for High Abil­ity, ed Heller & Hany 1992/4:

Michael Pyryt from the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­gary (Canada) made the first pre­sen­ta­tion “Eval­u­at­ing an ac­cel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­gram: A cen­tre of in­quiry ap­proach” (au­thors: M. C. Pyryt & R. Mo­roz). This con­tri­bu­tion has been printed in full length in this vol­ume. The eval­u­a­tion was re­lated to a ju­nior high school, where a se­lected group of sev­enth graders com­pleted the ma­te­ri­als for the math­e­mat­ics of the sev­enth and eighth grades. Dur­ing their eighth grade, these stu­dents then com­pleted the math­e­mat­ics cur­ric­ula for ninth graders, and in their ninth grade, they were pre­sented with math­e­mat­ic­s—in an­tic­i­pa­tion of the first year of high school—­ma­te­ri­als from the tenth grade. The study showed that, de­pend­ing on the co­hort and year 80–100% of the se­lected stu­dents had no diffi­culty what­so­ever in com­plet­ing the ac­cel­er­ated cur­ric­u­la. The cri­te­ria for this was the achieve­ment of at least 70% cor­rect in fi­nal test for the school year. In ad­di­tion, there were no differ­ences in achieve­ment scores be­tween the ac­cel­er­ated stu­dents and the older stu­dents viewed in com­par­ison, who com­pleted the same ma­te­ri­als over a longer pe­riod of time (Pyryt & Mo­roz, 1992).

Stanley 1992

“A Slice of Ad­vice”, Stan­ley 1992:

[Re­searchers are ad­vised to work hard to­ward pub­lish­ing ar­ti­cles where they will get full at­ten­tion from the ablest pro­fes­sion­als in the field. A sec­ond piece of ad­vice is to in­ter­act with per­sons in the field of spe­cial re­search in­ter­est, and seek them out through pub­li­ca­tions and pro­fes­sional con­fer­ences.]

This col­umn is the fourth in a se­ries pre­sent­ing the ad­vice of vet­eran ed­u­ca­tional re­searchers aimed at their ju­nior col­leagues. Each in­vited con­trib­u­tor will be asked to offer one or more ca­reer-rel­e­vant guide­lines for be­gin­ning ed­u­ca­tional re­searchers, de­vel­op­ers, and/or eval­u­a­tors. The colum­n’s func­tion is to serve as a repos­i­tory for the ex­pe­ri­ence-based in­sights of our field’s se­nior mem­ber­s—in­sights that, if not shared, must be re­dis­cov­ered.

Stanley 1992b

“My Life and How It Grew”, Stan­ley 1992b: short au­to­bi­og­ra­phy.

Benbow & Lubinski 1993a

“Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed: some sex differ­ences and ev­i­dence sup­port­ing their bi­o­log­i­cal ba­sis”, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1993a:

For over 20 years, above-level test­ing with the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT) has been used to as­sess the abil­i­ties of well over 1,000,000 highly able 12–13-year-olds (s­tu­dents in the top 3% in in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty). In this pop­u­la­tion, the pre­dic­tive va­lid­ity of the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the SAT, SAT-M, for aca­d­e­mic and vo­ca­tional cri­te­ria has been demon­strated over 10-year gaps. Here, we doc­u­ment as­pects of the psy­cho­log­i­cal and achieve­ment pro­files of these highly able stu­dents, pay­ing par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion to sex differ­ences. Males score higher on SAT-M (i.e., math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty) than fe­males; this differ­ence is ac­com­pa­nied by differ­ences be­tween the sexes in spa­tial-me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and in a num­ber of lifestyle and vo­ca­tional pref­er­ences. Col­lec­tive­ly, these at­trib­utes ap­pear to play a key role in struc­tur­ing male-fe­male dis­par­i­ties in pur­su­ing ad­vanced ed­u­ca­tional cre­den­tials and ca­reers in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. After pro­fil­ing a num­ber of the be­hav­ioural char­ac­ter­is­tics of the highly able, we ex­am­ine some un­der­ly­ing bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of these phe­no­typic man­i­fes­ta­tions. These in­clude hor­monal in­flu­ences, med­ical and bod­ily con­di­tions and en­hanced right hemi­spheric ac­ti­va­tion.

Benbow & Lubinski 1993b

“Con­se­quences of Gen­der Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity and Some Bi­o­log­i­cal Link­ages”, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1993b:

[See Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1987b on cor­re­lates, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1993a on in­ter­ests; adds some ad­di­tional graph­s/ta­bles.]

Bock & Ackrill 1993

The Ori­gins and De­vel­op­ment of High Abil­ity, ed Bock & Ack­rill 1993 (ISBN 0-471-93945-5). An­thol­o­gy:

  • “Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed: some sex differ­ences and ev­i­dence sup­port­ing their bi­o­log­i­cal ba­sis”, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1993:

    For over 20 years, above-level test­ing with the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT) has been used to as­sess the abil­i­ties of well over 1000000 highly able 12–13-year-olds (s­tu­dents in the top 3% in in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty). In this pop­u­la­tion, the pre­dic­tive va­lid­ity of the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the SAT, SAT-M, for aca­d­e­mic and vo­ca­tional cri­te­ria has been demon­strated over 10-year gaps. Here, we doc­u­ment as­pects of the psy­cho­log­i­cal and achieve­ment pro­files of these highly able stu­dents, pay­ing par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion to sex differ­ences. Males score higher on SAT-M (i.e., math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty) than fe­males; this differ­ence is ac­com­pa­nied by differ­ences be­tween the sexes in spa­tial-me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and in a num­ber of lifestyle and vo­ca­tional pref­er­ences. Col­lec­tive­ly, these at­trib­utes ap­pear to play a key role in struc­tur­ing male-fe­male dis­par­i­ties in pur­su­ing ad­vanced ed­u­ca­tional cre­den­tials and ca­reers in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. After pro­fil­ing a num­ber of the be­hav­ioural char­ac­ter­is­tics of the highly able, we ex­am­ine some un­der­ly­ing bi­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of these phe­no­typic man­i­fes­ta­tions. These in­clude hor­monal in­flu­ences, med­ical and bod­ily con­di­tions and en­hanced right hemi­spheric ac­ti­va­tion.

    • Dis­cus­sion: Ben­bow, Lu­bin­ski, Stern­berg, Sitruk-Ware, Gard­ner, Fowler, Hatano, Du­dai, Gru­ber, Stan­ley, Free­man, Bouchard
  • “Boys and girls who rea­son well math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley 1993:

    Since 1971 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity has pi­o­neered in dis­cov­ery of and pro­vi­sion of ed­u­ca­tional help for 12-year-old boys and girls who rea­son bet­ter math­e­mat­i­cally than 99% of other 12-year-olds. SMPY orig­i­nated wide­spread searches for such youths and spe­cial aca­d­e­mic classes for them out­side the reg­u­lar school sys­tem. A re­gional tal­ent search, ver­bal as well as math­e­mat­i­cal, now cov­ers all 50 states of the USA, and many var­ied res­i­den­tial sum­mer pro­grammes are offered across the coun­try. These have pro­vided ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­ta­tion for many thou­sands, and have en­cour­aged greater cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity in schools and bet­ter ar­tic­u­la­tion of in­-school with out­-of-school learn­ing ex­pe­ri­ences. From the first tal­ent search con­ducted by SMPY in 1972, it be­came ob­vi­ous that boys tend to score con­sid­er­ably higher than girls on the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­i­cal (SAT-M), a test in­tended mainly for col­lege-bound 17- and 18-year-olds. This differ­ence was re­ported in 1974 but at­tracted lit­tle at­ten­tion un­til a con­tro­ver­sial re­port in 1980 stim­u­lated re­search on sex differ­ences in var­i­ous as­pects of math­e­mat­ics.

    Here I de­scribe a study of sex differ­ences over 10 years on 14 Col­lege Board high school achieve­ment tests, which are taken (three usu­al­ly) by bright 17- and 18-year-olds seek­ing ad­mis­sion to the USA’s se­lec­tive col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties. Among the high scor­ers on the Eu­ro­pean his­tory test the ra­tio of males to fe­males was great­est, 6:1. The next most sex-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing test was physics, 2.9:1, fol­lowed by el­e­men­tary-level math­e­mat­ics (mainly al­ge­bra and geom­e­try), 2.5:1. Other ra­tios favour­ing males were, in 1991, chem­istry (2.4:1), Amer­i­can his­tory (2.1:1), bi­ol­ogy (1.8:1), pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics (1.6:1), Latin (1.6: 1), French (1.4:1), mod­ern He­brew (1.1:1) and Ger­man (1.02:1). Tests in which more fe­males were high scor­ers were lit­er­a­ture (1.26: 1), Eng­lish com­po­si­tion (1.05: 1) and Span­ish (1.01:1). The largest sex differ­ences on other stan­dard­ized tests, for me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing and spa­tial ro­ta­tion, favour males. There are even larger differ­ences for self­-re­ported eval­u­a­tive at­ti­tudes, with the the­o­ret­i­cal value high for boys and the aes­thetic high for girls. Such value scores cor­re­late strangely with scores on achieve­ment and ap­ti­tude tests. By 12 or younger, bright boys and girls al­ready show many of the cog­ni­tive sex differ­ences found in 18-year-olds.

Lubinski et al 1993

“Recon­cep­tu­al­iz­ing Gen­der Differ­ences in Achieve­ment Among the Gifted”, Lu­bin­ski et al 1993,, in In­ter­na­tional hand­book of re­search and de­vel­op­ment of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent, ed Heller et al 1993:

…fo­cus specifi­cally on fac­tors re­lat­ing to ed­u­ca­tion­al/vo­ca­tional choice, ex­cep­tional ed­u­ca­tion­al/vo­ca­tional achieve­ments and gen­der differ­ences within the gifted pop­u­la­tion / our… re­search . . . is also aimed at pro­gram ex­per­i­men­ta­tion and re­fine­ment of well-known ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions. Draws on the lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings from SMPY [S­tudy of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth] to il­lus­trate key an­tecedents to gen­der differ­ences in the phys­i­cal sci­ences / de­scribe the de­sign of our study and its the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work / [dis­cuss] gen­der differ­ences in ac­tual achieve­ment among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and some em­pir­i­cal find­ings in­volv­ing gen­der differ­ences on fa­mil­iar as well as un­der­ap­pre­ci­ated vari­ables crit­i­cal for choos­ing to ex­cel in math­/­science do­mains.

Over the past 30 years, many of the un­en­light­ened bar­ri­ers pre­vent­ing gifted women from achiev­ing ed­u­ca­tional cre­den­tials and oc­cu­pa­tional sta­tus com­men­su­rate with their abil­i­ties have been re­moved. In many ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams, com­pa­ra­ble gen­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion quickly en­sued, es­pe­cially in ar­eas like law where many kinds of 4-year de­grees are ac­cept­able for ad­mis­sions. Ex­cep­tional per­for­mances by women on bar ex­ams, law school grades anti hon­ors fol­lowed, just as the pro­tag­o­nists who worked so hard to re­move the afore­men­tioned bar­ri­ers had pre­dicted all along. Gen­der-com­pa­ra­bil­i­ties in med­ical schools, both in rep­re­sen­ta­tion and in per­for­mance, fol­lowed shortly there­after. This trend served to re­in­force fur­ther the well-grounded ar­gu­ments for re­mov­ing gen­der-dis­crim­i­nat­ing ed­u­ca­tional bar­ri­ers to be­gin with. That is, ar­gu­ments ini­tially stem­ming pri­mar­ily from po­lit­i­cal-ide­o­log­i­cal con­cerns now be­came but­tressed by eco­nomic and psy­cho­log­i­cal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion: not only were women per­form­ing ad­mirably in these ar­eas, the dis­ci­plines them­selves were ben­e­fit­ing from a more able stu­dent pop­u­la­tion. As a con­se­quence of the greater num­ber of women with ex­cep­tional aca­d­e­mic cre­den­tial: en­ter­ing law and med­i­cine, both dis­ci­plines have in­sured that their fu­ture lead­ers and prac­ti­tion­ers will have greater com­pe­ten­cies and so­phis­ti­ca­tion.

…Our re­search, how­ev­er, is also aimed at pro­gram ex­per­i­men­ta­tion and re­fine­ment of well-known ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions. That is, in work­ing with in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, in­di­vid­u­ally and in groups, we at­tempt to find and pro­vide en­vi­ron­ments wherein their tal­ents can best blos­som and come to their full fruition. Un­der­stand­ing what those en­vi­ron­ments con­sist of and learn­ing how to pro­vide them are two of the more cen­tral goals of our ap­plied re­search. We shall draw upon that work as well.

…It is the the­sis of this chap­ter that the the­o­ret­i­cal model guid­ing our re­search with the gift­ed, which is to be ex­pli­cat­ed, has im­pli­ca­tions for an­a­lyz­ing and bet­ter un­der­stand­ing the un­der­-rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women all along the math­/­science pipeline. In­deed, our em­pir­i­cal stud­ies have re­vealed unique fac­tors op­er­at­ing to pre­serve gen­der-dis­par­i­ties in math­/­science ca­reers and these fac­tors re­late to choice. We pro­pose here that gen­der differ­ences in achieve­ment are a re­flec­tion of choices and that these choices nat­u­rally emerge from a num­ber of gen­der-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing at­trib­utes crit­i­cal for a com­mit­ment to, and ex­cel­lence in, math­/­science ca­reers. Fur­ther, we sug­gest that it might be profitable to recon­cep­tu­al­ize the pro­fes­sional and the pub­lic view of gen­der differ­ences in math­/­science achieve­ment, name­ly, as con­se­quences of the differ­ent per­spec­tives and per­sonal qual­i­ties that males and fe­males bring to sit­u­a­tions.

In what fol­lows, we shall draw on the lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings from SMPY to il­lus­trate key an­tecedents to gen­der differ­ences in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. We shall first de­scribe the de­sign of our study and its the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work. This is fol­lowed by a dis­cus­sion of gen­der differ­ences in ac­tual achieve­ment among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and some em­pir­i­cal find­ings in­volv­ing gen­der differ­ences on fa­mil­iar as well as un­der­ap­pre­ci­ated vari­ables crit­i­cal for choos­ing to ex­cel in math­/­science do­mains. Fi­nal­ly, we close with a brief dis­cus­sion of the im­pli­ca­tions of our cur­rent state of knowl­edge and how these im­pli­ca­tions might be used to both guide and or­ga­nize the di­rec­tion of fu­ture re­search on gifted fe­males (as well as males).

Mills 1993

“Per­son­al­i­ty, learn­ing style and cog­ni­tive style pro­files of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents”, Mills 1993:

Clear per­son­al­ity differ­ences were found for a sam­ple of aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents when com­pared to a gen­eral pop­u­la­tion of same age stu­dents. On the My­er­s-Briggs di­men­sions, the aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents differed sig­nifi­cantly from the com­par­i­son group on all four di­men­sions. Specifi­cal­ly, the aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented group ex­pressed greater pref­er­ences for in­tro­ver­sion, in­tu­ition, and think­ing. Al­though there were more judg­ing types in this group than in the com­par­i­son group, over­all more aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents ex­pressed a pref­er­ence for a per­cep­tive style. They also tended to be higher on achieve­ment mo­ti­va­tion and lower on in­ter­per­sonal and so­cial con­cerns. In par­tic­u­lar, a cog­ni­tive style that em­pha­sizes a think­ing over a feel­ing mode ap­pears to me­di­ate gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics abil­ity and achieve­ment.

Southern et al 1993

“Ac­cel­er­a­tion and En­rich­ment: The Con­text and De­vel­op­ment of Pro­gram Op­tions”, South­ern et al 1993:

Ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment may be re­garded as legs that sup­port the same chair. Ca­sual con­sid­er­a­tion of the de­fi­n­i­tions of the two ap­proaches will re­veal ap­par­ent sim­i­lar­i­ties. What­ever the ap­pear­ances, the ra­tio­nales. for ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment are based on differ­ent as­sump­tions about four ba­sic is­sues: the na­ture of in­tel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness, affec­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics of gift­ed­ness, the goals of reg­u­lar and gifted ed­u­ca­tion, and the ad­e­quacy of reg­u­lar ed­u­ca­tion cur­ric­u­la.

Cul­tural and so­ci­etal fac­tors and his­tor­i­cal events have also in­flu­enced the as­sump­tions of ed­u­ca­tors and the pub­lic: about all fac­tors as­so­ci­ated with ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment. Differ­ences in ba­sic as­sump­tions and shifts in val­ues and goals have had a pro­found in­flu­ence On ini­tia­tives to pro­vide pro­grams to gifted stu­dents. This chap­ter is di­vided into four prin­ci­pal sec­tions. First, it be­gins with a dis­cus­sion of de­fi­n­i­tions of ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment. Im­pli­ca­tions of the de­fi­n­i­tions fer pro­gram de­vel­op­ment and im­ple­men­ta­tion will ac­com­pany those dis­cus­sions. The sec­ond sec­tion of the chap­ter de­scribes the his­tor­i­cal con­text of the de­bate over the rel­a­tive mer­its of ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment. In the third sec­tion, fac­tors that fuel the de­bate are de­lin­eat­ed. The fi­nal sec­tion of the chap­ter de­scribe at­trib­utes of na­tional ed­u­ca­tional sys­tems that affect the de­vel­op­ment of ac­cel­er­a­tion and en­rich­ment op­tions and presents de­scrip­tions of the op­tions that are em­ployed.

Sowell 1993

, Sow­ell 1993:

This pa­per sum­ma­rizes and cri­tiques the em­pir­i­cal re­search of the 1970s and 1980s on pro­grams for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents. Much re­search has shown that ac­cel­er­at­ing the math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum pro­vides a very good pro­gram for pre­co­cious stu­dents. Or­ga­ni­za­tional plans that place math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents to­gether for math­e­mat­ics in­struc­tion also offer op­por­tu­ni­ties for these stu­dents to per­form well. Al­though tech­nol­o­gy-based in­struc­tion also ap­pears to pro­vide an effi­ca­cious way of pro­vid­ing in­struc­tion for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted el­e­men­tary stu­dents, this method should be ex­am­ined fur­ther with older stu­dents and in long-term stud­ies. Re­search with en­riched cur­ric­ula and non-com­put­er-based in­struc­tion pro­vided in­con­clu­sive ev­i­dence of effi­cacy for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents.

Putting the Re­search to Use: This re­view shows clearly that math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents profit by par­tic­i­pat­ing in ac­cel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­grams. Al­so, math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents per­form bet­ter when they work along­side other math­e­mat­i­cally able stu­dents. There­fore, teach­ers and par­ents are en­cour­aged to iden­tify and de­velop pro­grams or or­ga­ni­za­tional plans that pro­vide these op­por­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents. El­e­men­tary school teach­ers should make tech­nol­o­gy-based pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics avail­able to their stu­dents, es­pe­cially those who are math­e­mat­i­cally able, be­cause these pro­grams ap­pear to work well.

Swiatek 1993

“A decade of lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search on aca­d­e­mic ac­cel­er­a­tion through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Swiatek 1993 (this has been re­pub­lished as Swiatek 2002, as part of a spe­cial is­sue reprint­ing ar­ti­cles from the pre­vi­ous 25 years):

Over the past decade, sev­eral lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies per­tain­ing to the ed­u­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents were pro­duced through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). One area that was em­pha­sized, in keep­ing with SMPY’s his­to­ry, is aca­d­e­mic ac­cel­er­a­tion. SMPY’s stud­ies, which con­sider var­i­ous groups of stu­dents, meth­ods of ac­cel­er­a­tion, and types of out­comes, sup­port ac­cel­er­a­tion as an ed­u­ca­tional method. Their re­sults are in keep­ing with the work of other au­thors in this area. In this ar­ti­cle, the sub­jects, meth­ods, and out­comes of SMPY’s stud­ies are de­scribed and plans for fu­ture re­search are out­lined.

Albert 1994

“The Achieve­ment of Em­i­nence: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Ex­cep­tion­ally Gifted Boys and Their Fam­i­lies”, Robert S. Al­bert (pre­vi­ous­ly: Al­bert 1980) in , ed Sub­ot­nik & Arnold 1994 (ISBN 1567500110)

Charlton et al 1994

“Fol­low-up in­sights on rapid ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion”, Charl­ton et al 1994 (re­pub­lished in 2002 in the 25-year spe­cial is­sue):

Too lit­tle is known about what hap­pens, when they grow up, to youths who rea­son ex­tremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Few tell their story to spe­cial­ists in ed­u­ca­tion of the gift­ed, ei­ther in writ­ing or oral­ly. Ju­lian Stan­ley brought two suc­cess­ful for­mer “rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­ants” to the No­vem­ber 1993 an­nual meet­ing of the Na­tional As­so­ci­a­tion for Gifted Chil­dren in At­lanta and also pro­vided some in­for­ma­tion about 12 other math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youths. Jane C. Charl­ton and Don­ald M. Marolf, the two young adults fea­tured, told the sym­po­sium au­di­ence about them­selves and an­swered ques­tions. They were amaz­ingly frank, in­sight­ful, and hu­mor­ous about their lives thus far. Both are con­vinced, and are con­vinc­ing, that rapid progress through school grades all the way to the Ph.D. de­gree is the nearly op­ti­mal way for per­sons like them­selves to en­rich their ed­u­ca­tion and pre­pare for adult­hood. All three speak­ers agreed, how­ev­er, that ex­tremely fast ed­u­ca­tional ad­vance­ment might not be the ideal cur­ricu­lum path for some other equally ca­pa­ble boys and girls.

Ng 1994

“An ad­den­dum: Lenny Ng’s story”, Ng 1994 (see also Mu­ra­tori et al 2006):

…In all se­ri­ous­ness, peo­ple often ask me what it is like, as a friend put it re­cent­ly, “to be so smart”, to have ap­peared on the cover of Pa­rade mag­a­zine and been fea­tured in Newsweek, Life mag­a­zine, and even Sports Il­lus­trated for Kids. I can tell you that it’s been a lot of fun, and ex­tremely re­ward­ing. Through my ac­tiv­i­ties and com­pe­ti­tions, I have made life­long friends, seen fas­ci­nat­ing places, and met peo­ple even more fa­mous than my broth­er. Per­haps my great­est bless­ing is a mind en­chanted by every­thing from math to mu­sic, from lit­er­a­ture to ten­nis. I have been for­tu­nate to have a wealth of op­por­tu­ni­ties as eclec­tic as they have been nu­mer­ous. And much of my suc­cess should be­long to my hard­work­ing, de­vot­ed, and vi­sion­ary par­ents…

Lubinski & Benbow 1994

“The Study Of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth: The First Three Decades Of A Planned 50-Year Study Of In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 1994, in , ed Sub­ot­nik & Arnold 1994 (ISBN 1567500110):

de­scribes the planned 50-yr lon­gi­tu­di­nal study that is be­ing con­ducted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) / present data from SMPY and the psy­cho­log­i­cal lit­er­a­ture that have rel­e­vance for iden­ti­fy­ing the early psy­cho­log­i­cal an­tecedents of com­pe­tence and sat­is­fac­tion at all points along the math­/­science pipeline, from se­lect­ing a col­lege ma­jor to earn­ing a doc­tor­ate in a tech­ni­cal dis­ci­pline / fac­tors es­pe­cially con­ducive to ex­cep­tional achieve­ments will be given par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion, as will spe­cial in­flu­ences that con­tribute to the op­ti­mal ed­u­ca­tional and vo­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment of the nascent phys­i­cal sci­en­tist; pos­si­ble in­flu­ences re­lated to gen­der differ­ences in achieve­ment will be stressed.

Lubinski et al 1995

“Sta­bil­ity of vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests among the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted from ado­les­cence to adult­hood: A 15-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Lu­bin­ski et al 1995:

A sam­ple of 162 in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) were ad­min­is­tered the Strong-Camp­bell In­ter­est In­ven­tory at age 13. Fifteen years lat­er, they were ad­min­is­tered the Strong again. This study eval­u­ated the in­tra- and in­terindi­vid­ual tem­po­ral sta­bil­ity of the 6 RIASEC (Re­al­is­tic, In­ves­tiga­tive, Artis­tic, So­cial, En­ter­pris­ing, Con­ven­tion­al) themes and the Strong’s 23 Ba­sic In­ter­est Scales. Over the 15-year test-retest in­ter­val, RIASEC’s me­dian in­terindi­vid­ual cor­re­la­tion for the 6 themes was .46; the me­dian of all 162 in­train­di­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions was 0.57. Con­fig­ural analy­ses of the most dom­i­nant theme at age 13 re­vealed that this theme was sig­nifi­cantly more likely than chance to be ei­ther dom­i­nant or ad­ja­cent to the dom­i­nant theme at age 28-fol­low­ing RIASEC’s hexag­o­nal struc­ture. For in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted in­di­vid­u­als, it ap­pears to be pos­si­ble to fore­cast salient fea­tures of their adult RIASEC pro­file by as­sess­ing their vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests dur­ing early ado­les­cence, but some RIASEC themes seem more sta­ble than oth­ers.

Lubinski & Benbow 1995

“Op­ti­mal de­vel­op­ment of tal­ent: Re­spond ed­u­ca­tion­ally to in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in per­son­al­ity”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 1995:

…How do we de­velop the tal­ents of gifted chil­dren while main­tain­ing eq­ui­ty? Based upon the long and cel­e­brated his­tory of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences re­search (Dawis 1992) from ed­u­ca­tional and vo­ca­tional coun­sel­ing (Bray­field 1950; Dawis and Lofquist 1984; Pat­ter­son 1938; Williamson 1939; 1965), we be­lieve that op­ti­mal uti­liza­tion of tal­ent de­pends upon re­spond­ing to in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in per­son­al­i­ties. Specifi­cal­ly, chil­dren must be placed in ed­u­ca­tional en­vi­ron­ments that are con­gru­ent with, and build up­on, their most salient abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences (Ben­bow and Lu­bin­ski 1994; in press; Lu­bin­ski and Ben­bow 1994; Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, and Sanders 1993; Stan­ley 1977). This ap­proach, which is ad­vo­cated by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) (Ben­bow and Lu­bin­ski 1994; in press; Stan­ley 1977), serves as the fo­cus of this ar­ti­cle.

We ar­gue and present ev­i­dence that in­di­vid­u­als pos­sess cer­tain at­trib­utes that make them differ­en­tially suited for ex­celling, with ful­fill­ment, in con­trast­ing ed­u­ca­tional and vo­ca­tional tracks. That is, only a lim­ited set of learn­ing en­vi­ron­ments is ed­u­ca­tion­ally op­ti­mal for any­one in­di­vid­u­al, even a gifted in­di­vid­ual. Stu­dents, for ex­am­ple, put forth their best effort when they in­trin­si­cally en­joy what they are do­ing, and world-class achieve­ment is most likely to de­velop when gifted in­di­vid­u­als are al­lowed to pur­sue what they love at their de­sired pace. In­deed, learn­ing can be op­ti­mized and achieve­ment mo­ti­va­tion en­hanced if stu­dents are pre­sented with tasks that are not only chal­leng­ing (i.e., slightly above the level al­ready mas­tered) but also per­son­ally mean­ing­ful to them (Lofquist and Dawis 1991)…

Sanders et al 1995

“Does the Defin­ing Is­sues Test Mea­sure Psy­cho­log­i­cal Phe­nom­ena Dis­tinct From Ver­bal Abil­i­ty?: An Ex­am­i­na­tion of Lykken’s Query”, Sanders et al 1995:

This study ex­am­ined the in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity of the Defin­ing Is­sues Test (DIT), a test pur­port­ing to mea­sure moral rea­son­ing abil­ity rel­a­tive to ver­bal abil­ity and other ma­jor mark­ers of the con­struct of gen­eral in­tel­li­gence (g). Across 2 in­de­pen­dent stud­ies of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents (top 0.5%), re­sults ob­tained with the DIT re­vealed that gifted in­di­vid­u­als earned sig­nifi­cantly higher moral rea­son­ing scores than did their av­er­age-a­bil­ity peers; they also scored higher than col­lege fresh­men, who were 4 to 5 years old­er. The rel­a­tive stand­ing of the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents on moral rea­son­ing, how­ev­er, ap­pears to be due to their su­pe­rior level of ver­bal abil­ity as op­posed to any of a num­ber of the other psy­cho­log­i­cal vari­ables ex­am­ined here. The hy­poth­e­sis that the DIT is con­cep­tu­ally dis­tinct from con­ven­tional mea­sures of ver­bal abil­ity was not con­firmed. In­ves­ti­ga­tors con­duct­ing sub­se­quent stud­ies in­volv­ing the as­sess­ment of moral rea­son­ing are ad­vised to in­cor­po­rate mea­sures of ver­bal abil­ity into their de­signs, thereby en­abling them to as­cer­tain whether moral rea­son­ing mea­sures are in­deed cap­tur­ing sys­tem­atic sources of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences dis­tinct from ver­bal abil­i­ty.

Achter et al 1996

“Mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity Among the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gift­ed: ‘It Was Never There and Al­ready It’s Van­ish­ing’”, Achter et al 1996:

The the­ory of work ad­just­ment was used as a con­cep­tual frame­work in eval­u­at­ing the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­i­ty, taken from the psy­cho­log­i­cal lit­er­a­ture on coun­sel­ing in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted in­di­vid­u­als (viz., those with high­-flat abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files that may lead to ca­reer in­de­ci­sion and dis­tress). An ex­am­i­na­tion of over 1,000 in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents (top 1%) in 4 sep­a­rate co­horts, as­sessed with the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test, the Study of Val­ues, and J. L. Hol­land’s (1985) six in­ter­est themes, re­vealed lit­tle em­pir­i­cal sup­port for the preva­lence of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity within in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (<5%). Rather, it ap­pears that the idea of an over­abun­dance of high­-flat abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files among gifted stu­dents stems from the use of age-cal­i­brated and, hence, de­vel­op­men­tally in­ap­pro­pri­ate as­sess­ment tools hav­ing in­suffi­cient ceil­ings. The re­sults have im­por­tant im­pli­ca­tions for the use of tra­di­tional vo­ca­tional as­sess­ment mea­sures in coun­sel­ing gifted stu­dents.

Achter et al 1997

“Re­think­ing Mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity Among the In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gift­ed: A Crit­i­cal Re­view and Rec­om­men­da­tions”, Achter et al 1997:

This pa­per crit­i­cally re­views the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity as it has been de­fined and en­coun­tered in the sci­en­tific lit­er­a­ture on gifted chil­dren. Un­til re­cent­ly, it has not been ad­e­quately sub­jected to em­pir­i­cal eval­u­a­tion. De­spite its ubiq­ui­tous pres­ence in the lit­er­a­ture, sev­eral pieces of ev­i­dence are pre­sented sug­gest­ing that mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity has been er­ro­neously in­ter­preted and falsely as­sumed to ap­ply to a ma­jor­ity of in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted in­di­vid­u­als. Find­ings are sum­ma­rized from a re­cent re­port (Achter, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 1996) on the abil­i­ty, in­ter­est, and value pro­files of over 1000 stu­dents from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), as well as ev­i­dence com­piled from other em­pir­i­cal stud­ies, in­di­cat­ing that above-level as­sess­ment of abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences among gifted ado­les­cents re­veal markedly differ­en­ti­ated pro­files for the vast ma­jor­ity (over 95% when all fac­tors were con­sult­ed). Thus, the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity re­quires re­think­ing. Tra­di­tional as­sess­ment tools found in vo­ca­tional psy­chol­ogy (i.e., ques­tion­naires and tests mea­sur­ing abil­i­ties, in­ter­ests, and val­ues), when offered in an above-level for­mat, are use­ful in serv­ing the ed­u­ca­tional and ca­reer coun­sel­ing needs of in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted young ado­les­cents. Fur­ther, such tools are help­ful for gain­ing an ap­pre­ci­a­tion of the di­ver­sity of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences among the in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ent­ed.

Benbow & Lubinski 1996

In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent: Psy­cho­me­t­ric and So­cial Is­sues, ed Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1996 (ISBN 0801853028). An­thol­o­gy, sec­tion IV, “The Use of Knowl­edge: the SMPY Project”:

On April 19, 1992, al­most a hun­dred in­di­vid­u­als made a pil­grim­age to San Fran­cisco to at­tend a sym­po­sium con­ducted in honor of Ju­lian C. Stan­ley and his ca­reer achieve­ments. The sym­po­sium was en­ti­tled “From Psy­cho­met­rics to Gift­ed­ness”, a fit­ting de­scrip­tion of Ju­lian’s ca­reer path. It was at­tended by many of his for­mer as well as cur­rent col­leagues and stu­dents, in­clud­ing a re­search par­tic­i­pant in his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth.

This book grew out of that sym­po­sium. All but four of the pre­sen­ta­tions were ex­panded upon and de­vel­oped into chap­ters for this vol­ume. Eight chap­ters were added to round out the book’s cov­er­age of the sub­ject mat­ter. The book is meant to tell an im­por­tant sto­ry, and we be­lieve it does. It be­gins with a dis­cus­sion of IQ and the ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion of gifted chil­dren, and how work in this area is affected by the Zeit­geist. A ma­jor theme is how po­lit­i­cal cli­mates and emo­tions in­flu­ence sci­en­tific in­quiry by lim­it­ing both the ques­tions posed and what knowl­edge ob­tained from so­cial sci­ence re­search is ac­tu­ally put into prac­tice. What we have learned is that lit­tle of what is ap­plied is con­sis­tent with what re­search in­forms us are good prac­tices. Rather, we are at­tracted to fads with in­suffi­cient em­pir­i­cal sup­port.

This leads to two ques­tions: what do we ac­tu­ally know, and what would hap­pen if our knowl­edge were ap­plied? We de­cided to ap­proach these is­sues by hav­ing sev­eral con­trib­u­tors ex­am­ine one prob­lem: how prop­erly to ed­u­cate chil­dren with ex­cep­tional aca­d­e­mic tal­ents. There is much that we know about this topic and have known for quite some time, as the chap­ters re­veal. When this knowl­edge is ap­plied, as it was by Ju­lian Stan­ley through his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, the re­sults are sim­ply strik­ing. This leads one to won­der more gen­er­ally what could the state of ed­u­ca­tion in the United States be if we ac­tu­ally ap­plied what works and re­sisted the temp­ta­tion to jump on the next band­wag­on. The cur­rent state of affairs in ed­u­ca­tion and the so­cial sci­ences could be con­sid­ered mal­prac­tice. The book comes to a close with sev­eral chap­ters deal­ing with psy­cho­me­t­ric is­sues and the cru­cial differ­ences be­tween ge­nius and gift­ed­ness.

  • “In the Be­gin­ning: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Stan­ley 1996:

    This pa­per con­tains a brief de­scrip­tion of the found­ing and early years of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) from 1968 to the pre­sent. Sev­eral of the guid­ing prin­ci­ples be­hind SMPY are dis­cussed. SMPY led to the for­ma­tion of strong re­gion­al, state, and lo­cal cen­ters that now blan­ket the United States with an­nual tal­ent searches and aca­d­e­mic sum­mer pro­grams. Among their main tools are the as­sess­ment tests of the Col­lege Board in­clud­ing the SAT, high school achieve­ment tests, and Ad­vanced Place­ment Pro­gram (AP) ex­am­i­na­tions. Iden­ti­fy­ing, via ob­jec­tive tests, youths who rea­son ex­cep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally is the ini­tial aim of SMPY and its se­quels. The 12- or 13-year-old boys and girls who score high are then pro­vided the spe­cial, sup­ple­men­tal, ac­cel­er­a­tive ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties they sorely need.

  • “Con­tri­bu­tions of the Tal­en­t-Search Con­cept to Gifted Ed­u­ca­tion”, van Tas­sel-Baska 1996

  • “Nur­tur­ing Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent: SET as a Legacy of SMPY”, Brody & Black­burn 1996

  • “The im­pact of SMPY’s ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams from the per­spec­tive of the par­tic­i­pant”, Ben­bow et al 1996:

    Dis­cusses the im­pact SMPY (S­tudy of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) has had on the field of ed­u­ca­tion, par­tic­u­larly on gifted ed­u­ca­tion / doc­u­ments the im­pact that SMPY has had on the stu­dents it has served, in terms of their sub­jec­tive im­pres­sions of their par­tic­i­pa­tion and its in­flu­ence on their de­vel­op­ment / the au­thors’ eval­u­a­tion will fo­cus on stu­dents iden­ti­fied by SMPY, re­gard­less of whether or not they re­ceived any as­sis­tance be­yond the ba­sics pro­vided through the tal­ent search. this eval­u­a­tion draws on the vast amount of data col­lected by SMPY at Iowa State Uni­ver­sity through its lon­gi­tu­di­nal study / the study cur­rently in­cludes about 5,000 math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally tal­ented in­di­vid­u­als iden­ti­fied over a 25-yr pe­riod and grouped into 5 co­horts, each sep­a­rated by a few years.

Benbow & Stanley 1996

“In­equity In Eq­ui­ty: How ‘Eq­uity’ Can Lead to In­equity for High­-Po­ten­tial Stu­dents”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1996:

Over the past three decades, the achieve­ment of waves of Amer­i­can stu­dents with high in­tel­lec­tual po­ten­tial has de­clined as a re­sult of in­equity in ed­u­ca­tional treat­ment. This in­equity is the re­sult of an ex­treme form of egal­i­tar­i­an­ism within Amer­i­can so­ci­ety and schools, which in­volves the pit­ting of eq­uity against ex­cel­lence rather than pro­mot­ing both eq­uity and ex­cel­lence, an­ti-in­tel­lec­tu­al­ism, the “dumb­ing-down” of the cur­ricu­lum, equat­ing ap­ti­tude and achieve­ment test­ing with elit­ism, the at­trac­tion to fads by schools, and the in­sis­tence of schools to teach all stu­dents from the same cur­ricu­lum at the same lev­el. In this ar­ti­cle we pro­vide rec­om­men­da­tions for cre­at­ing pos­i­tive change—rec­om­men­da­tions that em­pha­size ex­cel­lence for all, that call for re­spon­sive­ness to in­di­vid­ual differ­ences, and that sug­gest bas­ing ed­u­ca­tional poli­cies on well-grounded re­search find­ings in psy­chol­ogy and ed­u­ca­tion. Ed­u­ca­tional poli­cies that fail to take into ac­count the vast range of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences among stu­dents—as do many that are cur­rently in use—are doomed to be in­effec­tive.

Lubinski et al 1996

“A 20-Year Sta­bil­ity Analy­sis of the Study of Val­ues for In­tel­lec­tu­ally Gifted In­di­vid­u­als From Ado­les­cence to Adult­hood”, Lu­bin­ski et al 1996:

A sam­ple of 203 in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) were ad­min­is­tered the All­port Ver­non-Lindzey (1970) Study of Val­ues (SOV) at age 13; 20 years lat­er, they were ad min­is­tered the SOV again. In this study, re­searchers eval­u­ated the in­tra and in­terindi­vid­ual tem­po­ral sta­bil­ity of the 6 SOV themes, name­ly, The­o­ret­i­cal (T), Eco­nomic (E), Po­lit­i­cal (P), Aes­thetic (A), So­cial (S), and Re­li­gious (R). Over the 20-year test-retest in­ter­val, the SOWs mean and me­dian in­terindi­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions for the 6 themes were 0.37 and 0.34, re­spec­tive­ly. Cor­re­spond­ing­ly, the mean and me­dian of all 203 in­tra-in­di­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions were 0.30 and 0.39. Con­fig­ural analy­ses of the most dom­i­nant theme at age 13 re­vealed that this theme was sig­nifi­cantly more likely than chance to be dom­i­nant or ad­ja­cent to the dom­i­nant theme at age 33. Ad­ja­cency was as­cer­tained through a num­ber of em­pir­i­cally based aux­il­iary analy­ses of the SOV, re­veal­ing 2 ro­bust gen­der-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing clus­ters: T-E-P for males and A-S-R for fe­males.

Stanley 1996

“Ed­u­ca­tional Tra­jec­to­ries: Rad­i­cal Ac­cel­er­ates Pro­vide In­sights”, Stan­ley 1996:

[brief dis­cus­sion of SMPY case-s­tud­ies, par­tic­u­larly ref­er­enc­ing Charl­ton et al 1994]

…By study­ing these six re­mark­able young peo­ple, one can make a num­ber of ten­ta­tive gen­er­al­iza­tions…

  • In­tel­lec­tual abil­ity far above the av­er­age is a cru­cial pre­req­ui­site for rad­i­cal ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion. …
  • The stu­dent must be ea­ger to ac­cel­er­ate in ways he or she thinks best. …
  • Push par­ents who drive a youth much faster than his or her abil­i­ties and/or in­ter­ests war­rant often en­counter neg­a­tive re­ac­tions from their child some­time lat­er.
  • Lais­sez-faire, hand­s-off fa­thers and moth­ers can be just as detri­men­tal. …
  • Each ac­cel­er­ate’s ed­u­ca­tional tra­jec­tory differs, often con­sid­er­ably, from that of oth­ers. …
  • None of the six ac­cel­er­ates seemed to live in a sin­gle-par­ent home, but the fam­i­lies were var­ied: Protes­tant, Jew­ish, Black, Chi­nese back­ground, Ko­rean back­ground, etc.
  • All six seemed to have ap­pro­pri­ate self­-es­teem and so­cial abil­i­ty. …
  • Rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion in grade place­ment cer­tainly is­n’t for every­one, even the bright­est. …
  • One can have one’s cake and eat it, too.

…This is enough pre­am­ble. You’ll now want to read what [Michele J.] Car­gain and [Alexan­der] Plot­inck tell us about their cop­ing mech­a­nisms and achieve­ments…

Plotinck 1996

“My Ed­u­ca­tion”, Plot­inck 1996:

Speech de­liv­ered at the Con­fer­ence on Ado­les­cence, Ac­cel­er­a­tion, and Na­tional Ex­cel­lence at Si­mon’s Rock Col­lege of Bard Col­lege, Great Bar­ring­ton, MA, June 19, 1994.

Cargain 1996

“En­ter­ing a Wom­en’s Col­lege Two Years Early”, Car­gain 1996:

Speech de­liv­ered at the Con­fer­ence on Ado­les­cence, Ac­cel­er­a­tion, and Na­tional Ex­cel­lence at Si­mon’s Rock Col­lege of Bard Col­lege, Great Bar­ring­ton, MA, June 19, 1994.

Anonymous 1997

“Ci­ta­tion: David Lu­bin­ski”, Anony­mous 1997 (APA bi­o­graph­i­cal pro­file):

David Lu­bin­ski is ac­knowl­edged for method­olog­i­cally and con­cep­tu­ally rig­or­ous con­tri­bu­tions to differ­en­tial psy­chol­o­gy. His use of the the­ory of work ad­just­ment has il­lu­mi­nated crit­i­cal con­stel­la­tions of per­sonal at­trib­utes that pro­mote aca­d­e­mic ex­cel­lence and world-class em­i­nence, es­pe­cially in the sci­ences. His frame­work for iden­ti­fy­ing early signs (and differ­ent kinds) of in­tel­lec­tual dis­tinc­tion also points to ways to fa­cil­i­tate its de­vel­op­ment. A ci­ta­tion, bi­og­ra­phy, and se­lected bib­li­og­ra­phy of Lu­bin­ski’s works are pro­vid­ed.

Benbow & Lubinski 1997

“In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Chil­dren: How Can We Best Meet Their Needs?”, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 1997 (in Hand­book of Gifted Ed­u­ca­tion, ed Colan­gelo & Davis 1997, ISBN 0205260853): re­view.

Johns Hopkins Magazine 1997

“Yes­ter­day’s Whiz Kids: Where Are They To­day? Nearly three decades have passed since Hop­kin­s’s Ju­lian Stan­ley be­gan his”grand ex­per­i­ment" to iden­tify young math and sci­ence prodi­gies and rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ate their aca­d­e­mic course. How they’ve fared de­pends on which one you ask.", June 1997, Melissa Hen­dricks.

[His­tory of SMPY/CTY, pro­file/in­ter­view/quotes from sev­eral both pos­i­tive & neg­a­tive, dis­cus­sion of Ben­bow and Lu­bin­ski’s sur­vey of SMPYers’ per­cep­tion of ben­e­fit vs harm (over­whelm­ingly pos­i­tive).]

Sum­ma­ry/­com­men­tary about Hen­dricks 1997 from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Ob­jec­tive: To re­port on the his­tor­i­cal de­vel­op­ment of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). To re­port on the course of the lives of gifted stu­dents who were iden­ti­fied by SMPY and who rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ated their ed­u­ca­tion with the sup­port of SMPY.

De­sign: In­for­ma­tive ar­ti­cle for a col­lege mag­a­zine.

Set­ting: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Par­tic­i­pants: Staff and stu­dents of SMPY.

As­sess­ment of Vari­ables: Staff and stu­dents were in­ter­viewed about their ex­pe­ri­ences at SMPY. The in­ter­views were sup­ple­mented with in­for­ma­tion from re­search jour­nals con­cern­ing out­comes for stu­dents from SMPY.

Main Re­sults: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth was founded by psy­chol­o­gist Ju­lian Stan­ley in the early 1970s. Sci­en­tifi­cally and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth were iden­ti­fied. These were 12 and 13-year-olds who had achieved high test scores on the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test, the Col­lege Board ad­mis­sions test nor­mally taken by se­nior high school stu­dents. These stu­dents were offered op­por­tu­ni­ties to ac­cel­er­ate their ed­u­ca­tion. They were able to at­tend in­ten­sive sum­mer and week­end pro­grams at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and were sup­ported to rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ate their ed­u­ca­tion. Many of these stu­dents opted to en­ter col­lege ear­ly. This pro­gram con­tin­ues to offer sim­i­lar op­por­tu­ni­ties to gifted youth to­day.

Re­search has been con­ducted since SMPY was es­tab­lished to fol­low the aca­d­e­mic and so­cio-affec­tive de­vel­op­ment of stu­dents. This re­search has acted to as­suage the con­cerns and ob­jec­tions of many peo­ple to the work of SMPY. Re­cent find­ings show that the ma­jor­ity of par­tic­i­pants have been suc­cess­ful in both study and ca­reer, and have not ex­pe­ri­enced ad­verse so­cial out­comes. Nonethe­less there are a small num­ber of stu­dents who did not fare well and some who do not en­dorse the ac­cel­er­a­tion pro­gram. Re­search find­ings from SMPY show that 9% of men and 5% of women said that ac­cel­er­a­tion had a neg­a­tive or some­what neg­a­tive effect on their ed­u­ca­tional plan­ning. The au­thor presents ex­am­ples of stu­dents who rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ated their ed­u­ca­tion un­der the guid­ance of SMPY. Mark Ja­cob­son was one of the first stu­dents to be iden­ti­fied by SMPY. At the time this ar­ti­cle was writ­ten, he was spend­ing week­ends as the offi­cial score­keeper for the Bal­ti­more Ori­oles and was em­ployed dur­ing the week with the De­fence De­part­ment in a high­-se­cu­rity role. He started col­lege at age 15. Joseph Louis Bates also en­rolled in uni­ver­sity ear­ly, at the age of 13. By the age of 17 he had earned his bac­calau­re­ate and mas­ter’s de­grees and had be­gun a doc­tor­ate in com­put­ing at Cor­nell. At the time of writ­ing he was a pro­fes­sor of com­puter sci­ence at Carnegie Mel­lon Uni­ver­si­ty.

Jonathan Ed­wards also en­tered uni­ver­sity aged 13. Un­like the oth­ers, he did not com­plete his uni­ver­sity stud­ies and did not re­ceive a de­gree. In­stead he left uni­ver­sity at the age of 17, dis­il­lu­sioned with acad­e­mia and suffer­ing prob­lems in his so­cial life. How­ever he does not re­gret at­tend­ing uni­ver­sity at a young age and re­calls very pos­i­tive mem­o­ries of uni­ver­sity life. De­spite a lack of aca­d­e­mic suc­cess, Jonathan has found great ca­reer suc­cess. At the time the ar­ti­cle was writ­ten he was the chief tech­nol­ogy offi­cer of a com­pany he founded called In­tranet. The com­pany has an an­nual rev­enue of 17 mil­lion dol­lars, em­ploys 140 peo­ple, and has a part­ner­ship with IBM.

Dis­cus­sion with these men, along with oth­ers, who were among the first stu­dents to be iden­ti­fied by SMPY, re­vealed an over­all pos­i­tive pic­ture of rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion. Com­ments about aca­d­e­mic and so­cial gains were en­cour­ag­ing. Some offered sug­ges­tions for mod­i­fi­ca­tions to the course taken to rad­i­cally ac­cel­er­ate, in the hope of mak­ing rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion even more suc­cess­ful for those fol­low­ing in their foot­steps. Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley offered some in­sights into per­sonal fac­tors iden­ti­fied by re­search that ap­pear to con­tribute to suc­cess­ful rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion. Among these were a true de­sire on the part of the stu­dent to ac­cel­er­ate, a hunger for learn­ing, and the mo­ti­va­tion and en­ergy for hard work.

Con­clu­sion: Re­search con­ducted at SMPY, along with per­sonal in­sights gained from ex-s­tu­dents and staff as­so­ci­ated with SMPY, re­veal that rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion has al­lowed many peo­ple to achieve re­mark­able aca­d­e­mic and ca­reer out­comes. There ap­pear to be no over­all detri­men­tal effects on so­cial health and many ex-s­tu­dents iden­tify pos­i­tive so­cial and emo­tional out­comes. There are a small num­ber of stu­dents for whom rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion has not been suc­cess­ful. SMPY staff make it clear that rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion should be con­sid­ered only for some ex­cep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents. Com­men­tary: This ar­ti­cle presents re­sults from lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search on rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion as well as in­sights from peo­ple who have ex­pe­ri­enced rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion. As such, it al­lows the reader to make judge­ments based on data from var­i­ous sources. Per­sonal com­ments from those who have been in­volved add im­me­di­acy to the find­ings from em­pir­i­cal re­search and al­low for an ex­panded un­der­stand­ing of the effects of rad­i­cal ac­cel­er­a­tion on the lives of stu­dents. Com­ments by Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley, a re­spected au­thor­ity in the field of gifted ed­u­ca­tion, are en­light­en­ing. This ar­ti­cle de­scribes his coura­geous and well-in­formed lead­er­ship of SMPY.

Petrill et al 1997

“Fail­ure to repli­cate a QTL as­so­ci­a­tion be­tween a DNA marker iden­ti­fied by EST00083 and IQ”, Petrill et al 1997:

In a pa­per pub­lished in this jour­nal, a pos­si­ble QTL as­so­ci­a­tion was re­ported be­tween gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity and a mark­er, iden­ti­fied by an ex­pressed se­quence tag, EST00083 (Skuder et al., 1995). In two small sam­ples, the fre­quency of the com­mon al­lele of this DNA mark­er, which was shown to be in the thre­o­nine trans­fer RNA gene in mi­to­chon­dr­ial DNA, was sig­nifi­cantly greater in a high­-IQ group than in a low-IQ group. As part of the on­go­ing IQ QTL Project (Plomin et al., 1995), we have at­tempted to repli­cate this QTL as­so­ci­a­tion. First, we found that the QTL as­so­ci­a­tion re­mained sig­nifi­cant when we com­pared 51 high- and 51 -av­er­age IQ sub­jects, drawn in part from the sam­ples used in the pre­vi­ous re­port. How­ev­er, when we ex­am­ined the as­so­ci­a­tion in new sam­ples of 40 ex­tremely high­-IQ sub­jects and 50 av­er­age-IQ sub­jects, the as­so­ci­a­tion did not repli­cate. This un­der­lies the need for repli­ca­tion in case-con­trol stud­ies of al­lelic as­so­ci­a­tion.

Stanley 1997

“Va­ri­eties of In­tel­lec­tual Tal­ent”, Stan­ley 1997:

Pre­coc­i­ty, prodi­gious­ness, bright­ness, in­tel­li­gence, tal­ent, cre­ativ­i­ty, em­i­nence, renown, great­ness, and ge­nius may be as­pects or con­se­quences of char­ac­ter­is­tics often lumped to­gether un­der the mul­ti­-di­men­sional term “gift­ed­ness.” Cer­tain of these con­cepts can be traced from Gal­ton through Spear­man, Bi­net, and Ter­man to out­stand­ing re­cent con­trib­u­tors. We con­sider iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youth and, to some ex­tent, their ed­u­ca­tional fa­cil­i­ta­tion. Al­though the “abil­i­ties” view of tal­ent is em­pha­sized, more qual­i­ta­tive ap­proaches such as those of Bloom, Er­ic­sson, Gard­ner, Si­mon­ton, and Stern­berg re­ceive at­ten­tion. Life out­comes of math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally pre­co­cious youth iden­ti­fied across the na­tion by tal­ent searches em­a­nat­ing since 1971 from Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and else­where may help clar­ify re­la­tion­ships be­tween in­tel­lec­tual pre­coc­i­ty, cre­ativ­i­ty, and achieve­ment.

Chorney et al 1998

“A Quan­ti­ta­tive Trait Lo­cus As­so­ci­ated With Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity in Chil­dren”, Chor­ney et al 1998:

(QTLs) as­so­ci­ated with gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) were in­ves­ti­gated for sev­eral groups of chil­dren se­lected for very high or for av­er­age cog­ni­tive func­tion­ing. A DNA marker in the gene for in­sulin-like growth fac­tor-2 re­cep­tor (IGF2R) on Chro­mo­some 6 yielded a sig­nifi­cantly greater fre­quency of a par­tic­u­lar form of the gene (al­lele) in a high-g group (0.303; av­er­age IQ = 136, n = 51) than in a con­trol group (0.156; av­er­age IQ = 103, n = 51). This as­so­ci­a­tion was repli­cated in an ex­treme­ly-high-g group (all es­ti­mated IQs > 160, n = 52) as com­pared with an in­de­pen­dent con­trol group (av­er­age IQ = 101, n = 50), with al­lelic fre­quen­cies of 0.340 and 0.169, re­spec­tive­ly. More­over, a high­-math­e­mat­ic­s-a­bil­ity group (n = 62) and a high­-ver­bal-a­bil­ity group (n = 51) yielded re­sults that were in the same di­rec­tion but only mar­gin­ally sig­nifi­cant (p = 0.06 and 0.08, re­spec­tive­ly).

[Note that like all QTLs iden­ti­fied for in­tel­li­gence/per­son­al­ity in nor­mal or en­riched sam­ples in the era, in­clud­ing the false pos­i­tive de­bunked by Petrill et al 1997 pre­vi­ously us­ing a SMPY sam­ple, this was a false pos­i­tive. GWAS at­tempts to find rare vari­ants which con­tribute to high in­tel­li­gence, like BGI or Spain et al 2016 or , have come up dry, and at­tempts at in­ves­ti­gat­ing differ­ent group her­i­tabil­i­ties be­tween high­/nor­mal in­tel­li­gence us­ing De­Fries-Fulker meth­ods like Shake­shaft et al 2014 sug­gest that high in­tel­li­gence is merely part of the con­tin­uum of nor­mal in­tel­li­gence & dri­ven by com­mon ge­netic vari­ants of small effec­t.]

Hill et al 2002

“A Quan­ti­ta­tive Trait Lo­cus Not As­so­ci­ated With Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity In Chil­dren: A Fail­ure To Repli­cate”, Hill et al 2002:

In 1998 in this jour­nal, we re­ported re­sults sug­gest­ing that a gene (in­sulin-like growth fac­tor-2 re­cep­tor, IGF2R) on chro­mo­some 6 was as­so­ci­ated with gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) in two in­de­pen­dent case-con­trol sam­ples of chil­dren se­lected for very high g (cas­es) or for av­er­age g (con­trols; Chor­ney et al., 1998).

…Be­cause of the like­li­hood of false pos­i­tive re­sults in the quest for quan­ti­ta­tive trait loci (QTLs) of small effect size us­ing many DNA mark­ers, repli­ca­tion is cru­cial (Car­don & Bell, 2001). We had hoped that other lab­o­ra­to­ries would at­tempt to repli­cate the IGF2R as­so­ci­a­tion with g, but 4 years after the orig­i­nal pub­li­ca­tion in this jour­nal, we are not aware of such efforts. For this rea­son, we con­ducted our own repli­ca­tion analy­sis. The pur­pose of the present let­ter is to re­port re­sults for the IGF2R gene for a new sam­ple that is as large as the two pre­vi­ously re­ported sam­ples com­bined

…The re­sults we re­ported for the com­bined orig­i­nal and repli­ca­tion sam­ples yielded an al­lelic fre­quency for al­lele 5 of 32% in the high-g group and 16% in the con­trol group, χ2 (1, n = 186) = 12.41, p = 0.0004. In the present sam­ple, the fre­quency of al­lele 5 was 19% in the high-g group and 24% in the con­trol group, χ2 (1, n = 188) = 1.54, p = 0.22. Tests of other al­le­les and geno­typic com­par­isons also failed to repli­cate our pre­vi­ous re­sults.

…The present sam­ple was as large as our orig­i­nal and repli­ca­tion sam­ples com­bined and pro­vided 98% power to de­tect a QTL as­so­ci­a­tion with an effect size as small as 1%. Thus, we con­clude that the TG re­peat poly­mor­phism in IGF2R is not as­so­ci­ated with high g.

Pyryt 1998

“Ac­cel­er­a­tion: Strate­gies and Ben­e­fits”, Pyryt 1998:

The pur­pose of this ar­ti­cle is to de­scribe ways of chal­leng­ing gifted stu­dents through ac­cel­er­a­tive prac­tice. De­spite the over­whelm­ing amount of fa­vor­able ev­i­dence, Dau­rio, 1979; Gold, 1965; Ku­lik & Ku­lik, 1983; pro­gram­ming ex­pe­ri­ences for the gifted en­cour­age en­rich­ment over ac­cel­er­a­tion. Gold (1965) wrote, “No para­dox is more strik­ing than the in­con­sis­tency be­tween re­search find­ings on ac­cel­er­a­tion and the fail­ure of our so­ci­ety to re­duce the time spent by su­pe­rior stu­dents in for­mal ed­u­ca­tion” (p.238). …

[SMPY; AP cours­es; the Iowa Ac­cel­er­a­tion Scale]

Schmidt et al 1998

“Va­lid­ity of As­sess­ing Ed­u­ca­tion­al-Vo­ca­tional Pref­er­ence Di­men­sions Among In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented 13-Year-Olds”, Schmidt et al 1998:

Study 1 ex­am­ined the con­struct va­lid­ity of the Strong In­ter­est In­ven­tory and the Study of Val­ues for 695 in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds. Study 2 con­sisted of a gen­er­al­iza­tion probe to 695 grad­u­ate stu­dents en­rolled in se­lect uni­ver­si­ties. This analy­sis man­i­fested an im­pres­sive de­gree of ado­les­cence-to-adult cross-val­i­da­tion. Well-known pref­er­ence ques­tion­naires ap­pear to as­sess mean­ing­ful in­di­vid­ual differ­ences among in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young ado­les­cents. How pref­er­ence as­sess­ments may com­ple­ment rou­tine abil­ity as­sess­ments of gifted ado­les­cents and how coun­selors may use such in­for­ma­tion to en­cour­age stu­dents to take a more ac­tive role in their per­sonal de­vel­op­ment are dis­cussed. The au­thors also present a method­olog­i­cal ap­pli­ca­tion, re­spon­sive to R. V. Daw­is’s (1992) con­cern about the amount of re­dun­dancy in psy­cho­log­i­cal mea­sur­ing tools.

Achter et al 1999

“As­sess­ing vo­ca­tional pref­er­ences among gifted ado­les­cents adds in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity to abil­i­ties: A dis­crim­i­nant analy­sis of ed­u­ca­tional out­comes over a 10-year in­ter­val”, Achter et al 1999:

The re­searchers used the the­ory of work ad­just­ment (R. V. Dawis & L. H. Lofquist, 1984; L. H. Lofquist & R. V. Daw­is, 1991) and C. P. Snow’s (1959) con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of two cul­tures as the­o­ret­i­cal frame­works to an­a­lyze the in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity of above-level pref­er­ence as­sess­ment (rel­a­tive to abil­i­ties) in pre­dict­ing hu­man­i­ties, math­-science, and other col­lege ma­jors com­pleted 10 years later by in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents. Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Tests and Study of Val­ues as­sess­ments of 432 in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (age 13) pro­vided unique and valu­able in­for­ma­tion for pre­dict­ing the type of col­lege ma­jor com­pleted 10 years after ini­tial as­sess­ment. These pos­i­tive find­ings add to grow­ing sup­port for the ap­plied util­ity of team­ing pref­er­ence as­sess­ments among the gifted with above-level as­sess­ments of abil­i­ty. For in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents, these as­sess­ments could fa­cil­i­tate ed­u­ca­tional plan­ning (and coun­sel­ing).

Lange 1999

Lange, Melissa Berna­dine. “The ed­u­ca­tional and vo­ca­tional pref­er­ences of a co­hort spa­tially gifted fe­males and males from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth.” PhD dis­ser­ta­tion, Iowa State Uni­ver­si­ty, 1999. [C­i­ta­tion from Google Schol­ar; un­known source; ab­stract copied from World­Cat] TODO

This study was de­signed to gain a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the unique pro­file of in­ter­ests, abil­i­ties, val­ues, and pref­er­ences of spa­tially gifted ado­les­cents. It has been hy­poth­e­sized that spa­tial abil­ity is re­lated to suc­cess in ca­reers in en­gi­neer­ing and the sci­ences. The ado­les­cents in the study were par­tic­i­pants in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and at the time were en­rolled in sum­mer pro­grams for aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted youth at a large Mid­west­ern uni­ver­si­ty. Sub­jects were iden­ti­fied as spa­tially gifted based on a com­pos­ite score from three mea­sures of spa­tial-vi­su­al­iza­tion and me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing (Van­den­berg Men­tal Ro­ta­tion Test, Cubes test, and Ben­nett Me­chan­i­cal Com­pre­hen­sion test). Com­par­isons be­tween gen­ders and lev­els of spa­tial abil­ity were made on mea­sures of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, vo­ca­tional in­ter­est and val­ues, and ed­u­ca­tion­al/oc­cu­pa­tional pref­er­ences.

Chi-squared and analy­sis of vari­ance pro­ce­dures were used. Spa­tially gifted males were found to pos­sess in­tense In­ves­tiga­tive vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests and The­o­ret­i­cal val­ues, strong math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties, and a pref­er­ence for ac­tiv­i­ties in­volv­ing con­tact with ob­jects. Spa­tially gifted fe­males had a slightly differ­ent pro­file, with strong Artis­tic vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests, Aes­thetic val­ues, and a pref­er­ence for ac­tiv­i­ties in­volv­ing work­ing with oth­ers. Re­sults were dis­cussed as they ap­ply to the un­der­-rep­re­sen­ta­tion of fe­males in ca­reers in en­gi­neer­ing and the sci­ences.

Norman et al 1999

“Re­la­tion­ship be­tween lev­els of gift­ed­ness and psy­choso­cial ad­just­ment”, Nor­man et al 1999:

This study com­pares two groups of gifted stu­dents, highly (n = 74) and mod­er­ately (n = 163) gifted [Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP)], on a num­ber of scales in­clud­ing self­-con­cept, emo­tional au­ton­o­my, and anx­i­ety. Al­though a mea­sure of aca­d­e­mic abil­ity was used to cre­ate dis­tinc­tive abil­ity groups, the re­sults did not sup­port the hy­pothe­ses that highly gifted stu­dents would be more likely to dis­play lower self­-con­cepts and more ad­just­ment prob­lems than the mod­er­ately gifted group. These find­ings are ex­am­ined in light of past re­search on differ­ences in highly and mod­er­ately gifted stu­dents.

Rotigel & Lupkowski-Shoplik 1999

“Us­ing Tal­ent Searches to Iden­tify and Meet the Ed­u­ca­tional Needs of Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Young­sters”, Rotigel & Lup­kowski-Shop­lik 1999:

Re­gional tal­ent searches have been avail­able since Ju­lian Stan­ley de­vel­oped the Tal­ent Search model in the early 1970s, and over 200,000 stu­dents per year na­tion­wide take ad­van­tage of the op­por­tu­ni­ties these uni­ver­si­ty-based pro­grams offer. The above-level test­ing offered by re­gional tal­ent searches is use­ful in (a) iden­ti­fy­ing math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents, (b) tai­lor­ing ed­u­ca­tional rec­om­men­da­tions to the abil­i­ties of the stu­dents, and (c) pro­vid­ing chal­leng­ing ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties for the stu­dents. Im­por­tant con­sid­er­a­tions and con­cerns, as well as a dis­cus­sion of the ben­e­fits, are ex­plored in this ar­ti­cle.

2000

Benbow et al 2000

“Sex Differ­ences In Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity At Age 13: Their Sta­tus 20 Years Later”, Ben­bow et al 2000:

Re­ported is the 20-year fol­low-up of 1,975 math­e­mat­i­cally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) whose as­sess­ments at age 12 to 14 re­vealed ro­bust gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. Both sexes be­came ex­cep­tional achiev­ers and per­ceived them­selves as such; they re­ported uni­formly high lev­els of de­gree at­tain­ment and sat­is­fac­tion with both their ca­reer di­rec­tion and their over­all suc­cess. The ear­lier sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity did pre­dict differ­en­tial ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional out­comes. The ob­served differ­ences also ap­peared to be a func­tion of sex differ­ences in pref­er­ences for (a) in­or­ganic ver­sus or­ganic dis­ci­plines and (b) a ca­reer-fo­cused ver­sus more-bal­anced life. Be­cause pro­file differ­ences in abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences are lon­gi­tu­di­nally sta­ble, males prob­a­bly will re­main more rep­re­sented in some dis­ci­plines, whereas fe­males are likely to re­main more rep­re­sented in oth­ers. These data have pol­icy im­pli­ca­tions for higher ed­u­ca­tion and the world of work.

Heller et al 2000

In­ter­na­tional Hand­book of Gift­ed­ness and Tal­ent, 2nd Edi­tion, ed Heller et al 2000 (ISBN 9780080544168). An­thol­o­gy:

  • “Tal­ent De­vel­op­ment in Math and Sci­ence”, Pyryt 2000
  • “Gen­der Differ­ences in En­gi­neer­ing and the Phys­i­cal Sci­ences Among the Gift­ed: An In­or­gan­ic-Or­ganic Dis­tinc­tion”, Lu­bin­ski et al 2000

Lubinski & Benbow 2000

“States of Ex­cel­lence”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2000:

Re­search from the in­di­vid­u­al-d­iffer­ences tra­di­tion per­ti­nent to the op­ti­mal de­vel­op­ment of ex­cep­tional tal­ent is re­viewed, us­ing the the­ory of work ad­just­ment (TWA) to or­ga­nize find­ings. The au­thors show how TWA con­cepts and psy­cho­me­t­ric meth­ods, when used to­geth­er, can fa­cil­i­tate pos­i­tive de­vel­op­ment among tal­ented youth by align­ing learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties with salient as­pects of each stu­den­t’s in­di­vid­u­al­i­ty. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search and more gen­eral the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els of (adult) aca­d­e­mic and in­tel­lec­tual de­vel­op­ment sup­port this ap­proach. This analy­sis also un­cov­ers com­mon threads run­ning through sev­eral pos­i­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal con­cepts (e.g., effectance mo­ti­va­tion, flow, and peak ex­pe­ri­ences). The au­thors con­clude by un­der­scor­ing some im­por­tant ideals from coun­sel­ing psy­chol­ogy for fos­ter­ing in­tel­lec­tual de­vel­op­ment and psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. These in­clude con­duct­ing a mul­ti­fac­eted as­sess­ment, fo­cus­ing on strength, help­ing peo­ple make choic­es, and pro­vid­ing a de­vel­op­men­tal con­text for bridg­ing ed­u­ca­tional and in­dus­trial psy­chol­ogy to fa­cil­i­tate pos­i­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal growth through­out the life span.

Lubinski & Benbow 2001

“Choos­ing Ex­cel­lence”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2001: re­but­tal to Plucker & Levy 2001 crit­i­ciz­ing Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2000.

Stanley 2000

“Help­ing stu­dents learn only what they don’t al­ready know”, Stan­ley 2000:

Well-known, well-val­i­dated prin­ci­ples of in­di­vid­u­al-d­iffer­ence psy­chol­ogy and ed­u­ca­tion should lead to ma­jor changes in class­room in­struc­tion. Stu­dents need to be helped to learn what they do not al­ready know, in­stead of be­ing marched through course ma­te­ri­als in lock­step, largely re­gard­less of what they knew at the start of the course. The lock­step method es­pe­cially hurts the in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ent­ed, who tend to be far ahead of grade lev­el. This find­ing led the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity to de­vise a Di­ag­nos­tic Test­ing fol­lowed by Pre­scribed In­struc­tion (DT-PI) pro­ce­dure. It has been tested often and suc­cess­ful­ly, es­pe­cially for in­struc­tion in mid­dle and high school math­e­mat­ics, but the pro­ce­dure is ap­plic­a­ble to other sub­jects. Nev­er­the­less, the DT-PI model is viewed by SMPY as merely a stop­gap on the road to rad­i­cal re­or­ga­ni­za­tion of in­struc­tion in schools.

Lubinski et al 2001a

“Men And Women At Promise For Sci­en­tific Ex­cel­lence: Sim­i­lar­ity Not Dis­sim­i­lar­ity”, Lu­bin­ski et al 2001a:

U.S. math­-science grad­u­ate stu­dents pos­sess­ing world-class tal­ent (368 males, 346 fe­males) were as­sessed on psy­cho­log­i­cal at­trib­utes and per­sonal ex­pe­ri­ences in or­der to ex­am­ine how their tal­ents emerged and de­vel­oped. Com­par­isons were made, us­ing sim­i­lar as­sess­ments, with math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents (528 males, 228 fe­males) iden­ti­fied around age 13 and tracked into adult­hood by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). Well be­fore col­lege, both sam­ples were aca­d­e­m­i­cally dis­tin­guished; how­ev­er, the grad­u­ate stu­dents could be iden­ti­fied dur­ing ado­les­cence as a sub­set of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths based on their non­in­tel­lec­tual at­trib­ut­es. Their pro­files cor­re­sponded to what ear­lier psy­cho­log­i­cal stud­ies found to char­ac­ter­ize dis­tin­guished (and ex­clu­sively male) sci­en­tists: ex­cep­tional quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, rel­a­tively stronger quan­ti­ta­tive than ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, salient sci­en­tific in­ter­ests and val­ues, and, fi­nal­ly, per­sis­tence in seek­ing out op­por­tu­ni­ties to study sci­en­tific top­ics and de­velop sci­en­tific skills. On these at­trib­ut­es, sex differ­ences were min­i­mal for the grad­u­ate stu­dents (but not for the SMPY com­par­i­son group­s). De­vel­op­ing ex­cep­tional sci­en­tific ex­per­tise ap­par­ently re­quires spe­cial ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences, but these nec­es­sary ex­pe­ri­ences are sim­i­lar for the two sex­es.

Lubinski et al 2001b

“Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-Year Fol­low-Up of the Pro­foundly Gifted”, Lu­bin­ski et al 2001b:

Ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied be­fore the age of 13 (n = 320) as hav­ing ex­cep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked over 10 years. They pur­sued doc­toral de­grees at rates over 50 times base-rate ex­pec­ta­tions, with sev­eral par­tic­i­pants hav­ing cre­ated note­wor­thy lit­er­ary, sci­en­tific, or tech­ni­cal prod­ucts by their early 20s. Early ob­served dis­tinc­tions in in­tel­lec­tual strength (viz., quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­ity over ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, and vice versa [“tilt”]) pre­dicted sharp differ­ences in their de­vel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries and oc­cu­pa­tional pur­suits. This spe­cial pop­u­la­tion strongly pre­ferred ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties tai­lored to their pre­co­cious rate of learn­ing (ie. ap­pro­pri­ate de­vel­op­men­tal place­men­t), with 95% us­ing some form of ac­cel­er­a­tion to in­di­vid­u­al­ize their ed­u­ca­tion.

Plomin et al 2001

“A Genome-Wide Scan of 1842 DNA Mark­ers for Al­lelic As­so­ci­a­tions with Gen­eral Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ty: A Five-Stage De­sign Us­ing DNA Pool­ing and Ex­treme Se­lected Groups”, Plomin et al 2001:

All mea­sures of cog­ni­tive processes cor­re­late mod­er­ately at the phe­no­typic level and cor­re­late sub­stan­tially at the ge­netic lev­el. Gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) refers to what di­verse cog­ni­tive processes have in com­mon. Our goal is to iden­tify quan­ti­ta­tive trait loci (QTLs) as­so­ci­ated with high g com­pared with av­er­age g. In or­der to de­tect QTLs of small effect size, we used ex­treme se­lected sam­ples and a five-stage de­sign with nom­i­nal al­pha lev­els that per­mit false pos­i­tive re­sults in early stages but re­move false pos­i­tives in later stages. As a first step to­ward a sys­tem­atic genome scan for al­lelic as­so­ci­a­tion, we used DNA pool­ing to screen 1842 sim­ple se­quence re­peat (SSR) mark­ers ap­prox­i­mately evenly spaced at 2 cM through­out the genome in a five-stage de­sign: (1) case-con­trol DNA pool­ing (101 cases with mean IQ of 136 and 101 con­trols with mean IQ of 100), (2) case-con­trol DNA pool­ing (96 cases with IQ >160 and 100 con­trols with mean IQ of 102), (3) in­di­vid­ual geno­typ­ing of Stage 1 sam­ple, (4) in­di­vid­ual geno­typ­ing of Stage 2 sam­ple, (5) trans­mis­sion dis­e­qui­lib­rium test (TDT; 196 par­en­t-child trios for off­spring with IQ >160). The over­all Type I er­ror rate is 0.000125, which ro­bustly pro­tects against false pos­i­tive re­sults. The num­bers of mark­ers sur­viv­ing each stage us­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive al­lele-spe­cific di­rec­tional test were 108, 6, 4, 2, and 0, re­spec­tive­ly, for the five stages. A ge­nomic con­trol test us­ing DNA pool­ing sug­gested that the fail­ure to repli­cate the pos­i­tive case-con­trol re­sults in the TDT analy­sis was not due to eth­nic strat­i­fi­ca­tion. Sev­eral mark­ers that were close to sig­nifi­cance at all stages are be­ing in­ves­ti­gated fur­ther. Re­ly­ing on in­di­rect as­so­ci­a­tion based on link­age dis­e­qui­lib­rium be­tween mark­ers and QTLs means that 100,000 mark­ers may be needed to ex­clude QTL as­so­ci­a­tions. Be­cause power drops off pre­cip­i­tously for in­di­rect as­so­ci­a­tion ap­proaches when a marker is not close to the QTL, we are not plan­ning to geno­type ad­di­tional SSR mark­ers. In­stead we are us­ing the same de­sign to screen mark­ers such as cSNPs and SNPs in reg­u­la­tory re­gions that are likely to in­clude func­tional poly­mor­phisms in which the marker can be pre­sumed to be the QTL.

Shea et al 2001

“Im­por­tance of as­sess­ing spa­tial abil­ity in in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young ado­les­cents: A 20-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Shea et al 2001:

At age 13, 393 boys and 170 girls scor­ing at the top 0.5% in gen­eral in­tel­li­gence com­pleted the Scholas­tic As­sess­ment Test Math­e­mat­ics (SAT-M) and Ver­bal (SAT-V) sub­tests and the Differ­en­tial Ap­ti­tude Test (DAT) Space Re­la­tions (SR) and Me­chan­i­cal Rea­son­ing (MR) sub­tests. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal data were col­lected through fol­low-up ques­tion­naires com­pleted at ages 18, 23, and 33. Mul­ti­vari­ate sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods were em­ployed us­ing the SAT-M, SAT-V, and a DAT (SR + MR) com­pos­ite to pre­dict a se­ries of de­vel­op­men­tally se­quenced ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes: (a) fa­vorite and least fa­vorite high school class, (b) un­der­grad­u­ate de­gree field, (e) grad­u­ate de­gree field, and (d) oc­cu­pa­tion at age 33. Spa­tial abil­ity added in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity to SAT-M and SAT-V as­sess­ments in pre­dict­ing ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes over these suc­ces­sive time frames. It ap­pears that spa­tial abil­ity as­sess­ments can com­ple­ment con­tem­po­rary tal­ent search pro­ce­dures. The amount of lost po­ten­tial for artis­tic, sci­en­tific, and tech­ni­cal dis­ci­plines that re­sults from ne­glect­ing this crit­i­cal di­men­sion of non­ver­bal ideation is dis­cussed.

Clark & Zimmerman 2002

“Tend­ing the spe­cial spark: Ac­cel­er­ated and en­riched cur­ric­ula for highly tal­ented art stu­dents”, Clark & Zim­mer­man 2002:

Arts cur­ricu­lum for gifted and tal­ented stu­dents has not been given the at­ten­tion it de­serves in the field of gifted ed­u­ca­tion. In this ar­ti­cle, Gilbert Clark and Enid Zim­mer­man set forth rec­om­men­da­tions for ed­u­cat­ing highly able ar­tis­ti­cally tal­ented stu­dents based on work they were do­ing to es­tab­lish a high school in Is­rael at the time the ar­ti­cle was writ­ten.

The goal of the pro­posed res­i­den­tial high school was to “tend the spe­cial spark in tal­ented young­sters, equip­ping them to lead Is­rael’s sci­en­tific, artis­tic and com­mu­nity life…those who have within them­selves, the great­est po­ten­tial in arts or sci­ences-the top 1% of the na­tion’s stu­dents.” As mem­bers of the In­ter­na­tional Ad­vi­sory Panel to this pro­ject, Clark and Zim­mer­man fo­cused on is­sues as­so­ci­ated with ar­tic­u­lat­ing goals for the arts and sci­ence cur­ric­u­la. The au­thors ar­gue that a com­pre­hen­sive art pro­gram for tal­ented stu­dents needs to be ad­dressed through a se­quen­tial cur­ricu­lum based on ac­cel­er­a­tion across a scope and se­quence of con­tent, as is the ed­u­ca­tion of gifted stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence.

Clark and Zim­mer­man used a well-re­spected math­e­mat­ics pro­gram, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), as a pro­to­type for de­vel­op­ing prin­ci­ples, tech­niques and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures that could be im­ple­mented in the art cur­ricu­lum. As men­tioned in pre­vi­ous ar­ti­cles, SMPY was a project de­voted to help­ing stu­dents who rea­son ex­cep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion was shown to work with these highly able stu­dents, and Clark and Zim­mer­man de­scribe how a sim­i­lar pro­gram might be cre­ated for the vi­sual arts. …

Moore 2002

“The progress and prob­lems of an in­cred­i­bly tal­ented sis­ter and brother”, Moore 2002 [case study of a pair of Jew­ish sib­lings]

Ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion as a cur­ricu­lum op­tion has been a much de­bated and di­vi­sive is­sue among ed­u­ca­tors for some time. Op­po­nents of ac­cel­er­a­tion have ar­gued that it dis­rupts the or­ga­ni­za­tional struc­tures of the schools and that it is not eq­ui­table be­cause it al­lows an in­di­vid­u­al, or a group of learn­ers, to get ahead of oth­ers. Crit­ics have also ex­pressed con­cerns about the pos­si­ble neg­a­tive so­cial and emo­tional effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion. Nancy De­lano Moore brings new light to some of these is­sues and dis­pels the no­tion of ac­cel­er­a­tion as a neg­a­tive and in­equitable ed­u­ca­tional prac­tice.She presents a case study of a brother and sis­ter with ex­cep­tional in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing and de­scribes the tri­umphs and dis­ap­point­ments of the par­ents, the chil­dren, and their teach­ers as they at­tempt to pro­vide ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties that are chal­leng­ing and ap­pro­pri­ate. Moore’s case study sug­gests that stu­dents with ex­cep­tional abil­i­ties can ben­e­fit aca­d­e­m­i­cal­ly, so­cial­ly, and even emo­tion­ally from some form of ac­cel­er­a­tion. The chil­dren in the case study demon­strate ex­cep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties. Ac­cord­ing to Moore, “R” blos­somed in nurs­ery school, was ac­cel­er­ated to grade 1 from kinder­garten, and then found much of the cur­ricu­lum through­out her el­e­men­tary school years un­chal­leng­ing and dis­cour­ag­ing. “R’s”broth­er, “M”, who was ac­cel­er­ated to the sec­ond grade on the ad­vice and rec­om­men­da­tion of his first grade teacher, also found much of the cur­ricu­lum un­chal­leng­ing and dis­cour­ag­ing. The case stud­ies of these chil­dren sug­gest that the most ben­e­fi­cial pro­vi­sions for such in­tel­lec­tu­ally ad­vanced chil­dren is to pro­vide op­por­tu­ni­ties to work at lev­els ap­pro­pri­ate to their abil­i­ties and achieve­ments. Ac­cord­ing to Moore, the chil­dren thrived in­tel­lec­tu­al­ly, emo­tion­al­ly, and so­cially when they found them­selves in sit­u­a­tions match­ing their ex­cep­tional abil­i­ties—when they were ac­cel­er­ated in some form in com­bi­na­tion with high level sum­mer pro­grams and com­pe­ti­tions. This case study re­veals the fact that many teach­ers and ad­min­is­tra­tors fail to ap­pre­ci­ate ac­cel­er­a­tion as part of the com­ple­ment of op­tions to be used with gifted stu­dents and are re­sis­tant to im­ple­ment­ing the ac­cel­er­a­tion prac­tices that are avail­able. How­ev­er, the par­ents in this case study were fully aware and well versed with re­spect to the ex­cep­tional abil­i­ties and needs of their chil­dren and were strong ad­vo­cates for their chil­dren’s ed­u­ca­tional needs. It is im­por­tant to note that it was only with the par­ents’ ac­tive in­volve­ment that these chil­dren were able to re­ceive a va­ri­ety of ac­cel­er­a­tion prac­tices.

Webb et al 2002

“Math­e­mat­i­cally Facile Ado­les­cents With Math­-Science As­pi­ra­tions: New Per­spec­tives on Their Ed­u­ca­tional and Vo­ca­tional De­vel­op­ment”, Webb et al 2002:

This lon­gi­tu­di­nal study tracked 1,110 ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied as math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious at Age 13 (top 1%) with plans for a math­-science un­der­grad­u­ate ma­jor. Par­tic­i­pants’ high school ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences, abil­i­ties, and in­ter­ests pre­dicted whether their at­tained un­der­grad­u­ate de­grees were within math­-science or non­math­-non­science ar­eas. More women than men even­tu­ally com­pleted un­der­grad­u­ate de­grees out­side math­-science, but many in­di­vid­u­als who com­pleted non­math­-non­science de­grees ul­ti­mately chose math­-science oc­cu­pa­tions (and vice ver­sa). At Age 33, the 2 de­gree groups re­ported com­men­su­rate and uni­formly high lev­els of ca­reer sat­is­fac­tion, suc­cess, and life sat­is­fac­tion. As­sess­ing in­di­vid­ual differ­ences is crit­i­cal for mod­el­ing tal­ent de­vel­op­ment and life sat­is­fac­tion; it re­veals that equal male-fe­male rep­re­sen­ta­tion across dis­ci­plines may not be as sim­ple to ac­com­plish as many pol­icy dis­cus­sions im­ply.

Anonymous 2003

“2003 Award Win­ners: Ed­win B. New­man Award”, Anony­mous 2003:

[Awarded to Rose Mary Webb] For an out­stand­ing re­search pa­per whose find­ings chal­lenge the untested pre­sump­tion in much of the cur­rent lit­er­a­ture that in­di­vid­u­als who leave the math­-science pipeline are un­der­achiev­ing. The pa­per en­ti­tled “Math­e­mat­i­cally Facile Ado­les­cents With Math­-Science As­pi­ra­tions: New Per­spec­tives on Their Ed­u­ca­tional and Vo­ca­tional De­vel­op­ment” was pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Ed­u­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, was high­lighted in the 2002-11-15 is­sue of Sci­ence, won the Su­san W. Gray Award for Ex­cel­lence in Schol­arly Writ­ing, and was the ba­sis for Web­b’s se­lec­tion as the 2002–2003 Psi Chi/APA Ed­win B. New­man Grad­u­ate Re­search Award re­cip­i­ent. Dr. David Lu­bin­ski served as Re­search Ad­vi­sor and coau­thor of the pa­per.

…Un­der the joint men­tor­ship of Lu­bin­ski and Ben­bow, Webb com­pleted her mas­ter’s work, which tracked the ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment of 1,110 ado­les­cents who, at the age of 13, were iden­ti­fied as at least the top 1% in abil­i­ty, and who, at the age of 18, re­ported plans for an un­der­grad­u­ate ma­jor in a math or sci­ence do­main (Webb, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2002). Webb and her col­leagues found that women were more likely than men to change their un­der­grad­u­ate ma­jors to do­mains out­side of math or sci­ence and that these differ­ences were par­tially ex­plained by the in­di­vid­u­al’s pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties and in­ter­ests. For ex­am­ple, Webb et al. doc­u­mented that, on av­er­age, the highly able women in their study had more sim­i­lar math and ver­bal abil­i­ties than their male coun­ter­parts, whose math abil­i­ties were markedly more pro­nounced than their ver­bal abil­i­ties. This find­ing was sup­ported by dis­cov­er­ies in Web­b’s ear­lier col­lab­o­ra­tive re­search, which in­di­cated that math­e­mat­i­cally able women tended to be more ver­bally tal­ented than equally math­e­mat­i­cally able men (Lu­bin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001). More­over, par­tic­i­pant sex ex­plained only 1% of the vari­ance be­tween those who did and those who did not com­plete a math­-science un­der­grad­u­ate de­gree, and after con­trol­ling for abil­ity and in­ter­est vari­ables, par­tic­i­pant sex con­tributed no in­cre­men­tal ex­pla­na­tion of de­gree group mem­ber­ship. Webb et al. found that both women and men who chose to change their un­der­grad­u­ate ma­jors to do­mains out­side math­-science re­ported lev­els of ca­reer sat­is­fac­tion, ca­reer suc­cess, and life sat­is­fac­tion that were sim­i­lar to those of women and men who re­mained in math­-science dis­ci­plines. These find­ings chal­lenge the untested pre­sump­tion in much of the cur­rent lit­er­a­ture that in­di­vid­u­als who leave the math­-science pipeline are un­der­achiev­ing. This work was pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Ed­u­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, was high­lighted in the No­vem­ber 15, 2002, is­sue of Sci­ence, won a Mensa Award for Ex­cel­lence in Re­search, won the Su­san W. Gray Award for Ex­cel­lence in Schol­arly Writ­ing, and was the ba­sis for Web­b’s se­lec­tion as the 2002–2003 Psi Chi/APA Ed­win B. New­man Grad­u­ate Re­search Award re­cip­i­ent.

Com­ple­ment­ing Web­b’s em­pir­i­cal work are a chap­ter and a com­ment. The chap­ter, coau­thored with her grad­u­ate ad­vi­sor, David Lu­bin­ski, re­views find­ings from the ma­jor do­mains of differ­en­tial psy­chol­ogy (Lu­bin­ski & Webb, 2003). The com­ment, coau­thored with April Bleske-Rechek, a re­search as­so­ciate for SMPY, is a method­olog­i­cal cri­tique of a re­port on fe­male psy­chol­o­gists in the acad­emy (Bleske-Rechek & Webb, 2002).

Through­out Web­b’s grad­u­ate ex­pe­ri­ence, she has served as a re­search as­sis­tant for SMPY. She has been in­stru­men­tal in pro­gress­ing data col­lec­tion for the lon­gi­tu­di­nal study from tra­di­tional mail sur­vey meth­ods to more com­plex, in­di­vid­u­ally tai­lored In­ter­net-based sur­vey meth­ods. Fur­ther­more, she has con­tributed con­cep­tu­ally and tech­ni­cally to the in­stru­ment de­vel­op­ment on two cur­rent pro­jects. First, she has made unique con­tri­bu­tions to a 10-year fol­low-up of 714 in­di­vid­u­als with math­-science tal­ent iden­ti­fied in top U.S. grad­u­ate pro­grams; her ideas helped broaden the study’s fo­cus be­yond ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment to in­clude other ar­eas of life ex­pe­ri­ences such as fam­ily and re­la­tion­ship choic­es. Sec­ond, she has con­tributed to a 20-year fol­low-up of the study’s most able co­hort. Be­cause the par­tic­i­pants of this co­hort have had nu­mer­ous ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties avail­able to them (many of which they have uti­lized), Webb helped de­sign a se­ries of items to as­sess both their views re­gard­ing the im­por­tance of pro­vid­ing spe­cific ac­cel­er­a­tive learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties for gifted chil­dren in gen­eral and their like­li­hood of us­ing those op­por­tu­ni­ties for their own chil­dren.

Achter & Lubinski 2003

“Fos­ter­ing Ex­cep­tional De­vel­op­ment in In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Pop­u­la­tions”, Achter & Lu­bin­ski 2003:

This chap­ter fo­cuses on the evo­lu­tion of the­o­ry, em­pir­i­cal knowl­edge, and prac­tice on the op­ti­mal de­vel­op­ment of ex­cep­tional in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ties. We are pleased and hon­ored to con­tribute to a vol­ume on pos­i­tive psy­chol­ogy that high­lights the con­tri­bu­tions of coun­sel­ing psy­chol­o­gy. The sci­en­tific study of iden­ti­fy­ing and nur­tur­ing in­tel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness, al­though not con­sis­tently given pri­or­ity nor al­ways re­garded in a pos­i­tive light by so­ci­ety over the past 100 years, is one of the ear­li­est ex­am­ples of pos­i­tive psy­chol­o­gy…­First, we pro­vide a his­tor­i­cal overview of the ma­jor peo­ple and ideas mov­ing the sci­en­tific study of in­tel­lec­tual tal­ent for­ward over the past 100 years. Sec­ond, build­ing on this, we re­view key em­pir­i­cal find­ings from re­cent decades in the con­text of im­pli­ca­tions for ed­u­ca­tional and coun­sel­ing prac­tice to­day. Within this dis­cus­sion, we sum­ma­rize a the­o­ret­i­cal model for or­ga­niz­ing con­tem­po­rary re­sults. Fi­nal­ly, we close with a sum­ma­tion of cur­rent knowl­edge and offer some fu­ture re­search di­rec­tions. The need for more sci­en­tific knowl­edge on truly ex­cep­tional forms of achieve­ment, cre­ativ­i­ty, and life­long learn­ing is un­der­scored. This knowl­edge is likely to come from more com­plete un­der­stand­ings of the per­sonal at­trib­utes char­ac­ter­iz­ing in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious pop­u­la­tions and the en­vi­ron­men­tal pro­vi­sions that cat­alyze their tal­ents to full fruition.

Kerr & Sodano 2003

“Ca­reer as­sess­ment with in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents”, Kerr & So­dano 2003:

Ca­reer coun­sel­ing with the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted poses unique chal­lenges to coun­selors. De­vel­op­ment of com­pe­tent prac­tices with this pop­u­la­tion re­quires the ca­reer coun­selor to be aware of sev­eral is­sues spe­cific to the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted in gen­er­al, along with spe­cific is­sues that may differ­en­tially affect gifted males, fe­males, and mi­nori­ties. Tra­di­tional ca­reer coun­sel­ing is in­suffi­cient to meet the needs of this pop­u­la­tion. There­fore, the ar­ti­cle re­views trends and im­prove­ments to coun­sel­ing the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed, con­tro­ver­sies, and mul­ti­cul­tural is­sues and sug­gests an ex­panded role for ca­reer coun­selors of the in­tel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed.

Bleske-Rechek et al 2004

“Meet­ing the Ed­u­ca­tional Needs of Spe­cial Pop­u­la­tions: Ad­vanced Place­men­t’s Role in De­vel­op­ing Ex­cep­tional Hu­man Cap­i­tal”, Bleske-Rechek et al 2004:

We eval­u­ated the Ad­vanced Place­ment (AP) pro­gram from the point of view of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth and their sub­se­quent ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes, an­a­lyz­ing nor­ma­tive and id­io­graphic lon­gi­tu­di­nal data col­lected across 30 years from 3,937 par­tic­i­pants. Most took AP courses in high school, and those who did fre­quently nom­i­nated an AP course as their fa­vorite. Stu­dents who took AP cours­es, com­pared with their in­tel­lec­tual peers who did not, ap­peared more sat­is­fied with the in­tel­lec­tual cal­iber of their high school ex­pe­ri­ence and, ul­ti­mate­ly, achieved more. Over­all, this spe­cial pop­u­la­tion placed a pre­mium on in­tel­lec­tual chal­lenge in high school and found the lack of such chal­lenge dis­tress­ing. These find­ings can in­form con­tem­po­rary ed­u­ca­tional pol­icy de­bates re­gard­ing the AP pro­gram; they also have gen­eral im­pli­ca­tions for de­sign­ing and eval­u­at­ing ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions for stu­dents with spe­cial needs.

Lubinski 2004a

“In­tro­duc­tion to the Spe­cial Sec­tion on Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ties: 100 Years After Spear­man’s (1904) ‘Gen­eral In­tel­li­gence’, Ob­jec­tively De­ter­mined and Mea­sured’”, Lu­bin­ski 2004a:

The study of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties is one of the few branches of psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ence to amass a co­her­ent body of em­pir­i­cal knowl­edge with­stand­ing the test of time. There is wide con­sen­sus that cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties are or­ga­nized hi­er­ar­chi­cal­ly, and C. Spear­man’s (1904) gen­eral in­tel­li­gence oc­cu­pies the ver­tex of this hi­er­ar­chy. In ad­di­tion, spe­cific abil­i­ties be­yond gen­eral in­tel­li­gence re­fine lon­gi­tu­di­nal fore­casts of im­por­tant so­cial phe­nom­ena and paint a rich por­trait of this im­por­tant do­main of psy­cho­log­i­cal di­ver­si­ty. This open­ing ar­ti­cle iden­ti­fies and then re­views 5 ma­jor ar­eas con­cern­ing the per­son­o­log­i­cal sig­nifi­cance of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties and the meth­ods used to study them. In mod­els of hu­man be­hav­ior and im­por­tant life out­comes, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties are crit­i­cal in more ways than so­cial sci­en­tists re­al­ize

Lubinski 2004b

“Long-Term Effects of Ed­u­ca­tional Ac­cel­er­a­tion”, Lu­bin­ski 2004b in A Na­tion De­ceived (see also Wai 2014b in A Na­tion Em­pow­ered):

Given the ex­per­tise of the con­trib­u­tors to this vol­ume and the nec­es­sary space lim­i­ta­tions im­posed upon au­thors, this brief chap­ter will fo­cus on a se­ries of re­cent find­ings. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has, over the past four years, pub­lished four ex­ten­sive lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­ports. Col­lec­tive­ly, they con­tain eval­u­a­tions of the sub­jec­tive feel­ings and ed­u­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes of thou­sands of par­tic­i­pants, from five co­horts as­sem­bled over three decades (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 1994), who have ex­pe­ri­enced many differ­ent kinds of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion (Ben­bow, Lu­bin­ski, Shea, & Eftekhar­i-San­jani, 2000; Bleske-Rechek, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2004; Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Shea, Eftekhar­i-San­jani, & Halvor­son, 2001; Lu­bin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001). These find­ings are es­pe­cially im­por­tant be­cause, among other things, they con­tain eval­u­a­tions of adults based on 10- and 20-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal achieve­ment and re­flec­tion. Hence, in ad­di­tion to con­ven­tional cri­te­ria, they en­able us to as­cer­tain whether par­tic­i­pants of ac­cel­er­a­tive learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties har­bor sub­se­quent re­grets. Be­cause these find­ings are fresh, they will be re­viewed in de­tail; but the fo­cus will be on out­comes and sub­jec­tive im­pres­sions ex­clu­sively tied to ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion. Read­ers are re­ferred to the orig­i­nal re­ports for more ex­ten­sive find­ings on the life pat­terns of this spe­cial pop­u­la­tion.

In a shorter sec­tion, some writ­ings of pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions of lead­ing psy­chol­o­gists will be drawn on. By ex­am­in­ing the his­tor­i­cal record of those com­mit­ted to ed­u­ca­tional prac­tice based on sci­ence, it is re­mark­able how many mod­ern em­pir­i­cal find­ings were an­tic­i­pat­ed, and to some ex­tent doc­u­ment­ed, by early pi­o­neers (All­port, 1960; Hobbs, 1951, 1958; Holling­worth, 1926, 1942; Pa­ter­son, 1957; Pressey, 1946a, 1946b, 1949; Seashore, 1922, 1930, 1942; Ter­man, 1954; Thorndike, 1927; Tyler, 1974).

For decades, it is clear that we have known a num­ber of gen­eral prin­ci­ples about meet­ing the needs of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth, and mod­ern em­pir­i­cal find­ings have added pre­ci­sion and mul­ti­di­men­sion­al­ity to this knowl­edge. Yet, putting this re­search into prac­tice has been diffi­cult due to a va­ri­ety of po­lit­i­cal and so­cial forces that al­ways op­er­ate on ed­u­ca­tional pol­icy and prac­tice (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Stan­ley, 2000). Due in no small part to tal­ent search­es, and the effi­ciency with which tal­ent searches fa­cil­i­tate large- scale lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search, an im­pres­sive em­pir­i­cal lit­er­a­ture has de­vel­oped to sup­port and add re­fine­ment to the effi­cacy of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion for in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth (Colan­gelo & Davis, 2003; Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000; Van­Tas­sel-Baska, 1998). It is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly diffi­cult to ne­glect the ev­i­dence that has emerged (Ce­ci, 2000; Stan­ley, 2000). To­day, we have a much bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of how to iden­tify in­tel­lec­tual pre­coc­i­ty, the non­in­tel­lec­tual at­trib­utes that fa­cil­i­tate its de­vel­op­ment, and the learn­ing en­vi­ron­ments needed for ac­tu­al­iz­ing truly ex­cep­tional po­ten­tial. Hope­ful­ly, this vol­ume will con­tribute to­ward mov­ing these find­ings into ed­u­ca­tional pol­icy and prac­tice.

Benbow 2005

“A Great Man Stand­ing With Ter­man and Holling­worth: Ju­lian C. Stan­ley (1918–2005)”, Ben­bow 2005: obit­u­ary

Brody & Stanley 2005

“Youths Who Rea­son Ex­cep­tion­ally Well Math­e­mat­i­cally and/or Ver­bally Us­ing the MVT:D4 Model to De­velop Their Tal­ents”, Brody & Stan­ley 2005, in Con­cep­tions of Gift­ed­ness ed Stern­berg & David­son 2005 (ISBN 0-511-16064-x):

…After ad­min­is­ter­ing above-grade-level tests to iden­tify stu­dents with ad­vanced math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, SMPY pro­vided coun­sel­ing and cre­ated pro­grams to meet their aca­d­e­mic needs. Even­tu­al­ly, uni­ver­si­ty-based tal­ent cen­ters were es­tab­lished around the coun­try to con­tinue the prac­tices SMPY pi­o­neered. Be­cause SMPY’s meth­ods for de­vel­op­ing tal­ent evolved over time in a very prag­matic way, that is, in re­sponse to the needs of in­di­vid­ual stu­dents, the psy­cho­log­i­cal and con­cep­tual bases for this ap­proach have not been es­pe­cially em­pha­sized in the lit­er­a­ture.

In the first edi­tion of this book, for ex­am­ple, Stan­ley and Ben­bow (1986) sug­gested that SMPY was “not con­cerned much with con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing gift­ed­ness” and had “not spent much time con­tem­plat­ing the psy­cho­log­i­cal un­der­pin­nings of gift­ed­ness” (p. 361). How­ev­er, Duke Uni­ver­sity psy­chol­o­gist Michael Wal­lach, in a re­view of one of SMPY’s early books (S­tan­ley, George, & Solano, 1977), ob­served that:

What is par­tic­u­larly strik­ing here is how lit­tle that is dis­tinctly psy­cho­log­i­cal seems in­volved in SMPY, and yet how very fruit­ful SMPY ap­pears to be. It is as if try­ing to be psy­cho­log­i­cal throws us off the course and into a mire of ab­stract dis­po­si­tions that help lit­tle in fa­cil­i­tat­ing stu­dents’ demon­stra­ble tal­ents. What seems most suc­cess­ful for help­ing stu­dents is what stays clos­est to the com­pe­ten­cies one di­rectly cares about: in the case of SMPY, for ex­am­ple, find­ing stu­dents who are very good at math and ar­rang­ing the en­vi­ron­ment to help them learn it as well as pos­si­ble. One would ex­pect anal­o­gous pre­scrip­tions to be of ben­e­fit for fos­ter­ing tal­ent at writ­ing, mu­sic, art, and any other com­pe­ten­cies that can be spec­i­fied in prod­uct or per­for­mance terms. But all this in fact is not unpsy­cho­log­i­cal; it is sim­ply differ­ent psy­chol­ogy (Wal­lach, 1978, p. 617).

There was al­ways a strong ra­tio­nale be­hind the choices and de­ci­sions that were made by SMPY (S­tan­ley, 1977). Three prin­ci­ples from de­vel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gy, in par­tic­u­lar, have con­tributed to the pro­gram­matic rec­om­men­da­tions that were adopt­ed. These prin­ci­ples are that learn­ing is se­quen­tial and de­vel­op­men­tal (Hil­gard & Bow­er, 1974), that chil­dren learn at differ­ent rates (Bay­ley, 1955, 1970; George, Cohn, & Stan­ley, 1979; Keat­ing, 1976; Keat­ing & Stan­ley, 1972; Robin­son & Robin­son, 1982), and that effec­tive teach­ing in­volves a “match” be­tween the child’s readi­ness to learn and the level of con­tent pre­sented (Hunt, 1961; Robin­son & Robin­son, 1982). The im­pli­ca­tion of these prin­ci­ples, as de­lin­eated by Robin­son (1983), Robin­son & Robin­son (1982), (S­tan­ley, 1997), and Stan­ley and Ben­bow (1986), is that the level and pace of ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams must be adapted to the ca­pac­i­ties and knowl­edge of in­di­vid­ual chil­dren. The pi­o­neer­ing work of Holling­worth (1942), who used above-grade-level tests to mea­sure stu­dents’ pre­coc­ity (see Stan­ley, 1990), and of Ter­man (1925), who was among the first to sys­tem­at­i­cally iden­tify and study gifted stu­dents, also pro­foundly in­flu­enced the di­rec­tion of SMPY. …

High Ability Studies 2005

Spe­cial is­sue (vol­ume 16 is­sue 1):

Touron 2005a

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth mod­el: 25 years of fos­ter­ing tal­ent”, Tourón 2005 (in­tro­duc­tory ed­i­to­r­ial to spe­cial is­sue)

Stanley 2005

“A quiet rev­o­lu­tion: Find­ing boys and girls who rea­son ex­cep­tion­ally well and/or ver­bally and help­ing them get the sup­ple­men­tal ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties they need”, Stan­ley 2005:

The an­tecedents for the 4 re­gional an­nual tal­ent searches for boys and girls who rea­son ex­cep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally be­gan in 1971 at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Bal­ti­more, Mary­land, with the cre­ation of the “Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth” un­der the di­rec­tion of the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle, its orig­i­na­tor. Here he traces the de­vel­op­ment and ex­pan­sion that led to much ex­per­i­men­ta­tion dur­ing the 1970s and the for­ma­tion in 1979 of what is now called the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) and sim­i­lar pro­grams based at 3 other pri­vate uni­ver­si­ties in the United States. These cover the en­tire USA and co­op­er­ate with ed­u­ca­tors in a num­ber of for­eign coun­tries, es­pe­cially Eng­land, Ire­land and Spain.

Ybarra 2005

“Be­yond na­tional bor­ders: the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth reach­ing out to gifted chil­dren from through­out the world”, Ybarra 2005:

The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) is cel­e­brat­ing 25 years of work­ing with gifted chil­dren both in the USA and from through­out the world. Be­gin­ning in 1979, its mis­sion has been to iden­tify stu­dents of ex­cep­tional aca­d­e­mic promise and to offer them dis­tinc­tive and chal­leng­ing ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties. More than one mil­lion young peo­ple have now been reached through CTY’s tal­ent search and pro­gram offer­ings. The pro­grams and ser­vices offered to CTY stu­dents in­clude: sum­mer pro­grams, dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion, civic lead­er­ship in­sti­tutes, fam­ily aca­d­e­mic con­fer­ences, awards cer­e­monies, di­ag­nos­tic coun­sel­ing and test­ing, re­search and pub­li­ca­tions. Through its offer­ings, CTY has reached be­yond the USA and has be­come an in­ter­na­tional pro­gram, with stu­dents at­tend­ing its sum­mer pro­gram from al­most 80 coun­tries and en­rolling in its dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion courses from 55 coun­tries. In col­lab­o­ra­tion with col­leagues from through­out the world CTY re­mains com­mit­ted to nur­tur­ing these highly tal­ented young peo­ple and to pro­vid­ing an en­vi­ron­ment where their tal­ent can ‘soar’.

Barnett et al 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth tal­ent search and aca­d­e­mic pro­grams”, Bar­nett et al 2005:

Through an­nual tal­ent searches based on the model de­vel­oped by Ju­lian Stan­ley, the Johns Hop­kins Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) seeks to iden­ti­fy, as­sess and rec­og­nize stu­dents with ad­vanced aca­d­e­mic abil­i­ties. CTY has also de­vel­oped ex­ten­sive pro­grams and ser­vices to meet the needs of these stu­dents. Hav­ing grown steadily in re­sponse to stu­dents’ needs since its in­cep­tion, CTY now serves ap­prox­i­mately 80,000 stu­dents each year through its tal­ent search and var­i­ous aca­d­e­mic offer­ings. This ar­ti­cle presents an overview of these pro­grams and ser­vices.

Putallaz et al 2005

“The Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram”, Putal­laz et al 2005:

The Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (Duke TIP) holds the dis­tin­guished po­si­tion of be­ing the first ‘trans­plant’ of the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) re­gional tal­ent search model de­vel­oped by Pro­fes­sor Ju­lian Stan­ley at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Duke TIP was es­tab­lished in 1980, one year after CTY offi­cially be­gan. This ar­ti­cle de­scribes the his­tory of Duke TIP and the evo­lu­tion of its tal­ent searches and var­i­ous for­mats of its ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram­ming mod­els as well as the com­ple­men­tary role that re­search has played at Duke TIP. The suc­cess of Duke TIP stands as a truly re­mark­able trib­ute to Ju­lian Stan­ley and to the ro­bust­ness of the tal­ent search model that he cre­ated at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Al­though the spe­cific types of pro­grams and ini­tia­tives may have taken differ­ent forms at Duke TIP, the un­der­ly­ing phi­los­o­phy and com­mit­ment to iden­tify and fur­ther the de­vel­op­ment of gifted and tal­ented youth re­mains stead­fast.

Olszewski-Kubilius 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ent De­vel­op­ment at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty: an ex­am­ple of repli­ca­tion and ref­or­ma­tion”, Ol­szewski-Ku­bil­ius 2005:

This ar­ti­cle de­scribes im­ple­men­ta­tion of the tal­ent search model de­vel­oped by Ju­lian Stan­ley at the Cen­ter for Tal­ent De­vel­op­ment of North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. While re­main­ing true to the ba­sic com­po­nents of the tal­ent search, the tal­ent cen­ter at North­west­ern has em­pha­sized us­ing tal­ent search as a means to in­flu­ence pro­gram­ming in lo­cal schools for gifted stu­dents, re­search and de­vel­op­ment of var­i­ous types of ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams for tal­ented chil­dren, the cre­ation of an ar­tic­u­lated set of pro­grams lead­ing to sys­tem­atic de­vel­op­ment of abil­i­ties across child­hood and ado­les­cence, ex­ten­sions into other do­mains of tal­ent, such as lead­er­ship, and cre­at­ing syn­ergy for gifted ed­u­ca­tion through col­lab­o­ra­tion and part­ner­ships with other lead­ers in the Mid­west.

Rigby 2005

“‘Rocky Moun­tain Tal­ent Search’ at the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver”, Rigby 2005:

The ‘Rocky Moun­tain Tal­ent Search’ (RMTS) at the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver was de­vel­oped based on the tal­ent search model de­vel­oped by Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley of Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. This ar­ti­cle sum­ma­rizes the es­tab­lish­ment of RMTS and out­lines its con­tem­po­rary pro­grams. Guided by the phi­los­o­phy that gifted stu­dents have unique needs, re­quire aca­d­e­mic chal­lenge and crave in­ter­ac­tion with their in­tel­lec­tual peers, the RMTS pro­gram con­tin­ues to offer as­sess­ment, recog­ni­tion and sum­mer en­rich­ment pro­grams for aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted stu­dents. Now in its 23 year, RMTS is flour­ish­ing and ex­pand­ing its offer­ings an­nu­al­ly.

Wallace 2005

“Dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion for gifted stu­dents: lever­ag­ing tech­nol­ogy to ex­pand aca­d­e­mic op­tions”, Wal­lace 2005:

Tech­no­log­i­cal ad­vances and wide­spread ac­cess to the In­ter­net are fa­cil­i­tat­ing new ed­u­ca­tional ap­proaches that go be­yond the tra­di­tional face-to-face class­room set­ting. Dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion has emerged as a valu­able op­tion for a num­ber of spe­cial pop­u­la­tions of learn­ers whose needs are more diffi­cult to meet in the class­room, of which gifted stu­dents are one. This pa­per ex­plores the many va­ri­eties of dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion and the tech­nolo­gies that sup­port them and ex­am­ines re­search on the effec­tive­ness of the ap­proaches in differ­ent set­tings. Re­search on the dis­tance ed­u­ca­tion pro­grams offered by the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth is sum­ma­rized and best prac­tices, based on the find­ings, are pro­posed.

Brody 2005

“The Study of Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent”, Brody 2005:

The Study of Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent (SET) iden­ti­fies stu­dents who ex­hibit ex­tremely ad­vanced math­e­mat­i­cal and/or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and helps them find the chal­leng­ing ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams they need to achieve their full po­ten­tial. Specifi­cal­ly, stu­dents who score 700–800 on the math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal por­tion of SAT I be­fore the age of 13 are in­vited to take ad­van­tage of SET’s coun­sel­ing and men­tor­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties. An on­go­ing lon­gi­tu­di­nal study tracks the progress of these stu­dents, and their achieve­ments to date have been ex­cep­tion­al. SET stu­dents, as a group, par­tic­i­pate in a va­ri­ety of ac­cel­er­ated pro­grams, at­tend highly se­lec­tive col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties and earn ad­vanced de­grees in large num­bers. Those who have em­barked on their ca­reers ap­pear to be ex­celling in their cho­sen fields as well.

Brody & Mills 2005

“Tal­ent search re­search: what have we learned?”, Brody & Mills 2005

This chap­ter sum­ma­rizes the lessons learned from the over 25 years of re­search con­ducted by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth, as well as the prior 10 years of re­search con­ducted by Dr Ju­lian Stan­ley and his grad­u­ate stu­dents. This sum­mary also in­cludes work done by the sev­eral other tal­ent searches (Duke, North­west­ern and Rocky Moun­tain), al­though a com­plete de­scrip­tion of their work can be found in the in­di­vid­ual ar­ti­cles writ­ten by each. The find­ings from the hun­dreds of re­search stud­ies con­ducted val­i­date the tal­ent search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model and process, as well as the pro­grams de­vel­oped to meet the needs of iden­ti­fied stu­dents. In ad­di­tion, the au­thors have con­densed the find­ings from nu­mer­ous re­search projects ex­am­in­ing the cog­ni­tive, so­cial, per­son­al­ity and aca­d­e­mic de­vel­op­ment of the stu­dents CTY serves.

Gilheany 2005

“The Irish Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth”, Gilheany 2005:

Con­duct­ing po­tency tests on peni­cillin, dis­cussing rocket tech­nol­ogy with a NASA as­tro­naut, analysing an­i­mal bone frag­ments from me­dieval times, these are just some of the ac­tiv­i­ties which oc­cupy the time of stu­dents at The Irish Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth. The Cen­tre iden­ti­fies young stu­dents with ex­cep­tional aca­d­e­mic abil­ity and then pro­vides ser­vices for them, their par­ents and teach­ers. This pa­per high­lights the work of the Cen­tre, par­tic­u­larly in re­la­tion to nur­tur­ing and de­vel­op­ing in­ter­est in the sci­ences at an early age

Touron et al 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Spain: an ini­tia­tive to serve highly able stu­dents”, Tourón et al 2005:

This pa­per deals with the main as­pects of the work car­ried out by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Spain since its found­ing. The ed­u­ca­tional model ap­plied here is based on the ‘Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth’, de­vel­oped by Ju­lian Stan­ley in the early sev­en­ties and cur­rently the in­spi­ra­tion be­hind all the cen­ters be­long­ing to Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth In­ter­na­tion­al. We pro­vide data from the SCAT (‘School and col­lege abil­ity test’) test, val­i­dated in Spain by the first au­thor, which is used to iden­tify stu­dents with ex­cep­tional ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. The re­sults ob­tained are an­a­lyzed in the light of the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els, high­light­ing the sim­i­lar­i­ties be­tween the re­sults ob­tained and those in the USA. More­over, we ex­plore data on course de­vel­op­ment and stu­dent as­sess­ment of cours­es. Fi­nal­ly, we ex­plore the fu­ture prospects for the Cen­ter and of highly able stu­dents in Spain.

Frost 2005

“The CTY sum­mer school mod­el: evolve­ment, adap­ta­tion and ex­trap­o­la­tion at the Na­tional Acad­emy for Gifted and Tal­ented Youth (Eng­land)”, Frost 2005:

This ar­ti­cle com­pares the sum­mer schools run by the Na­tional Acad­emy for Gifted and Tal­ented Youth (NAGTY) in Eng­land with those in the USA, run by the Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth (CTY). When the NAGTY sum­mer schools started they were based on the CTY mod­el, but the pro­gramme has evolved over the last 3 years of op­er­a­tion. The ar­ti­cle looks at ba­sic de­sign, the cours­es, stu­dents, sum­mer school sites and is­sues of ped­a­gogy. There is also an ex­ten­sive sec­tion shar­ing eval­u­a­tion data about the NAGTY pro­gramme in 2004. The over­whelm­ing view ex­pressed in the ar­ti­cle is of two highly suc­cess­ful pro­grammes, highly thought of by stu­dents and eval­u­a­tors. As stu­dents who at­tended both have com­ment­ed, the sum­mer schools have sim­i­lar­i­ties and differ­ences, but are of high qual­i­ty. Their ex­pe­ri­ences at the sum­mer schools are life chang­ing for the stu­dents. They emerge from the ex­pe­ri­ence much more self­-di­rected and with greater as­pi­ra­tions and ex­pec­ta­tions. NAGTY and CTY have some in­ter­est­ing plans to fur­ther de­velop the sum­mer school mod­el. With grow­ing num­bers of other coun­tries de­vel­op­ing sim­i­lar pro­grammes, the fu­ture is ex­cit­ing. With con­tin­ued col­lab­o­ra­tion all can gain from each other and build on the ex­ist­ing high qual­ity ex­pe­ri­ences.

Touron 2005b

“What has been done, what has yet to be done”, Tourón 2005b [end­ing ed­i­to­ri­al]

Wai et al 2005

“Cre­ativ­ity and Oc­cu­pa­tional Ac­com­plish­ments Among In­tel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youths: An Age 13 To Age 33 Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Wai et al 2005:

This study tracks in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youths (top 1%) over 20 years. Phase 1 (n = 1,243 boys, 732 girls) ex­am­ines the sig­nifi­cance of age 13 abil­ity differ­ences within the top 1% for pre­dict­ing doc­tor­ates, in­come, patents, and tenure at U.S. uni­ver­si­ties ranked within the top 50. Phase 2 (n = 323 men, 188 wom­en) eval­u­ates the ro­bust­ness of dis­crim­i­nant func­tions de­vel­oped ear­lier, based on age-13 abil­ity and pref­er­ence as­sess­ments and cal­i­brated with age-23 ed­u­ca­tional cri­te­ria but ex­tended here to pre­dict oc­cu­pa­tional group mem­ber­ship at age 33. Pos­i­tive find­ings on above-level as­sess­ment with the Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test and con­ven­tional pref­er­ence in­ven­to­ries in ed­u­ca­tional set­tings gen­er­al­ize to oc­cu­pa­tional set­tings. Pre­co­cious man­i­fes­ta­tions of abil­i­ties fore­shadow the emer­gence of ex­cep­tional achieve­ment and cre­ativ­ity in the world of work; when paired with pref­er­ences, they also pre­dict the qual­i­ta­tive na­ture of these ac­com­plish­ments.

Benbow & Lubinski 2006

“Obit­u­ary: Ju­lian C. Stan­ley Jr. (1918–2005)”, Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski 2006

The Observer 2005

“In Ap­pre­ci­a­tion: Ju­lian Stan­ley”, The Ob­server: obit­u­ar­ies for Ju­lian C. Stan­ley from David Lu­bin­ski (“A Kind and Com­pas­sion­ate In­tel­lec­tual Gi­ant”), Nicholas Colan­gelo (“Trib­ute to Ju­lian”), Nancy M. Robin­son (“For­ever Im­prov­ing”), Arthur R. Jensen (“Stan­ley and Ter­man: Co-s­tars in Re­search on the Gifted”), and Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow (“A Pow­er­ful Amer­i­can In­tel­lect”).

Lubinski & Benbow 2006

“Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth after 35 years: Un­cov­er­ing an­tecedents for the de­vel­op­ment of math­-science ex­per­tise”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2006:

This re­view pro­vides an ac­count of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) after 35 years of lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search. Find­ings from re­cent 20-year fol­low-ups from three co­horts, plus 5- or 10-year find­ings from all five SMPY co­horts (to­tal­ing more than 5,000 par­tic­i­pants), are pre­sent­ed.

SMPY has de­voted par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion to un­cov­er­ing per­sonal an­tecedents nec­es­sary for the de­vel­op­ment of ex­cep­tional math­-science ca­reers and to de­vel­op­ing ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions to fa­cil­i­tate learn­ing among in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth. Along with math­e­mat­i­cal gifts, high lev­els of spa­tial abil­i­ty, in­ves­tiga­tive in­ter­ests, and the­o­ret­i­cal val­ues form a par­tic­u­larly promis­ing ap­ti­tude com­plex in­dica­tive of po­ten­tial for de­vel­op­ing sci­en­tific ex­per­tise and of sus­tained com­mit­ment to sci­en­tific pur­suits. Spe­cial ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties, how­ev­er, can markedly en­hance the de­vel­op­ment of tal­ent. More­over, ex­tra­or­di­nary sci­en­tific ac­com­plish­ments re­quire ex­tra­or­di­nary com­mit­ment both in and out­side of school.

The the­ory of work ad­just­ment (TWA) is use­ful in con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment and bridg­ing in­ter­con­nec­tions among ed­u­ca­tion­al, coun­sel­ing, and in­dus­trial psy­chol­o­gy. The lens of TWA can clar­ify how some sex differ­ences emerge in ed­u­ca­tional set­tings and the world of work. For ex­am­ple, in the SMPY co­horts, al­though more math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious males than fe­males en­tered math­-science ca­reers, this does not nec­es­sar­ily im­ply a loss of tal­ent be­cause the women se­cured sim­i­lar pro­por­tions of ad­vanced de­grees and high­-level ca­reers in ar­eas more cor­re­spon­dent with the mul­ti­di­men­sion­al­ity of their abil­i­ty-pref­er­ence pat­tern (e.g., ad­min­is­tra­tion, law, med­i­cine, and the so­cial sci­ences). By their mid-30s, the men and women ap­peared to be happy with their life choices and viewed them­selves as equally suc­cess­ful (and ob­jec­tive mea­sures sup­port these sub­jec­tive im­pres­sion­s). Given the ever-in­creas­ing im­por­tance of quan­ti­ta­tive and sci­en­tific rea­son­ing skills in mod­ern cul­tures, when math­e­mat­i­cally gifted in­di­vid­u­als choose to pur­sue ca­reers out­side en­gi­neer­ing and the phys­i­cal sci­ences, it should be seen as a con­tri­bu­tion to so­ci­ety, not a loss of tal­ent.

Lubinski et al 2006

“Track­ing Ex­cep­tional Hu­man Cap­i­tal Over Two Decades”, Lu­bin­ski et al 2006:

Tal­en­t-search par­tic­i­pants (286 males, 94 fe­males) scor­ing in the top 0.01% on cog­ni­tive-a­bil­ity mea­sures were iden­ti­fied be­fore age 13 and tracked over 20 years. Their cre­ative, oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and life ac­com­plish­ments are com­pared with those of grad­u­ate stu­dents (299 males, 287 fe­males) en­rolled in top-ranked U.S. math­e­mat­ics, en­gi­neer­ing, and phys­i­cal sci­ence pro­grams in 1992 and tracked over 10 years. By their mid-30s, the two groups achieved com­pa­ra­ble and ex­cep­tional suc­cess (e.g., se­cur­ing top tenure-track po­si­tions) and re­ported high and com­men­su­rate ca­reer and life sat­is­fac­tion. Col­lege en­trance ex­ams ad­min­is­tered to in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth un­cover ex­tra­or­di­nary po­ten­tial for ca­reers re­quir­ing cre­ativ­ity and sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal in­no­va­tion in the in­for­ma­tion age.

[See also “In­vis­i­ble Ge­nius­es: Could the Knowl­edge Fron­tier Ad­vance Faster?”, Agar­wal & Gaule 2018, which finds a sim­i­lar gra­di­ent within high­ly-math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented com­peti­tors: gold medal­ists have 50x the odds of win­ning a Fields Medal than grad­u­ates of top-10 US math pro­grams. Gasser 2019 ex­am­ines a sin­gle Hun­gar­ian IMO team as a case-s­tudy.]

Muratori et al 2006

“In­sights From SMPY’s Great­est For­mer child Prodigies: Drs. Ter­ence (‘Terry’) Tao and Lenhard (‘Lenny’) Ng Re­flect on Their Tal­ent De­vel­op­ment”, Mu­ra­tori et al 2006:

If the aca­d­e­mic needs of the most pro­foundly gifted stu­dents can be met through the use of ex­ist­ing ed­u­ca­tional prac­tices, spe­cial­ists in gifted ed­u­ca­tion can as­sume that the ed­u­ca­tional needs of less able, but still aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ent­ed, stu­dents can also be met by us­ing some com­bi­na­tion of these strate­gies as well. This pa­per il­lus­trates the fea­si­bil­ity and effec­tive­ness of uti­liz­ing an in­di­vid­u­al­ized ed­u­ca­tional ap­proach with gifted stu­dents by high­light­ing the unique ed­u­ca­tional paths taken by two of the very ablest math prodi­gies iden­ti­fied by Dr. Ju­lian Stan­ley through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) since its found­ing in 1971. In­ter­views with Dr. and Dr.Lenhard (“Lenny”) Ng, now both highly suc­cess­ful math­e­mati­cians, are pre­sented in their en­tire­ty, demon­strat­ing that even among the very ablest, strate­gies can be tai­lored effec­tively to the char­ac­ter­is­tics of each stu­dent through a com­bi­na­tion of cre­ative plan­ning and the co­op­er­a­tion of par­ents, ed­u­ca­tors, and men­tors.

Brody 2007

“Coun­sel­ing highly gifted stu­dents to uti­lize sup­ple­men­tal ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties: Us­ing the SET pro­gram as a model”, Brody 2007, in Serv­ing gifted learn­ers be­yond the tra­di­tional class­room ed Van­Tas­sel-Baska 2007.

Halpern et al 2007

“The Sci­ence of Sex Differ­ences in Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Halpern et al 2007:

Amid on­go­ing pub­lic spec­u­la­tion about the rea­sons for sex differ­ences in ca­reers in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics, we present a con­sen­sus state­ment that is based on the best avail­able sci­en­tific ev­i­dence. Sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math achieve­ment and abil­ity are smaller for the mid-range of the abil­i­ties dis­tri­b­u­tion than they are for those with the high­est lev­els of achieve­ment and abil­i­ty. Males are more vari­able on most mea­sures of quan­ti­ta­tive and vi­su­ospa­tial abil­i­ty, which nec­es­sar­ily re­sults in more males at both high- and low-a­bil­ity ex­tremes; the rea­sons why males are often more vari­able re­main elu­sive. Suc­cess­ful ca­reers in math and sci­ence re­quire many types of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties. Fe­males tend to ex­cel in ver­bal abil­i­ties, with large differ­ences be­tween fe­males and males found when as­sess­ments in­clude writ­ing sam­ples. High­-level achieve­ment in sci­ence and math re­quires the abil­ity to com­mu­ni­cate effec­tively and com­pre­hend ab­stract ideas, so the fe­male ad­van­tage in writ­ing should be help­ful in all aca­d­e­mic do­mains. Males out­per­form fe­males on most mea­sures of vi­su­ospa­tial abil­i­ties, which have been im­pli­cated as con­tribut­ing to sex differ­ences on stan­dard­ized ex­ams in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. An evo­lu­tion­ary ac­count of sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence sup­ports the con­clu­sion that, al­though sex differ­ences in math and sci­ence per­for­mance have not di­rectly evolved, they could be in­di­rectly re­lated to differ­ences in in­ter­ests and spe­cific brain and cog­ni­tive sys­tems. We re­view the brain ba­sis for sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics, de­scribe con­sis­tent effects, and iden­tify nu­mer­ous pos­si­ble cor­re­lates. Ex­pe­ri­ence al­ters brain struc­tures and func­tion­ing, so causal state­ments about brain differ­ences and suc­cess in math and sci­ence are cir­cu­lar. A wide range of so­cio­cul­tural forces con­tribute to sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment and abil­i­ty—in­clud­ing the effects of fam­i­ly, neigh­bor­hood, peer, and school in­flu­ences; train­ing and ex­pe­ri­ence; and cul­tural prac­tices. We con­clude that early ex­pe­ri­ence, bi­o­log­i­cal fac­tors, ed­u­ca­tional pol­i­cy, and cul­tural con­text affect the num­ber of women and men who pur­sue ad­vanced study in sci­ence and math and that these effects add and in­ter­act in com­plex ways. There are no sin­gle or sim­ple an­swers to the com­plex ques­tions about sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics.

Lubinski & Benbow 2007

“Sex Differ­ences in Per­sonal At­trib­utes for the De­vel­op­ment of Sci­en­tific Ex­per­tise”, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2007, in Why aren’t more women in sci­ence?: Top re­searchers de­bate the ev­i­dence, Ceci & Williams 2007:

So­ci­ety is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly sci­en­tific, tech­no­log­i­cal, and knowl­edge-based, de­pend­ing on the uti­liza­tion and max­i­miza­tion of hu­man tal­ent and po­ten­tial (Fried­man, 2005). A na­tion’s strength, both eco­nom­i­cally and civi­cal­ly, is now linked to what it can call forth from the minds of its cit­i­zens. Con­se­quent­ly, much at­ten­tion is be­ing fo­cused on strate­gies for in­creas­ing the num­ber of sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) pro­fes­sion­als pro­duced in the United States and pos­si­ble un­tapped pools of tal­ent. For poli­cies to be effec­tive, they need to build on knowl­edge about what it takes to be­come ex­cel­lent in STEM ar­eas. Here, we re­view a se­ries of known an­tecedents to achiev­ing ex­cel­lence in and com­mit­ment to math and sci­ence do­mains. Par­tic­u­lar fo­cus is on the well-doc­u­mented sex differ­ences on these at­trib­utes and the im­pli­ca­tions for male ver­sus fe­male rep­re­sen­ta­tion in STEM dis­ci­plines. We do not fo­cus on the ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences and op­por­tu­ni­ties, such as ap­pro­pri­ate de­vel­op­men­tal place­ment (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Bleske-Rechek, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2004; Colan­gelo, As­souline, & Gross, 2004; Cron­bach, 1996; Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000; Stan­ley, 2000) or in­volve­ment in re­search (Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Shea, Eftekhar­i-San­jani, & Halvor­son, 2001), which are im­por­tant for de­vel­op­ing tal­ent in STEM ar­eas; rather, we con­cen­trate on the per­sonal at­trib­utes that pre­dis­pose in­di­vid­u­als to pur­sue and achieve highly in STEM ca­reers (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 1992; Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Wai, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2005). This es­say is also not about en­hanc­ing the sci­en­tific lit­er­acy of the gen­eral U.S. pop­u­la­tion. That, al­though crit­i­cally im­por­tant, is a differ­ent propo­si­tion from pro­duc­ing out­stand­ing STEM pro­fes­sion­als, the topic of this es­say. Through our Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), we have spe­cial­ized in the lat­ter (Ben­bow, Lu­bin­ski, Shea, & Eftekhar­i-San­jani, 2000; Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000, 2001; Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, et al., 2001; Lu­bin­ski et al., 2006; Wai et al., 2005; Webb, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2002) and draw on that work for this re­view. Fo­cus­ing on the tal­ent­ed, as SMPY does, is ap­pro­pri­ate, given that most STEM pro­fes­sion­als come from those in the top 10% in abil­ity (Hedges & Now­ell, 1995).

Park 2007

“Con­trast­ing in­tel­lec­tual pat­terns pre­dict cre­ativ­ity in the arts and sci­ences track­ing in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth over 25 years”, Park 2007:

…Re­cent­ly, em­pir­i­cal find­ings have shown that in­di­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1% of abil­ity pre­dict differ­ences in oc­cu­pa­tional per­for­mance and cre­ativ­i­ty: More abil­ity in­creases the like­li­hood of ac­com­plish­ments such as earn­ing a doc­tor­ate, earn­ing tenure at a top-50 U.S. uni­ver­si­ty, earn­ing a high in­come, and se­cur­ing a patent (Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Wai, Lu­bin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2005). Most nor­ma­tive as­sess­ments, how­ev­er, are un­able to differ­en­ti­ate the able from the ex­cep­tion­ally able, be­cause both groups tend to pile up at the ceil­ing of con­ven­tional in­di­ca­tors such as col­lege en­trance ex­ams. The lack of vari­a­tion at the up­per end con­strains the co­vari­a­tion be­tween these mea­sures and sub­se­quent ac­com­plish­ments. When col­lege en­trance ex­ams are ad­min­is­tered to the in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious be­fore age 13, how­ev­er, these youth gen­er­ate score dis­tri­b­u­tions like those of typ­i­cal col­lege-go­ing 12th graders, and the able and ex­cep­tion­ally able are read­ily dis­tin­guished (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2006). When these youth are tracked over mul­ti­ple decades, the psy­cho­log­i­cal im­port of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1%, which cov­ers more than one third of the abil­ity range, be­comes open to eval­u­a­tion. For ex­am­ple, IQs in the top 1% be­gin at ap­prox­i­mately 137 and ex­tend be­yond 200. But in this case, too, out­come cri­te­ria with high ceil­ings are re­quired to ap­praise the va­lid­ity of these early as­sess­ments lon­gi­tu­di­nally (and fol­low-up in­ter­vals must be suffi­ciently long to al­low for the de­vel­op­ment of the ex­per­tise needed for cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments).

In the study re­ported here, we tested the hy­poth­e­sis that among in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth within the top 1% of abil­i­ty, the pat­tern of ex­cep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, as as­sessed at age 12, differ­en­tially pre­dict cre­ative achieve­ments in the hu­man­i­ties ver­sus STEM do­mains 25 years lat­er.

Park et al 2007

“Con­trast­ing In­tel­lec­tual Pat­terns Pre­dict Cre­ativ­ity in the Arts and Sci­ences: Track­ing In­tel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth Over 25 Years”, Park et al 2007 (preprint):

A sam­ple of 2,409 in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (top 1%) who were as­sessed on the SAT by age 13 was tracked lon­gi­tu­di­nally for more than 25 years. Their cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments, with par­tic­u­lar em­pha­sis on lit­er­ary achieve­ment and sci­en­tific-tech­ni­cal in­no­va­tion, were ex­am­ined as a func­tion of abil­ity level (sum of math and ver­bal SAT scores) and tilt (math SAT score mi­nus ver­bal SAT score). Re­sults showed that dis­tinct abil­ity pat­terns un­cov­ered by age 13 por­tend con­trast­ing forms of cre­ative ex­pres­sion by mid­dle age. Whereas abil­ity level con­tributes sig­nifi­cantly to cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments, abil­ity tilt is crit­i­cal for pre­dict­ing the spe­cific do­main in which they oc­cur (e.g., se­cur­ing a tenure-track po­si­tion in the hu­man­i­ties vs. sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, or math­e­mat­ics; pub­lish­ing a novel vs. se­cur­ing a paten­t).

Park et al 2008

“Abil­ity Differ­ences Among Peo­ple Who Have Com­men­su­rate De­grees Mat­ter For Sci­en­tific Cre­ativ­ity”, Park et al 2008:

A sam­ple of 1,586 in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (top 1%) were as­sessed on the math por­tion of the SAT by age 13 and tracked for more than 25 years. Patents and sci­en­tific pub­li­ca­tions were used as cri­te­ria for sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal ac­com­plish­ment. Par­tic­i­pants were cat­e­go­rized ac­cord­ing to whether their ter­mi­nal de­gree was a bach­e­lor’s, mas­ter’s, or doc­tor­ate de­gree, and within these de­gree group­ings, the pro­por­tion of par­tic­i­pants with at least one patent or sci­en­tific pub­li­ca­tion in adult­hood in­creased as a func­tion of this early SAT as­sess­ment. In­for­ma­tion about in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­ity (even when mea­sured in early ado­les­cence) can pre­dict differ­en­tial cre­ative po­ten­tial in sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy within pop­u­la­tions that have ad­vanced ed­u­ca­tional de­grees.

Swiatek 2007

“The Tal­ent Search Mod­el: Past, Pre­sent, and Fu­ture”, Swiatek 2007:

Typ­i­cal stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests can­not pro­vide ac­cu­rate in­for­ma­tion about gifted stu­dents’ abil­i­ties be­cause they are not chal­leng­ing enough for such stu­dents. Tal­ent searches solve this prob­lem through above-level test­ing—us­ing tests de­signed for older stu­dents to raise the ceil­ing for younger, gifted stu­dents. Cur­rent­ly, tal­ent search pro­grams serve gifted stu­dents from grades 2 through 8 through­out the main­land United States and in sev­eral for­eign coun­tries. Ex­ten­sive re­search demon­strates that above-level test scores differ­en­ti­ate among lev­els of gift­ed­ness and have im­por­tant im­pli­ca­tions for ed­u­ca­tional plan­ning. Stu­dents with high scores learn ad­vanced ma­te­r­ial rapidly and well and thrive in ac­cel­er­ated learn­ing set­tings. There­fore, tal­ent searches have fol­lowed up on test­ing with ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams, many of which fo­cus on ac­cel­er­a­tion. Decades of re­search have doc­u­mented both aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial ben­e­fits to par­tic­i­pants. Per­haps the great­est chal­lenge ahead of the tal­ent searches is that of fa­cil­i­tat­ing the ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tion of gifted stu­dents in the school set­ting.

Webb et al 2007

“Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: A Ne­glected Di­men­sion in Tal­ent Searches for In­tel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Webb et al 2007:

Stu­dents iden­ti­fied by tal­ent search pro­grams were stud­ied to de­ter­mine whether spa­tial abil­ity could un­cover math­-science promise. In Phase 1, in­ter­ests and val­ues of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (617 boys, 443 girls) were com­pared with those of top math­-science grad­u­ate stu­dents (368 men, 346 wom­en) as a func­tion of their stand­ing on spa­tial vi­su­al­iza­tion to as­sess their po­ten­tial fit with math­-science ca­reers. In Phase 2, 5-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal analy­ses re­vealed that spa­tial abil­ity co­a­lesces with a con­stel­la­tion of per­sonal pref­er­ences in­dica­tive of fit for pur­su­ing sci­en­tific ca­reers and adds in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity be­yond pref­er­ences in pre­dict­ing math­-science cri­te­ria. In Phase 3, data from par­tic­i­pants with Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT) scores were an­a­lyzed lon­gi­tu­di­nal­ly, and a salient math­-science con­stel­la­tion again emerged (with which spa­tial abil­ity and SAT-Math were con­sis­tently pos­i­tively cor­re­lated and SAT-Verbal was neg­a­tively cor­re­lat­ed). Re­sults across the 3 phases tri­an­gu­late to sug­gest that adding spa­tial abil­ity to tal­ent search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures (cur­rently re­stricted to math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ty) could un­cover a ne­glected pool of math­-science tal­ent and holds promise for re­fin­ing our un­der­stand­ing of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youth.

Leder 2008

“High Achiev­ers in Math­e­mat­ics: What Can We Learn From and About Them?”, Leder 2008:

Suc­cess in math­e­mat­ics is widely re­garded as an im­por­tant gate keeper for many courses and oc­cu­pa­tions. But does suc­cess in math­e­mat­ics at school in­flu­ence ed­u­ca­tional and ca­reer paths? Do tal­ented math­e­mat­ics stu­dents have dis­tinc­tive work­ing habits, are they at­tracted to a math­e­mat­ics in­ten­sive field or more likely to turn to other ar­eas? These and re­lated is­sues are ex­plored through in­for­ma­tion gained from stu­dents rec­og­nized at sec­ondary school as high achiev­ers in math­e­mat­ics. [The Aus­tralian Math­e­mat­ics Com­pe­ti­tion (AMC)]

Re­view of Pre­vi­ous Re­search: The de­vel­op­ment of ex­cep­tion­ally tal­ented in­di­vid­u­als, in­clud­ing high achiev­ers in math­e­mat­ics, has at­tracted sus­tained and di­verse re­search at­ten­tion. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY] founded by Ju­lian Stan­ley in 1971 has spawned a huge amount of lit­er­a­ture, rang­ing from pub­li­ca­tions in which the ra­tio­nale for the pro­gram and early find­ings per­tain­ing to SMPY par­tic­i­pants were de­scribed (e.g., Stan­ley, Keat­ing, & Fox, 1974) to more re­cent doc­u­men­ta­tion of longer term per­sonal growth, ed­u­ca­tional and vo­ca­tional adult achieve­ments. As noted by Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, and Bleske-Rechek (2006) many of these lat­ter pub­li­ca­tions fo­cus on stu­dents who “be­fore the age 13, … scored within the top 0.01 % for their age on ei­ther SAT math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (SAT-M ≥ 700) or SAT ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity (SAT-V ≥ 630)” (p. 194). Oth­ers to ex­plore the de­vel­op­ment and work­ing pref­er­ences of highly able math­e­mat­ics.

Benbow & Lubinski 2009

“Ex­tend­ing San­dra Scar­r’s Ideas about De­vel­op­ment to the Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of In­tel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Camilla P. Ben­bow & David Lu­bin­ski 2009:

San­dra Scarr has de­voted her ca­reer to bring­ing the sci­ence of hu­man in­di­vid­u­al­ity to bear on lifes­pan de­vel­op­men­tal is­sues (S­carr, 1992, 1996; Scarr & Mc­Cart­ney, 1983). Shin­ing a light on the sci­ence of hu­man in­di­vid­u­al­ity and the differ­en­tial out­comes re­vealed by the study of hu­man psy­cho­log­i­cal di­ver­sity has not al­ways been easy (S­carr, 1992, 1998), but it has al­most al­ways been use­ful for both ap­plied and ba­sic psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ence (Lu­bin­ski, 1996, 2000; Un­der­wood, 1975), as well as for de­vel­op­ing mean­ing­ful pub­lic poli­cies fo­cused on chang­ing hu­man be­hav­ior (S­carr, 1996). Still, the psy­cho­log­i­cal im­port of valid mea­sures of hu­man in­di­vid­u­al­ity and the sci­en­tific knowl­edge gleaned by as­sess­ments thereof are rou­tinely de­nied or ne­glect­ed.

In this chap­ter, our ob­jec­tives are twofold. First, we will doc­u­ment the ex­tent to which find­ings about hu­man in­di­vid­u­al­ity are fre­quently dis­missed or ig­nored in the so­cial sci­ences, and how this hob­bles the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment of truly ex­cep­tional hu­man cap­i­tal and mod­el­ing ex­tra­or­di­nary hu­man ac­com­plish­ment. Sec­ond, we out­line the use­ful­ness of Scar­r’s ideas about niche build­ing and se­lec­tion (S­carr, 1996; Scarr & Mc­Cart­ney, 1983), and how the study of en­vi­ron­ments from a psy­cho­log­i­cal per­spec­tive in­forms the cre­ation of more op­ti­mal learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents with ex­cep­tional abil­i­ties (Ben­bow & Lu­bin­ski, 1996; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1983; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Stan­ley, 2000). Do­ing so si­mul­ta­ne­ously affords in­sight into their life­long learn­ing.

Brody 2009

“The Johns Hop­kins Tal­ent Search Model for Iden­ti­fy­ing and De­vel­op­ing Ex­cep­tional Math­e­mat­i­cal and Ver­bal Abil­i­ties”, Brody 2009:

The Johns Hop­kins Tal­ent Search mod­el, which was pi­o­neered in the early 1970s by Pro­fes­sor Ju­lian Stan­ley, has now spread to coun­tries around the world. Also known as the MVT:D4 model of tal­ent de­vel­op­ment, the power and effi­cacy of this ap­proach for iden­ti­fy­ing and serv­ing stu­dents with above-grade-level math­e­mat­i­cal and/or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties have been well val­i­dat­ed. Re­searchers at Johns Hop­kins, as well as at other uni­ver­si­ties who use this mod­el, have con­tributed greatly to our knowl­edge and un­der­stand­ing of the needs of gifted stu­dents. They have also de­vel­oped and eval­u­ated nu­mer­ous strate­gies for meet­ing the ed­u­ca­tional needs of stu­dents with ad­vanced abil­i­ties. This chap­ter sum­ma­rizes the his­tory of the Tal­ent Search, its prin­ci­ples and prac­tices, and the re­search that has been done on Tal­ent Search stu­dents.

Ferriman et al 2009

“Work Pref­er­ences, Life Val­ues, and Per­sonal Views of Top Math­/­Science Grad­u­ate Stu­dents and the Pro­foundly Gift­ed: De­vel­op­men­tal Changes and Gen­der Differ­ences Dur­ing Emerg­ing Adult­hood and Par­ent­hood”, Fer­ri­man et al 2009:

Work pref­er­ences, life val­ues, and per­sonal views of top math­/­science grad­u­ate stu­dents (275 men, 255 wom­en) were as­sessed at ages 25 and 35 years. In Study 1, analy­ses of work pref­er­ences re­vealed de­vel­op­men­tal changes and gen­der differ­ences in pri­or­i­ties: Some gen­der differ­ences in­creased over time and in­creased more among par­ents than among child­less par­tic­i­pants, seem­ingly be­cause the moth­ers’ pri­or­i­ties changed. In Study 2, gen­der differ­ences in the grad­u­ate stu­dents’ life val­ues and per­sonal views at age 35 were com­pared with those of pro­foundly gifted par­tic­i­pants (top 1 in 10,000, iden­ti­fied by age 13 and tracked for 20 years: 265 men, 84 wom­en). Again, gen­der differ­ences were larger among par­ents. Across both co­horts, men ap­peared to as­sume a more agen­tic, ca­reer-fo­cused per­spec­tive than women did, plac­ing more im­por­tance on cre­at­ing high­-im­pact prod­ucts, re­ceiv­ing com­pen­sa­tion, tak­ing risks, and gain­ing recog­ni­tion as the best in their fields. Women ap­peared to fa­vor a more com­mu­nal, holis­tic per­spec­tive, em­pha­siz­ing com­mu­ni­ty, fam­i­ly, friend­ships, and less time de­voted to ca­reer. Gen­der differ­ences in life pri­or­i­ties, which in­ten­sify dur­ing par­ent­hood, an­tic­i­pated differ­en­tial male-fe­male rep­re­sen­ta­tion in high­-level and time-in­ten­sive ca­reers, even among tal­ented men and women with sim­i­lar pro­files of abil­i­ties, vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests, and ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences.

Lubinski 2009a

“Cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­o­gy: With em­pha­sis on un­tan­gling cog­ni­tive abil­ity and so­cioe­co­nomic sta­tus”, Lu­bin­ski 2009a:

This com­men­tary touches on prac­ti­cal, pub­lic pol­i­cy, and so­cial sci­ence do­mains in­formed by cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy while pulling to­gether com­mon themes run­ning through this im­por­tant spe­cial is­sue. As is made clear in the con­tri­bu­tions as­sem­bled here, and oth­ers (Deary, Whal­ley, & Starr, 2009; Got­tfred­son, 2004; Lu­bin­ski & Humphreys, 1992, 1997), so­cial sci­en­tists and prac­ti­tion­ers can­not afford to ne­glect cog­ni­tive abil­ity when mod­el­ing epi­demi­o­log­i­cal and health care phe­nom­e­na. How­ev­er, given the dom­i­nant con­cern about the con­found­ing of gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (GCA) and so­cioe­co­nomic sta­tus (SES), and the ex­tent to which SES is fre­quently seen as the pri­mary cause of health dis­par­i­ties (while GCA is ne­glected as a pos­si­ble in flu­ence in epi­demi­ol­ogy and health psy­chol­o­gy), some method­olog­i­cal ap­pli­ca­tions for un­tan­gling the rel­a­tive in­flu­ences of GCA and SES are re­viewed. In ad­di­tion, cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy is placed in a broader con­text: Just as cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy fa­cil­i­tates an un­der­stand­ing of pathol­ogy (“at risk” pop­u­la­tions, and ways to at­ten­u­ate un­de­sir­able per­sonal and so­cial con­di­tion­s), it may also en­rich our un­der­stand­ing of op­ti­mal func­tion­ing (“at promise” pop­u­la­tions, and ways to iden­tify and nur­ture the hu­man and so­cial cap­i­tal needed to de­velop in­no­va­tions for sav­ing lives, economies, and per­haps even our plan­et). Fi­nal­ly, while GCA is likely the most im­por­tant di­men­sion in the study of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences for mod­el­ing healthy be­hav­iors and out­comes, other rel­a­tively in­de­pen­dent di­men­sions of psy­cho­log­i­cal di­ver­sity do add value (Krueger, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000). For ex­am­ple, com­pli­ance has at least two psy­cho­log­i­cal com­po­nents: a “can do” com­pe­tency com­po­nent (a­bil­i­ty) and a “will do” mo­ti­va­tional com­po­nent (con­sci­en­tious­ness). Ul­ti­mate­ly, de­vel­op­ing and mod­el­ing healthy be­hav­iors, in­ter­per­sonal en­vi­ron­ments, and med­ical mal­adies are best ac­com­plished by team­ing mul­ti­ple di­men­sions of hu­man in­di­vid­u­al­i­ty.

Lubinski 2009b

“Ex­cep­tional Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ty: The Phe­no­type”, Lu­bin­ski 2009b:

Char­ac­ter­iz­ing the out­comes re­lated to the phe­no­type of ex­cep­tional cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties has been fea­si­ble in re­cent years due to the avail­abil­ity of large sam­ples of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied by mod­ern tal­ent searches that have been fol­lowed-up lon­gi­tu­di­nally over mul­ti­ple decades. The level and pat­tern of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, even among par­tic­i­pants within the top 1% of gen­eral in­tel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, are re­lated to differ­en­tial de­vel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries and im­por­tant life ac­com­plish­ments: The like­li­hood of earn­ing a doc­tor­ate, earn­ing ex­cep­tional com­pen­sa­tion, pub­lish­ing nov­els, se­cur­ing patents, and earn­ing tenure at a top uni­ver­sity (and the aca­d­e­mic dis­ci­plines within which tenure is most likely to oc­cur) all vary as a func­tion of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties as­sessed decades ear­li­er. In­di­vid­ual differ­ences that dis­tin­guish the able (top 1 in 100) from the ex­cep­tion­ally able (top 1 in 10,000) dur­ing early ado­les­cence mat­ter in life, and, given the her­i­tabil­ity of gen­eral in­tel­li­gence, they sug­gest that un­der­stand­ing the ge­netic and en­vi­ron­men­tal ori­gins of ex­cep­tional abil­i­ties should be a high pri­or­ity for be­hav­ior ge­netic re­search, es­pe­cially be­cause the re­sults for ex­treme groups could differ from the rest of the pop­u­la­tion. In ad­di­tion to en­hanc­ing our un­der­stand­ing of the eti­ol­ogy of gen­eral in­tel­li­gence at the ex­treme, such in­quiry may also re­veal fun­da­men­tal de­ter­mi­nants of spe­cific abil­i­ties, like math­e­mat­i­cal ver­sus ver­bal rea­son­ing, and the dis­tinc­tive phe­no­types that con­trast­ing abil­ity pat­terns are most likely to even­tu­ate in at ex­tra­or­di­nary lev­els.

Wai et al 2009

“Spa­tial Abil­ity for STEM Do­mains: Align­ing Over 50 Years of Cu­mu­la­tive Psy­cho­log­i­cal Knowl­edge So­lid­i­fies Its Im­por­tance”, Wai et al 2009:

The im­por­tance of spa­tial abil­ity in ed­u­ca­tional pur­suits and the world of work was ex­am­ined, with par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion de­voted to STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) do­mains. Par­tic­i­pants were drawn from of U.S. high schools (Grades 9–12, n = 400,000) and were tracked for 11+ years; their lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings were aligned with pre-1957 find­ings and with con­tem­po­rary data from the Grad­u­ate Record Ex­am­i­na­tion [GRE] and the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY]. For decades, spa­tial abil­ity as­sessed dur­ing ado­les­cence has sur­faced as a salient psy­cho­log­i­cal at­tribute among those ado­les­cents who sub­se­quently go on to achieve ad­vanced ed­u­ca­tional cre­den­tials and oc­cu­pa­tions in STEM. Re­sults so­lid­ify the gen­er­al­iza­tion that spa­tial abil­ity plays a crit­i­cal role in de­vel­op­ing ex­per­tise in STEM and sug­gest, among other things, that in­clud­ing spa­tial abil­ity in mod­ern tal­ent searches would iden­tify many ado­les­cents with po­ten­tial for STEM who are cur­rently be­ing missed.

Park et al 2009

“Rec­og­niz­ing Spa­tial In­tel­li­gence: Our schools, and our so­ci­ety, must do more to rec­og­nize spa­tial rea­son­ing, a key kind of in­tel­li­gence”, Park et al 2009 (Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can):

…Re­cent re­search on cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties is re­in­forc­ing what some psy­chol­o­gists sug­gested decades ago: spa­tial abil­i­ty, also known as spa­tial vi­su­al­iza­tion, plays a crit­i­cal role in en­gi­neer­ing and sci­en­tific dis­ci­plines. Yet more ver­bal­ly-loaded IQ tests, as well as many pop­u­lar stan­dard­ized tests used to­day, do not ad­e­quately mea­sure this trait, es­pe­cially in those who are most gifted with it.

A re­cent re­view, pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Ed­u­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, an­a­lyzed data from two large lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies. Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Jonathan Wai worked with two of us (Lu­bin­ski and Ben­bow) and showed how ne­glect­ing spa­tial abil­i­ties could have wide­spread con­se­quences. In both stud­ies, par­tic­i­pants’ spa­tial abil­i­ties, along with many oth­ers, were mea­sured in ado­les­cence. The par­tic­i­pants with rel­a­tively strong spa­tial abil­i­ties tended to grav­i­tate to­wards, and ex­cel in, sci­en­tific and tech­ni­cal fields such as the phys­i­cal sci­ences, en­gi­neer­ing, math­e­mat­ics, and com­puter sci­ence. Sur­pris­ing­ly, this was after ac­count­ing for quan­ti­ta­tive and ver­bal abil­i­ties, which have long been known to be pre­dic­tive of ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional out­comes. In a time when ed­u­ca­tors and pol­i­cy-mak­ers are un­der pres­sure to in­crease the num­ber stu­dents en­ter­ing these fields, in­cor­po­rat­ing knowl­edge of spa­tial abil­ity into cur­rent prac­tices in ed­u­ca­tion and tal­ent searches may be the key to im­prov­ing such efforts.

…Due to the ne­glect of spa­tial abil­ity in school cur­ric­u­la, tra­di­tional stan­dard­ized as­sess­ments, and in na­tional tal­ent search­es, those with rel­a­tive spa­tial strengths across the en­tire range of abil­ity con­sti­tute an un­der­-served pop­u­la­tion with po­ten­tial to bol­ster to the cur­rent sci­en­tific and tech­ni­cal work­force. Al­varez and Shock­ley found their way de­spite be­ing missed by the Ter­man search, and each had con­sid­er­able im­pact on tech­nol­ogy in the last cen­tu­ry. But how many more Al­varezes and Shock­leys have we missed? Given the po­ten­tial of sci­en­tific in­no­va­tions to im­prove al­most all as­pects of mod­ern life, miss­ing just one is prob­a­bly one too many.

Wai et al 2009b

“Align­ing Po­ten­tial and Pas­sion for Promise: A Model for Ed­u­cat­ing In­tel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth”, Wai et al 2009b (in ed Ren­zulli et al 2009, Sys­tems and Mod­els for De­vel­op­ing Pro­grams for the Gifted and Tal­ented (Sec­ond Edi­tion)):

For effec­tive in­ter­ven­tions and pro­grams for the in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented to be op­ti­mally de­vel­oped and im­ple­ment­ed, ed­u­ca­tors first need to re­al­ize what is im­por­tant to un­der­stand for all stu­dents, name­ly, the na­ture and scope of their psy­cho­log­i­cal di­ver­si­ty-or, their In­di­vid­u­al­ity, the ti­tle of E. L. Thorndike’s (1911) land­mark es­say, from which an ap­pre­ci­a­tion of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences was ush­ered into Amer­i­can psy­chol­ogy (Daw­is, 1992). In essence, pro­gram de­sign should align op­por­tu­ni­ties to learn with each stu­den­t’s in­di­vid­ual char­ac­ter­is­tics (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000, 2006). Or, stated an­other way, it should merge an in­di­vid­u­al’s po­ten­tial (a­bil­i­ties) and pas­sion (pref­er­ences) with ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences tai­lored to each stu­den­t’s unique promise (readi­ness to learn). Per­sonal promise for differ­en­tial de­vel­op­ment em­a­nat­ing from con­stel­la­tions of con­trast­ing abil­i­ty/pref­er­ence pat­terns is ex­pressed in syn­thetic con­cepts such as “trait clus­ters” (Ack­er­man, 1996), “ap­ti­tude com­plexes” (Corno, et al., 2002; Snow, 1991), and “tax­ons” (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). The ba­sic idea is that know­ing what a per­son can do (a­bil­i­ties or ca­pa­bil­i­ties) is only one part of the equa­tion; an­other im­por­tant com­po­nent is know­ing what he/she will do or would like to do (viz., in­ter­ests, needs, and val­ues)…The lon­gi­tu­di­nal data we will draw on to sup­port our model stems pri­mar­ily from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Steenbergen-Hu 2009

“The effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers: A meta-analy­sis”, Steen­ber­gen-Hu 2009 (the­sis):

Cur­rent em­pir­i­cal re­search find­ings about the effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment and so­cial-e­mo­tional de­vel­op­ment were syn­the­sized us­ing meta-an­a­lytic tech­niques. A to­tal of 38 pri­mary stud­ies con­ducted be­tween 1984 and 2008 were in­clud­ed. The in­cluded stud­ies were closely ex­am­ined to en­sure that ac­cel­er­ated high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers were com­pared with ap­pro­pri­ate com­par­i­son groups. Hedges’s g was used as the pri­mary effect size in­dex. Analy­ses were per­formed us­ing ran­dom effects mod­els, which as­sume that the effects vary across differ­ent con­texts, in­ter­ven­tion con­di­tions, and/or sub­jects. The over­all effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion were an­a­lyzed first. Then, the re­sults were bro­ken down by de­vel­op­men­tal lev­els (P-12 and post-sec­ondary) and com­par­i­son groups (whether ac­cel­er­ants were com­pared with same age, older age, or mixed-age peer­s). In ad­di­tion, analy­ses were con­ducted to iden­tify po­ten­tial mod­er­a­tors of the effects. Re­sults were in­ter­preted in terms of prac­ti­cal sig­nifi­cance and were also com­pared with those from rel­e­vant pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies.

In terms of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects, the find­ings from this meta-analy­sis are con­sis­tent with the con­clu­sions from pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, sug­gest­ing that ac­cel­er­a­tion had a pos­i­tive im­pact on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers. When the aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects were sorted by de­vel­op­men­tal lev­els, pos­i­tive effects were found at both lev­els. The sub­-group of ‘with same age peers’ con­sis­tently showed a pos­i­tive effect on aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment that were higher than the other sub­groups, sug­gest­ing that the effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion may be more dis­cernible when ac­cel­er­ated high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers are com­pared with their non-ac­cel­er­ated same age peers. Fur­ther­more, ac­cel­er­a­tion du­ra­tion and sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis were iden­ti­fied as mod­er­a­tors of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects.

The effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ so­cial-e­mo­tional de­vel­op­ment ap­peared to be slightly pos­i­tive, al­though the pos­i­tive effect was not as strong as for aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. How­ev­er, com­pared to prior meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, a more pos­i­tive im­pres­sion of the effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on so­cial-e­mo­tional de­vel­op­ment was found.

Steenbergen-Hu & Moon 2010

“The Effects of Ac­cel­er­a­tion on High­-A­bil­ity Learn­ers: A Meta-Analy­sis”, Steen­ber­gen-Hu & Moon 2010 (pa­per ver­sion of Steen­ber­gen-Hu 2009 the­sis):

Cur­rent em­pir­i­cal re­search about the effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment and so­cial- emo­tional de­vel­op­ment were syn­the­sized us­ing meta-an­a­lytic tech­niques. A to­tal of 38 pri­mary stud­ies con­ducted be­tween 1984 and 2008 were in­clud­ed. The re­sults were bro­ken down by de­vel­op­men­tal level (P-12 and post-sec­ondary) and com­par­i­son group (whether the ac­cel­er­ants were com­pared with same-age, old­er, or mixed-age peer­s). The find­ings are con­sis­tent with the con­clu­sions from pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, sug­gest­ing that ac­cel­er­a­tion had a pos­i­tive im­pact on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment (g = 0.180, 95% CI = -0.072, 0.431, un­der a ran­dom-effects mod­el). In ad­di­tion, the so­cial-e­mo­tional de­vel­op­ment effects ap­peared to be slightly pos­i­tive (g = 0.076, 95% CI = -0.025, 0.176, un­der a ran­dom-effects mod­el), al­though not as strong as for aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. No strong ev­i­dence re­gard­ing the mod­er­a­tors of the effects was found.

Putting the Re­search to Use: The find­ings of this meta-analy­sis sug­gest that ac­cel­er­a­tion in­flu­ences high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers in pos­i­tive ways, es­pe­cially on aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. An im­por­tant mes­sage for ed­u­ca­tors, par­ents and stu­dents is that high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers can ben­e­fit from ac­cel­er­a­tion both in the short­-term and in the long run. Specifi­cal­ly, ac­cel­er­ated stu­dents tend to out­per­form stu­dents who are not ac­cel­er­ated in their per­for­mance on stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests, col­lege grades, de­grees ob­tained, sta­tus of uni­ver­si­ties or col­leges at­tend­ed, and ca­reer sta­tus. Ac­cel­er­ants equal or sur­pass non-ac­cel­er­ants in self­-con­cept, self­-es­teem, self­-con­fi­dence, so­cial re­la­tion­ships, par­tic­i­pa­tion in ex­tracur­ric­u­lar ac­tiv­i­ties, and life sat­is­fac­tion. It is in­for­ma­tive for pol­i­cy-mak­ers that ac­cel­er­a­tion pro­grams, es­pe­cially uni­ver­si­ty-based early col­lege en­trance pro­grams, have been fre­quently as­sessed and ap­pear to be the most effec­tive. In sum­ma­ry, ac­cel­er­a­tion can be effec­tive both in K-12 ed­u­ca­tion and in col­lege. Par­ents are en­cour­aged to con­sider ac­cel­er­a­tion for their aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented chil­dren and ed­u­ca­tors are en­cour­aged to make ac­cel­er­a­tion op­tions avail­able.

2010

Henshon 2010

“Tal­ent Sleuth Ex­tra­or­di­naire: An In­ter­view With Camilla P. Ben­bow”, Hen­shon 2010

Lubinski 2010

“Spa­tial abil­ity and STEM: A sleep­ing gi­ant for tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment”, Lu­bin­ski 2010:

Spa­tial abil­ity is a pow­er­ful sys­tem­atic source of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences that has been ne­glected in com­plex learn­ing and work set­tings; it has also been ne­glected in mod­el­ing the de­vel­op­ment of ex­per­tise and cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments. Nev­er­the­less, over 50 years of lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search doc­u­ments the im­por­tant role that spa­tial abil­ity plays in ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional set­tings wherein so­phis­ti­cated rea­son­ing with fig­ures, pat­terns, and shapes is es­sen­tial. Given the con­tem­po­rary push for de­vel­op­ing STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) tal­ent in the in­for­ma­tion age, an op­por­tu­nity is avail­able to high­light the psy­cho­log­i­cal sig­nifi­cance of spa­tial abil­i­ty. Do­ing so is likely to in­form re­search on ap­ti­tude-by-treat­ment in­ter­ac­tions and Un­der­wood’s (1975) idea to uti­lize in­di­vid­ual differ­ences as a cru­cible for the­ory con­struc­tion. In­cor­po­rat­ing spa­tial abil­ity in tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures for ad­vanced learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties un­cov­ers an un­der­-u­ti­lized pool of tal­ent for meet­ing the com­plex needs of an ever-grow­ing tech­no­log­i­cal world; fur­ther­more, se­lect­ing stu­dents for ad­vanced learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties in STEM with­out con­sid­er­ing spa­tial abil­ity might be ia­tro­genic.

Robertson et al 2010

“Be­yond the thresh­old hy­poth­e­sis: Even among the gifted and top math­/­science grad­u­ate stu­dents, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests, and lifestyle pref­er­ences mat­ter for ca­reer choice, per­for­mance, and per­sis­tence”, Robert­son et al 2010:

The as­ser­tion that abil­ity differ­ences no longer mat­ter be­yond a cer­tain thresh­old is in­ac­cu­rate. Among young ado­les­cents in the top 1% of quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity level and in spe­cific cog­ni­tive abil­ity pat­tern (that is, the re­la­tion­ships among an in­di­vid­u­al’s math, ver­bal, and spa­tial abil­i­ties) lead to differ­ences in ed­u­ca­tion­al, oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes decades lat­er. Whereas abil­ity level pre­dicts the level of achieve­ment, abil­ity pat­tern pre­dicts the realm of achieve­ment. Adding in­for­ma­tion on vo­ca­tional in­ter­ests re­fines pre­dic­tion of ed­u­ca­tional and ca­reer choic­es. Fi­nal­ly, lifestyle pref­er­ences rel­e­vant to ca­reer choice, per­for­mance, and per­sis­tence often change be­tween ages 25 and 35. This change re­sults in sex differ­ences in pref­er­ences, which likely have rel­e­vance for un­der­stand­ing the un­der­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women in ca­reers that de­mand more than ful­l-time (40 hours per week) com­mit­ment.

Fig. 1. Ac­com­plish­ments across in­di­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity 25+ years after iden­ti­fi­ca­tion at age 13. Par­tic­i­pants from Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) Co­horts 1, 2, and 3 (N = 2,385) are sep­a­rated into quar­tiles based on their age-13 SAT-M score. The quar­tiles are plot­ted along the x-axis by their mean SAT-M score. The cut­off for a score in the top 1% of cog­ni­tive abil­ity was 390, and the max­i­mum pos­si­ble score was 800. Odds ra­tios (OR) com­par­ing the odds of each out­come in the top (Q4) and bot­tom (Q1) SAT-M quar­tiles are dis­played at the end of every re­spec­tive cri­te­rion line. An as­ter­isk in­di­cates that the odds of the out­come in Q4 was sig­nifi­cantly greater than in Q1. STEM=science, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, or math­e­mat­ics. STEM Tenure (Top 50)=tenure in a STEM field at a U.S. uni­ver­sity ranked in the top 50 by U.S. News and World Re­port’s “Amer­i­ca’s Best Col­leges 2007”. Adapted in part from Park, Lu­bin­ski, and Ben­bow (2007, 2008).

Wai et al 2010

“Ac­com­plish­ment in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) and its re­la­tion to STEM ed­u­ca­tional dose: A 25-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Wai et al 2010:

Two stud­ies ex­am­ined the re­la­tion­ship be­tween pre­c­ol­le­giate ad­vanced/en­riched ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences and adult ac­com­plish­ments in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM). In Study 1, 1,467 13-year-olds were iden­ti­fied as math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented on the ba­sis of scores ≥ 500 (top 0.5%) on the math sec­tion of the Scholas­tic As­sess­ment Test; sub­se­quent­ly, their de­vel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries were stud­ied over 25 years. Par­tic­u­lar at­ten­tion was paid to high­-level STEM ac­com­plish­ments with low base rates in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion (STEM PhDs, STEM pub­li­ca­tions, STEM tenure, STEM patents, and STEM oc­cu­pa­tion­s). Study 2 ret­ro­spec­tively pro­filed the ado­les­cent ad­vanced/en­riched ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences of 714 top STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents (mean age = 25), and re­lated these ex­pe­ri­ences to their STEM ac­com­plish­ments up to age 35. In both lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies, those with no­table STEM ac­com­plish­ments man­i­fested past his­to­ries in­volv­ing a richer den­sity of ad­vanced pre­c­ol­le­giate ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties in STEM (a higher “STEM dose”) than less highly achiev­ing mem­bers of their re­spec­tive co­horts. While both stud­ies are qua­si­-ex­per­i­men­tal, they sug­gest that for math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and aca­d­e­m­i­cally mo­ti­vated young ado­les­cents, STEM ac­com­plish­ments are fa­cil­i­tated by a rich mix of pre­c­ol­le­giate STEM ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties that are de­signed to be in­tel­lec­tu­ally chal­leng­ing, even for stu­dents at pre­co­cious de­vel­op­men­tal lev­els. These op­por­tu­ni­ties ap­pear to be uni­formly im­por­tant for both sex­es.

Hunt 2011

Hu­man In­tel­li­gence, Hunt 2011 (ISBN 978-0-521-88162-3). Text­book: chap­ter 10, “What Use Is In­tel­li­gence?” (re­views SMPY along with other rel­e­vant demon­stra­tions of pre­dic­tive va­lid­ity of IQ like Ter­man, Project 100,000, and the ASVAB Mis­norm­ing)

Touron & Touron 2011

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Mod­el: A Re­view of the Lit­er­a­ture”, Tourón & Tourón 2011:

This pa­per re­views the lit­er­a­ture on the Tal­ent Search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model that was de­vel­oped by Ju­lian Stan­ley as the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth at Johns Hop­kins in the 1970s and im­ple­mented by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth from the early 1980s through to the pre­sent. Other uni­ver­si­ties in the United States have also adopted this model for tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment, and it has been adapted for use in other coun­tries. To date, more than 3.5 mil­lion stu­dents have par­tic­i­pated in Tal­ent Search as­sess­ments, and hun­dreds of thou­sands of stu­dents have en­rolled in spe­cial­ized aca­d­e­mic pro­grams for able learn­ers. Here we an­a­lyze the mod­el’s found­ing prin­ci­ples, its uni­ver­sal char­ac­ter­is­tics, and its ap­pli­ca­tion and func­tion­ing in Spain. We con­clude with some re­flec­tions about what we have learned and what could be done world­wide.

Touron & Touron 2016

“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of Ver­bal and Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: The Rel­e­vance of ‘Out of Level’ Mea­sure­ment”, Tourón & Tourón 2016:

This study has two main ob­jec­tives. First one to carry out a con­cep­tual re­view of the lit­er­a­ture to­gether with the work done in Spain by the au­thors about the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model known in the in­ter­na­tional lit­er­a­ture as Tal­ent Search model or con­cept. This model cre­ated by J. C. Stan­ley in the early 70s has led to a huge de­vel­op­ment in the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ver­bal and math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent of young peo­ple, in or­der to pro­vide the ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tional pro­vi­sion their abil­ity needs. Far from be­ing an Amer­i­can mod­el, in this pa­per we show, and this is the sec­ond ob­jec­tive, through data from sev­eral years of im­ple­men­ta­tion of the model in Spain, that it can be con­sid­ered a uni­ver­sal mod­el, based among oth­ers in the prin­ci­ple of above or out of level mea­sure­ment. Us­ing this above level mea­sure­ment, we can ad­e­quately dis­crim­i­nate the di­verse abil­ity of the stu­dents test­ed, that when mea­sured alone with in level test­ing, is masked due to lack diffi­culty and dis­crim­i­na­tion of the tests used. Some sug­ges­tions for large-s­cale use of these pro­ce­dures in schools are pro­vid­ed.

Benbow 2012

“Iden­ti­fy­ing and Nur­tur­ing Fu­ture In­no­va­tors in Sci­ence, Tech­nol­o­gy, En­gi­neer­ing, and Math­e­mat­ics: A Re­view of Find­ings From the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Ben­bow 2012:

Calls to strengthen ed­u­ca­tion in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) are un­der­scored by em­ploy­ment trends and the im­por­tance of STEM in­no­va­tion for the econ­o­my. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has been track­ing over 5,000 tal­ented in­di­vid­u­als lon­gi­tu­di­nally for 40 years, throw­ing light on crit­i­cal ques­tions in tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment in STEM. SMPY in­cludes in­di­vid­u­als iden­ti­fied in 7th/8th grade as in the top 1% or higher in math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal abil­i­ty, and a com­par­i­son group iden­ti­fied as top STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents. SMPY find­ings cover the ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional at­tain­ments of par­tic­i­pants, in­clud­ing a large per­cent­age earn­ing a de­gree or pur­su­ing high pow­ered ca­reers in STEM; gen­der differ­ences; the ex­tent to which high school ex­pe­ri­ences, abil­i­ties, and in­ter­ests pre­dict later out­comes; and sub­se­quent cre­ative pro­duc­tion. Math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity as mea­sured by stan­dard­ized tests is a re­li­able pre­dic­tor for later math­/­science en­gage­ment and achieve­ment in adult­hood, and spa­tial abil­ity adds pre­dic­tive val­ue. Ex­po­sure to ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties do cor­re­late with ca­reer achieve­ment and cre­ative pro­duc­tion. SMPY re­searchers have con­cluded that po­ten­tial fu­ture STEM in­no­va­tors can be iden­ti­fied early and that ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions can in­crease their chances of suc­cess.

Kell & Lubinski 2013

“Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: A Ne­glected Tal­ent in Ed­u­ca­tional and Oc­cu­pa­tional Set­tings”, Kell & Lu­bin­ski 2013 (re­view):

For over 60 years, lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search on tens of thou­sands of high abil­ity and in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth has con­sis­tently re­vealed the im­por­tance of spa­tial abil­ity for hand­s-on cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments and the de­vel­op­ment of ex­per­tise in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­i­cal (STEM) dis­ci­plines. Yet, in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in spa­tial abil­ity are sel­dom as­sessed for ed­u­ca­tional coun­sel­ing and se­lec­tion. Stu­dents es­pe­cially tal­ented in spa­tial vi­su­al­iza­tion rel­a­tive to their sta­tus on math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing are par­tic­u­larly likely to be un­der­served by our ed­u­ca­tional in­sti­tu­tions. Ev­i­dence for the im­por­tance of as­sess­ing spa­tial abil­ity is re­viewed and ways to uti­lize in­for­ma­tion about in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in this at­tribute in learn­ing and work set­tings are offered. The lit­er­a­ture re­viewed stresses the im­por­tance of spa­tial abil­ity in re­al-world set­tings and con­sti­tutes a rare in­stance in the so­cial sci­ences where more re­search is not need­ed. What is needed is the in­cor­po­ra­tion of spa­tial abil­ity into tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures and re­search on cur­ricu­lum de­vel­op­ment and train­ing, along with other cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties har­bor­ing differ­en­tial—and in­cre­men­tal—­va­lid­ity for so­cially val­ued out­comes be­yond IQ (or, g, gen­eral in­tel­li­gence).

Kell et al 2013a

, Kell et al 2013a:

Youth iden­ti­fied be­fore age 13 (n = 320) as hav­ing pro­found math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked for nearly three decades. Their awards and cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments by age 38, in com­bi­na­tion with spe­cific de­tails about their oc­cu­pa­tional re­spon­si­bil­i­ties, il­lu­mi­nate the mag­ni­tude of their con­tri­bu­tion and pro­fes­sional stature. Many have been en­trusted with oblig­a­tions and re­sources for mak­ing crit­i­cal de­ci­sions about in­di­vid­ual and or­ga­ni­za­tional well-be­ing. Their lead­er­ship po­si­tions in busi­ness, health care, law, the pro­fes­so­ri­ate, and STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) sug­gest that many are out­stand­ing cre­ators of mod­ern cul­ture, con­sti­tut­ing a pre­cious hu­man-cap­i­tal re­source. Iden­ti­fy­ing truly pro­found hu­man po­ten­tial, and fore­cast­ing differ­en­tial de­vel­op­ment within such pop­u­la­tions, re­quires as­sess­ing mul­ti­ple cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties and us­ing atyp­i­cal mea­sure­ment pro­ce­dures. This study il­lus­trates how ul­ti­mate cri­te­ria may be ag­gre­gated and lon­gi­tu­di­nally se­quenced to val­i­date such mea­sures.

Kell et al 2013b

“Cre­ativ­ity and Tech­ni­cal In­no­va­tion: Spa­tial Abil­i­ty’s Unique Role”, Kell et al 2013b:

In the late 1970s, 563 in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds (i­den­ti­fied by the SAT as in the top 0.5% of abil­i­ty) were as­sessed on spa­tial abil­i­ty. More than 30 years lat­er, the present study eval­u­ated whether spa­tial abil­ity pro­vided in­cre­men­tal va­lid­ity (be­yond the SAT’s math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing sub­tests) for differ­en­tially pre­dict­ing which of these in­di­vid­u­als had patents and three classes of ref­er­eed pub­li­ca­tions. A two-step dis­crim­i­nan­t-func­tion analy­sis re­vealed that the SAT sub­tests jointly ac­counted for 10.8% of the vari­ance among these out­comes (p < 0.01); when spa­tial abil­ity was added, an ad­di­tional 7.6% was ac­counted for—a sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant in­crease (p < 0.01). The find­ings in­di­cate that spa­tial abil­ity has a unique role in the de­vel­op­ment of cre­ativ­i­ty, be­yond the roles played by the abil­i­ties tra­di­tion­ally mea­sured in ed­u­ca­tional se­lec­tion, coun­sel­ing, and in­dus­tri­al-or­ga­ni­za­tional psy­chol­o­gy. Spa­tial abil­ity plays a key and unique role in struc­tur­ing many im­por­tant psy­cho­log­i­cal phe­nom­ena and should be ex­am­ined more broadly across the ap­plied and ba­sic psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ences.

Park et al 2013

“When less is more: Effects of grade skip­ping on adult STEM pro­duc­tiv­ity among math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents”, Park et al 2013:

Us­ing data from a 40-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study, the au­thors ex­am­ined 3 re­lated hy­pothe­ses about the effects of grade skip­ping on fu­ture ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional out­comes in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM). From a com­bined sam­ple of 3,467 math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents (top 1%), a com­bi­na­tion of ex­act and propen­sity score match­ing was used to cre­ate bal­anced com­par­i­son groups of 363 grade skip­pers and 657 matched con­trols. Re­sults sug­gest that grade skip­pers (a) were more likely to pur­sue ad­vanced de­grees in STEM and au­thor peer-re­viewed pub­li­ca­tions in STEM, (b) earned their de­grees and au­thored their 1st pub­li­ca­tion ear­lier, and (c) ac­crued more to­tal ci­ta­tions and highly cited pub­li­ca­tions by age 50 years. These pat­terns were con­sis­tent among male par­tic­i­pants but less so among fe­male par­tic­i­pants (who had a greater ten­dency to pur­sue ad­vanced de­grees in med­i­cine or law). Find­ings sug­gest that grade skip­ping may en­hance STEM ac­com­plish­ments among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented

Nature 2013

“Chi­nese project probes the ge­net­ics of ge­nius: Bid to un­ravel the se­crets of brain­power faces scep­ti­cism”, Ed Yong, 2013-05-14

The US ado­les­cents who signed up for the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) in the 1970s were the smartest of the smart, with math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal-rea­son­ing skills within the top 1% of the pop­u­la­tion. Now, re­searchers at BGI (formerly the Bei­jing Ge­nomics In­sti­tute) in Shen­zhen, Chi­na, the largest gene-se­quenc­ing fa­cil­ity in the world, are search­ing for the quirks of DNA that may con­tribute to such gifts. Plung­ing into an area that is lit­tered with fail­ures and riven with con­tro­ver­sy, the re­searchers are scour­ing the genomes of 1,600 of these high­-fliers in an am­bi­tious project to find the first com­mon ge­netic vari­ants as­so­ci­ated with hu­man in­tel­li­gence.

…After this, Plomin switched his strat­egy to fo­cus on only the bright­est minds. He col­lected DNA sam­ples from 2,000 of the SMPY’s re­cruits, whose av­er­age IQ is above 150—­sur­pass­ing the av­er­age of No­bel lau­re­ates and putting them three stan­dard de­vi­a­tions above the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion’s mean score of 100. “In the ear­lier study, I bet we did­n’t have more than two or three peo­ple with an IQ that high,” says Plom­in, who has been study­ing the her­i­tabil­ity of in­tel­li­gence since the 1970s.

…Then he [Steve Hsu] heard about Plom­in’s sam­ple. The two struck up a part­ner­ship: Plomin sup­plied DNA sam­ples from 1,600 SMPY re­cruits, and Hsu added sam­ples from more than 500 peo­ple re­cruit­ed—al­beit less se­lec­tive­ly—through his web­site…

[The sum­mary here seems to be in­cor­rect. Plom­in’s work here was ul­ti­mately pub­lished as Spain et al 2016 (the BGI work re­mains un­pub­lished, re­port­edly due to in­ter­nal dis­ar­ray); as men­tioned pre­vi­ous­ly, no spe­cial rare mu­ta­tions con­fer­ring rel­a­tively large in­creases in in­tel­li­gence were found, al­though of course the ex­treme/­case-con­trol de­sign offers rel­a­tively high power for such a small n. Spain et al 2016, how­ev­er, is ex­plicit about the high­-IQ sam­ple be­ing from Duke TIP, de­spite the claim here that it was com­ing from SMPY.

An SMPYer I spoke with did not re­mem­ber any re­cruit­ing around 2013, and de­scribes the co­hort as be­ing “alumni of gifted pro­grams sim­i­lar to SMPY who tested at the 1 in 10k level be­fore age 13 (DNA sam­ples ob­tained by lead­ing be­hav­ior ge­neti­cist Robert Plomin of King’s Col­lege Lon­don us­ing funds from the Tem­ple­ton Foun­da­tion)” (em­pha­sis added). I asked Steve Hsu in Sep­tem­ber 2018 about the dis­crep­ancy and he be­lieves “the ref­er­ences to 2k SMPY were re­ally to the TIP sam­ples” so pre­sum­ably he mis­spoke or pos­si­bly Yong mis­un­der­stood a com­par­i­son of the TIP sam­ple to SMPY.]

Stumpf et al 2013

“Ex­pand­ing tal­ent search pro­ce­dures by in­clud­ing mea­sures of spa­tial abil­i­ty: CTY’s spa­tial test bat­tery”, Stumpf et al 2013:

The im­por­tance of spa­tial abil­ity for suc­cess in a va­ri­ety of do­mains, par­tic­u­larly in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM), is widely ac­knowl­edged. Yet, stu­dents with high spa­tial abil­ity are rarely iden­ti­fied, as Tal­ent Searches for aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents fo­cus on iden­ti­fy­ing high math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ties. Con­se­quent­ly, stu­dents with high spa­tial abil­i­ties who do not also have high math or ver­bal abil­i­ties may not qual­i­fy. In an effort to iden­tify stu­dents with spa­tial tal­ent, the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth de­vel­oped a Spa­tial Test Bat­tery to sup­ple­ment its math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal Tal­ent Search­es. This ar­ti­cle traces the de­vel­op­ment of the bat­tery; de­scribes its com­po­nents, im­por­tant psy­cho­me­t­ric prop­er­ties, and con­tin­u­ing de­vel­op­ment; and en­cour­ages its use by re­searchers and ed­u­ca­tors in­ter­ested in de­vel­op­ing spa­tial tal­ent.

Beattie 2014

“Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Beat­tie 2014; en­try in En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Spe­cial Ed­u­ca­tion: A Ref­er­ence for the Ed­u­ca­tion of Chil­dren, Ado­les­cents, and Adults with Dis­abil­i­ties and Other Ex­cep­tional In­di­vid­u­als (ISBN 9781118660584)

Brody & Muratori 2014

“Early en­trance to col­lege: Aca­d­e­mic, so­cial, and emo­tional con­sid­er­a­tions”, Brody & Mu­ra­tori 2014 (from : Ev­i­dence Trumps the Ex­cuses Hold­ing Back Amer­i­ca’s Bright­est Stu­dents, Vol­ume 2, ed As­souline et al 2014):

As one of many ac­cel­er­a­tive op­tions avail­able to­day, early col­lege en­trance pro­vides some young stu­dents who are ready for the de­mands of col­lege early with the unique op­por­tu­nity to move for­ward in their ed­u­ca­tional tra­jec­to­ries one, two, or even more years sooner than most of their age peers. Early col­lege en­trance has in­creased in pop­u­lar­ity among high school stu­dents in search of greater chal­lenge, as ev­i­denced by the up­surge in early col­lege en­trance pro­grams in the United States. This chap­ter pro­vides an his­tor­i­cal overview of early col­lege en­trance and de­scribes the widely vary­ing pro­gram mod­els be­ing im­ple­mented to­day. Re­search find­ings high­light­ing both aca­d­e­mic and so­cial/e­mo­tional out­comes of early en­trants and the im­pli­ca­tions of this re­search for ed­u­ca­tors are pre­sented

Lubinski et al 2014

“Life Paths and Ac­com­plish­ments of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Males and Fe­males Four Decades Later”, Lu­bin­ski et al 2014:

Two co­horts of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds were iden­ti­fied in the 1970s (1972–1974 and 1976–1978) as be­ing in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (1,037 males, 613 fe­males). About four decades lat­er, data on their ca­reers, ac­com­plish­ments, psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing, fam­i­lies, and life pref­er­ences and pri­or­i­ties were col­lect­ed. Their ac­com­plish­ments far ex­ceeded base-rate ex­pec­ta­tions: Across the two co­horts, 4.1% had earned tenure at a ma­jor re­search uni­ver­si­ty, 2.3% were top ex­ec­u­tives at “name brand” or For­tune 500 com­pa­nies, and 2.4% were at­tor­neys at ma­jor firms or or­ga­ni­za­tions; par­tic­i­pants had pub­lished 85 books and 7,572 ref­er­eed ar­ti­cles, se­cured 681 patents, and amassed $440$3582014 mil­lion in grants. For both males and fe­males, math­e­mat­i­cal pre­coc­ity early in life pre­dicts later cre­ative con­tri­bu­tions and lead­er­ship in crit­i­cal oc­cu­pa­tional roles. On av­er­age, males had in­comes much greater than their spous­es’, whereas fe­males had in­comes slightly lower than their spous­es’. Salient sex differ­ences that par­al­leled the differ­en­tial ca­reer out­comes of the male and fe­male par­tic­i­pants were found in lifestyle pref­er­ences and pri­or­i­ties and in time al­lo­ca­tion.

Boston Globe 2014

“The poor ne­glected gifted child: Pre­co­cious kids do seem to be­come high­-achiev­ing adults. Why that makes some ed­u­ca­tors wor­ried about Amer­i­ca’s fu­ture”:

[dis­cus­sion of SMPY and Lu­bin­ski et al 2014, fo­cus­ing on how the screen­ing process still misses chil­dren and gen­eral ne­glect of gifted & tal­ented ed­u­ca­tion.]

Kell & Lubinski 2014

“The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth at Ma­tu­ri­ty: In­sights into El­e­ments of Ge­nius”, Kell & Lu­bin­ski 2014 in The Wi­ley Hand­book of Ge­nius, ed Si­mon­ton 2014 (ISBN 9781118367377)4:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was founded in 1971 as a means of iden­ti­fy­ing and nur­tur­ing in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious young ado­les­cents. SMPY’s old­est of five co­horts are now in their early 50s. This chap­ter re­views lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings based on over 5,000 par­tic­i­pants SMPY is cur­rently track­ing to as­cer­tain the many differ­ent ways in which in­tel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity may un­fold, whether ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions are help­ful, and the per­sonal char­ac­ter­is­tics of those who be­come em­i­nent ver­sus those who do not. A model of tal­ent de­vel­op­ment is pre­sent­ed, which or­ga­nizes crit­i­cal cog­ni­tive, affec­tive, and cona­tive de­ter­mi­nants of ex­cep­tional achieve­ment. We de­scribe these char­ac­ter­is­tics in terms of iden­ti­fy­ing pop­u­la­tions at promise for mak­ing out­stand­ing cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments, as we be­lieve do­ing so affords in­sight into the de­vel­op­ment of per­for­mances ap­proach­ing, if not de­not­ing, “ge­nius”.

Wai 2014a

“Ex­perts are born, then made: Com­bin­ing prospec­tive and ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data shows that cog­ni­tive abil­ity mat­ters”, Wai 2014a:

Does cog­ni­tive abil­ity mat­ter in the de­vel­op­ment of ex­per­tise in ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional do­mains? Study 1 re­viewed prospec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data from the top 1% in abil­ity within two co­horts of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY; To­tal N = 1975) and ex­am­ined four co­horts of a strat­i­fied ran­dom sam­ple of Amer­i­ca’s pop­u­la­tion (Pro­ject Tal­ent; To­tal N = 1536) to see whether abil­ity differ­ences at a younger age made a differ­ence in the at­tain­ment of a higher per­cent­age of ed­u­ca­tional de­grees and specifi­cally doc­tor­ates (e.g., JDs, MDs, or PhDs) at a later age. Com­pared to the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion, the top 1% in abil­ity earned a much higher per­cent­age of ed­u­ca­tional de­grees at each lev­el. And even within the top 1% of abil­i­ty, abil­ity differ­ences made a differ­ence in ob­tain­ing a doc­tor­ate de­gree. Study 2 re­viewed ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data from five groups of Amer­i­ca’s elite (To­tal N = 2254)—­For­tune 500 CEOs, fed­eral judges, bil­lion­aires, Sen­a­tors, and mem­bers of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives—to de­ter­mine what per­cent­age of each group was in the top 1% of gen­eral abil­ity at a younger age. A large per­cent­age of in­di­vid­u­als within each of these ar­eas of oc­cu­pa­tional ex­per­tise were found to be in the top 1% of abil­i­ty. By com­bin­ing mul­ti­ple sam­ples of both prospec­tive and ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data, cog­ni­tive abil­ity was found to mat­ter in the ac­qui­si­tion of ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional ex­per­tise.

Wai 2014b

“Long-Term Effects of Ed­u­ca­tional Ac­cel­er­a­tion”, Wai 2014b (from A Na­tion Em­pow­ered: Ev­i­dence Trumps the Ex­cuses Hold­ing Back Amer­i­ca’s Bright­est Stu­dents, Vol­ume 2; not to be con­fused with Lu­bin­ski 2004b’s pa­per of the same ti­tle in the 2004 pre­quel book, A Na­tion De­ceived):

Ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tion comes in many forms. Ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion is an im­por­tant class of in­ter­ven­tions that com­prise the ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tional dose for an in­di­vid­ual. Dosage im­plies that one spe­cific in­ter­ven­tion may not be as rel­e­vant as the right mix, num­ber, and in­ten­sity of ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions for any given per­son. This chap­ter re­views find­ings from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of thou­sands of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents fol­lowed for many decades to the pre­sent. The long-term ed­u­ca­tion­al-oc­cu­pa­tional im­pact and pos­i­tive sub­jec­tive im­pres­sions about ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion from aca­d­e­m­i­cally ad­vanced par­tic­i­pants re­ported in these stud­ies sup­ports the im­por­tance of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion and, more broad­ly, an ap­pro­pri­ate ed­u­ca­tional dose. The lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search find­ings re­veal that an ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram de­signed to move stu­dents at a pace com­men­su­rate with their rate of learn­ing is ed­u­ca­tion­ally ap­pro­pri­ate and nec­es­sary. Ex­cep­tion­ally tal­ented stu­dents ben­e­fit from ac­cel­er­a­tive learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties, have few re­grets about their ac­cel­er­a­tion, and demon­strate ex­cep­tional achieve­ments. What mat­ters for each stu­dent is a con­sis­tent and suffi­cient ed­u­ca­tional dose across a long span of time, what we think of as life-long learn­ing, or learn­ing at a pace and in­ten­sity that matches a stu­den­t’s in­di­vid­ual needs. All stu­dents de­serve to learn some­thing new each day, and if aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents de­sire to be ac­cel­er­ated and are ready for it, the long-term ev­i­dence clearly sup­ports the in­ter­ven­tion.

Brody 2015

“The Ju­lian C. Stan­ley Study of Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent: A Per­son­al­ized Ap­proach to Meet­ing the Needs of High Abil­ity Stu­dents”, Brody 2015 (note: pa­per is in Span­ish):

Typ­i­cal school pro­grams that are de­signed for av­er­age stu­dents, as well as pro­grams for gifted stu­dents that do not ad­dress their unique char­ac­ter­is­tics, fail to meet the aca­d­e­mic and per­sonal needs of most ad­vanced learn­ers. In de­vel­op­ing an ap­pro­pri­ately chal­leng­ing pro­gram to meet their in­di­vid­ual needs, each stu­den­t’s spe­cific pat­tern of abil­i­ties, achieve­ment lev­els, in­ter­ests, mo­ti­va­tion, and other per­sonal traits should be con­sid­ered, along with a wide a va­ri­ety of ed­u­ca­tional strate­gies and pro­grams in- and out­-of-school. The level and pace of in­struc­tion should be ad­justed as need­ed, stu­dents should have op­por­tu­ni­ties to probe top­ics of in­ter­est in depth, and pro­vi­sion should be made for them to in­ter­act with peers who share their in­ter­ests and abil­i­ties. This per­son­al­ized ap­proach to meet­ing the aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial needs of ex­cep­tion­ally ad­vanced stu­dents has long been suc­cess­fully em­ployed by staff at the Study of Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent (SET) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, as well as its pre­de­ces­sor the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). With a re­newed in­ter­est to­day in per­son­al­ized learn­ing, there is an op­por­tu­nity to in­sti­tu­tion­al­ize this ap­proach more wide­ly. How­ev­er, stu­dents need in­for­ma­tion and rec­om­men­da­tions from knowl­edge­able adults about pro­grams that will de­velop their tal­ents; schools must be flex­i­ble and will­ing to mod­ify their cur­ric­ula and to grant credit for work done out­side of school; and fi­nan­cial bar­ri­ers that might limit ac­cess to out­-of-school pro­grams need to be ad­dressed.

In ad­di­tion, in­formed de­ci­sions are often helped by as­sess­ment, es­pe­cially above-grade-level as­sess­ments, that differ­en­ti­ate among gifted stu­dents, some of whom ben­e­fit from chal­leng­ing grade level work while oth­ers need ac­cess to above-level con­tent. This ar­ti­cle de­scribes SET’s ap­proach to per­son­al­iz­ing the ed­u­ca­tional ex­pe­ri­ences of the stu­dents with whom this pro­gram has worked in the hope that it can be repli­cated by oth­ers.

Lubinski 2016

“From Ter­man to To­day: A Cen­tury of Find­ings on In­tel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Lu­bin­ski 2016:

One hun­dred years of re­search (1916–2016) on in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth is re­viewed, paint­ing a por­trait of an ex­tra­or­di­nary source of hu­man cap­i­tal and the kinds of learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties needed to fa­cil­i­tate ex­cep­tional ac­com­plish­ments, life sat­is­fac­tion, and pos­i­tive growth. The fo­cus is on those stud­ies con­ducted on in­di­vid­u­als within the top 1% in gen­eral or spe­cific (math­e­mat­i­cal, spa­tial, or ver­bal rea­son­ing) abil­i­ties. Early in­sights into the gift­ed­ness phe­nom­e­non ac­tu­ally fore­told what would be sci­en­tifi­cally demon­strated 100 years lat­er. Thus, ev­i­dence-based con­cep­tu­al­iza­tions quickly moved from view­ing in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious in­di­vid­u­als as weak and emo­tion­ally li­able to highly effec­tive and re­silient in­di­vid­u­als. Like all groups, in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious stu­dents and adults have strengths and rel­a­tive weak­ness­es; they also re­veal vast differ­ences in their pas­sion for differ­ent pur­suits and their drive to achieve. Be­cause they do not pos­sess mul­ti­-po­ten­tial­i­ty, we must take a mul­ti­di­men­sional view of their in­di­vid­u­al­i­ty. When done, it pre­dicts well long-term ed­u­ca­tion­al, oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes.

Nature 2016

“How to Raise a Ge­nius: Lessons from a 45-Year Study of Su­per­s­mart Chil­dren—A long-run­ning in­ves­ti­ga­tion of ex­cep­tional chil­dren re­veals what it takes to pro­duce the sci­en­tists who will lead the 21st cen­tury”, Clynes 2016:

On a sum­mer day in 1968, pro­fes­sor Ju­lian Stan­ley met a bril­liant but bored 12-year-old named Joseph Bates. The Bal­ti­more stu­dent was so far ahead of his class­mates in math­e­mat­ics that his par­ents had arranged for him to take a com­put­er-science course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, where Stan­ley taught. Even that was­n’t enough. Hav­ing leapfrogged ahead of the adults in the class, the child kept him­self busy by teach­ing the FORTRAN pro­gram­ming lan­guage to grad­u­ate stu­dents…­Bates’s score was well above the thresh­old for ad­mis­sion to Johns Hop­kins, and prompted Stan­ley to search for a lo­cal high school that would let the child take ad­vanced math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence class­es. When that plan failed, Stan­ley con­vinced a dean at Johns Hop­kins to let Bates, then 13, en­rol as an un­der­grad­u­ate.

Stan­ley would affec­tion­ately re­fer to Bates as “stu­dent zero” of his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), which would trans­form how gifted chil­dren are iden­ti­fied and sup­ported by the US ed­u­ca­tion sys­tem. As the longest-run­ning cur­rent lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented chil­dren, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the ca­reers and ac­com­plish­ments of some 5,000 in­di­vid­u­als, many of whom have gone on to be­come high­-achiev­ing sci­en­tists. The study’s ever-grow­ing data set has gen­er­ated more than 400 pa­pers and sev­eral books, and pro­vided key in­sights into how to spot and de­velop tal­ent in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, math­e­mat­ics (STEM) and be­yond…

Makel et al 2016

, Makel et al 2016

The ed­u­ca­tion­al, oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments of the pro­foundly gifted par­tic­i­pants (IQs > 160) in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) are as­tound­ing, but are they rep­re­sen­ta­tive of equally able 12-year-olds? Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP) iden­ti­fied 259 young ado­les­cents who were equally gift­ed. By age 40, their life ac­com­plish­ments also were ex­tra­or­di­nary: 37% had earned doc­tor­ates, 7.5% had achieved aca­d­e­mic tenure (4.3% at re­search-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties), and 9% held patents; many were high­-level lead­ers in ma­jor or­ga­ni­za­tions. As was the case for the SMPY sam­ple be­fore them, differ­en­tial abil­ity strengths pre­dicted their con­trast­ing and even­tual de­vel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries—even though es­sen­tially all par­tic­i­pants pos­sessed both math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties far su­pe­rior to those of typ­i­cal Ph.D. re­cip­i­ents. In­di­vid­u­als, even pro­foundly gifted ones, pri­mar­ily do what they are best at. Differ­ences in abil­ity pat­terns, like differ­ences in in­ter­ests, guide de­vel­op­ment along differ­ent paths, but abil­ity lev­el, cou­pled with com­mit­ment, de­ter­mines whether and the ex­tent to which note­wor­thy ac­com­plish­ments are reached if op­por­tu­nity presents it­self.

Fig. 1. Scat­ter­plot of age-13 SAT-Math and SAT-Verbal scores for the two sam­ples: Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram par­tic­i­pants (top pan­el) and the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth par­tic­i­pants (bot­tom pan­el). The di­ag­o­nal line in each scat­ter­plot de­notes where an es­ti­mated IQ of 160 falls (Frey & Det­ter­man, 2004; Lu­bin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001, p. 719); bi­vari­ate val­ues above these di­ag­o­nals cor­re­spond to es­ti­mated IQs above 160. On the ax­es, the bold­face num­bers in­di­cate cut­offs for the top 1 in 200 and the top 1 in 10,000 for this age group.

Ta­ble 1. Se­lected Ed­u­ca­tion­al, Oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and Cre­ative Ac­com­plish­ments of the Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram  and Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth  Par­tic­i­pants Ta­ble 2. Out­ly­ing Ac­com­plish­ments of the Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram  and Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth  Par­tic­i­pants

Ta­ble 3. De­tails on Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants’ Cre­ative Ac­com­plish­ments (N = 259)
Ta­ble 4. Job Ti­tles of the Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants and De­scrip­tions of Their Em­ploy­ing Or­ga­ni­za­tions
Ta­ble 5. In­sti­tu­tions at Which Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants Had Been Granted Aca­d­e­mic Tenure and Ref­er­eed Pub­li­ca­tions in Which Their Work Had Ap­peared

Spain et al 2016

“A genome-wide analy­sis of pu­ta­tive func­tional and ex­onic vari­a­tion as­so­ci­ated with ex­tremely high in­tel­li­gence”, Spain et al 2016:

Al­though in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in in­tel­li­gence (gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty) are highly her­i­ta­ble, mol­e­c­u­lar ge­netic analy­ses to date have had lim­ited suc­cess in iden­ti­fy­ing spe­cific loci re­spon­si­ble for its her­i­tabil­i­ty. This study is the first to in­ves­ti­gate ex­ome vari­a­tion in in­di­vid­u­als of ex­tremely high in­tel­li­gence. Un­der the quan­ti­ta­tive ge­netic mod­el, sam­pling from the high ex­treme of the dis­tri­b­u­tion should pro­vide in­creased power to de­tect as­so­ci­a­tions. We there­fore per­formed a case-con­trol as­so­ci­a­tion analy­sis with 1409 in­di­vid­u­als drawn from the top 0.0003 (IQ >170) of the pop­u­la­tion dis­tri­b­u­tion of in­tel­li­gence and 3253 un­s­e­lected pop­u­la­tion-based con­trols. Our analy­sis fo­cused on pu­ta­tive func­tional ex­onic vari­ants as­sayed on the Il­lu­mina Hu­manEx­ome Bead­Chip. We did not ob­serve any in­di­vid­ual pro­tein-al­ter­ing vari­ants that are re­pro­ducibly as­so­ci­ated with ex­tremely high in­tel­li­gence and within the en­tire dis­tri­b­u­tion of in­tel­li­gence. More­over, no sig­nifi­cant as­so­ci­a­tions were found for mul­ti­ple rare al­le­les within in­di­vid­ual genes. How­ev­er, analy­ses us­ing genome-wide sim­i­lar­ity be­tween un­re­lated in­di­vid­u­als (genome-wide com­plex trait analy­sis) in­di­cate that the geno­typed func­tional pro­tein-al­ter­ing vari­a­tion yields a her­i­tabil­ity es­ti­mate of 17.4% (s.e. 1.7%) based on a . In ad­di­tion, in­ves­ti­ga­tion of nom­i­nally sig­nifi­cant as­so­ci­a­tions re­vealed fewer rare al­le­les as­so­ci­ated with ex­tremely high in­tel­li­gence than would be ex­pected un­der the null hy­poth­e­sis. This ob­ser­va­tion is con­sis­tent with the hy­poth­e­sis that rare func­tional al­le­les are more fre­quently detri­men­tal than ben­e­fi­cial to in­tel­li­gence.

High­-in­tel­li­gence cases (HiQ): In­di­vid­u­als were re­cruited from the Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP), a non-profit or­gan­i­sa­tion es­tab­lished in 1980 and ded­i­cated to iden­ti­fy­ing and fos­ter­ing the de­vel­op­ment of aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted chil­dren35 (see Tip.­duke.edu). In­di­vid­u­als were se­lected from the United States for par­tic­i­pa­tion in the HiQ study on the ba­sis of per­for­mance on the Scholas­tic As­sess­ment Test (SAT) or Amer­i­can Col­lege Test (ACT) taken at age 12 rather than the usual age of 18 years. A com­pos­ite that ag­gre­gates ver­bal and math­e­mat­ics SAT and ACT scores cor­re­lates >0.80 with in­tel­li­gence tests and it is es­ti­mated that the TIP pro­gram re­cruits from the top 3% of the in­tel­li­gence dis­tri­b­u­tion.36

Wai & Kell 2017

“What In­no­va­tions Have We Al­ready Lost?: The Im­por­tance of Iden­ti­fy­ing and De­vel­op­ing Spa­tial Tal­ent”, Wai & Kell 2017:

In a fa­mous tal­ent search by Lewis Ter­man, there were two young boys who were not iden­ti­fied as gifted but would go on to win the No­bel Prize in physics. Their names were and and the sci­en­tific area in which they achieved their fame was ar­guably heav­ily vi­su­al-s­pa­tial in na­ture. Why were two No­bel win­ners missed? Likely be­cause Ter­man had used the highly ver­bal Stan­ford-Bi­net, which did not in­clude a good spa­tial mea­sure. Many stan­dard­ized tests in schools to­day lack spa­tial mea­sures, and this means many spa­tially tal­ented stu­dents are not be­ing iden­ti­fied, and their tal­ent is there­fore not fully en­cour­aged and de­vel­oped. This chap­ter first re­views over 50 years of data show­ing that spa­tial abil­ity in ad­di­tion to math and ver­bal abil­ity has pre­dic­tive power in STEM do­mains. Next, the is­sue of spa­tial train­ing and fe­males in STEM are dis­cussed. Then, how these find­ings and other re­search can be trans­lated into ed­u­ca­tion prac­tice is pre­sent­ed. Fi­nal­ly, a dis­cus­sion of the broader so­ci­etal im­pli­ca­tions of ne­glect­ing spa­tially tal­ented stu­dents will be laid out. For ex­am­ple, how many in­no­va­tions have we al­ready lost be­cause we have not ad­e­quately iden­ti­fied and de­vel­oped the tal­ent of some of our most promis­ing in­no­va­tors?

Lubinski 2018

“In­di­vid­ual Differ­ences at the Top: Map­ping the Outer En­ve­lope of In­tel­li­gence”, David Lu­bin­ski (in The Na­ture of Hu­man In­tel­li­gence, ed Stern­berg 2018, ISBN 1316819566)

Bernstein et al 2019

, Bern­stein et al 2019:

This in­ves­ti­ga­tion ex­am­ined whether math­/­sci­en­tific and ver­bal/hu­man­is­tic abil­ity and pref­er­ence con­stel­la­tions, de­vel­oped on in­tel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds to pre­dict their ed­u­ca­tional out­comes at age 23, con­tinue to main­tain their lon­gi­tu­di­nal po­tency by dis­tin­guish­ing dis­tinct forms of em­i­nence 35 years lat­er. Em­i­nent in­di­vid­u­als were de­fined as those who, by age 50, had ac­com­plished some­thing rare: cre­ative and highly im­pact­ful ca­reers (e.g., full pro­fes­sors at re­search-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties, For­tune 500 ex­ec­u­tives, dis­tin­guished judges and lawyers, lead­ers in bio­med­i­cine, award-win­ning jour­nal­ists and writ­er­s). Study 1 con­sisted of 677 in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youths, as­sessed at age 13, whose lead­er­ship and cre­ative ac­com­plish­ments were as­sessed 35 years lat­er. Study 2 con­sti­tuted a con­struc­tive repli­ca­tion—an analy­sis of 605 top sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math (STEM) grad­u­ate stu­dents, as­sessed on the same pre­dic­tor con­structs early in grad­u­ate school and as­sessed again 25 years lat­er. In both sam­ples, the same abil­ity and pref­er­ence pa­ra­me­ter val­ues, which de­fined math­/­sci­en­tific ver­sus ver­bal/hu­man­is­tic con­stel­la­tions, dis­crim­i­nated par­tic­i­pants who ul­ti­mately achieved dis­tinct forms of em­i­nence from their peers pur­su­ing other life en­deav­ors.

McCabe et al 2019

“Who shines most among the bright­est?: A 25-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of elite STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents”, Mc­Cabe et al 2019:

In 1992, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) sur­veyed 714 first- and sec­ond-year grad­u­ate stu­dents (48.5% fe­male) at­tend­ing U.S. uni­ver­si­ties ranked in the top-15 by sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) field. This study in­ves­ti­gated whether in­di­vid­ual differ­ences as­sessed early in their grad­u­ate school ca­reer were as­so­ci­ated with be­com­ing a STEM leader 25 years later (e.g., STEM full pro­fes­sors at re­search-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties, STEM CEOs, and STEM lead­ers in gov­ern­ment) ver­sus not be­com­ing a STEM leader. We also stud­ied whether there were any im­por­tant gen­der differ­ences in re­la­tion to STEM lead­er­ship. For both men and wom­en, small to medium effect size differ­ences in in­ter­ests, val­ues, and per­son­al­ity dis­tin­guished STEM lead­ers from non­lead­ers. Lifestyle and work pref­er­ences also dis­tin­guished STEM lead­ers who were more ex­clu­sively ca­reer-fo­cused and pre­ferred to work—and did work—­more hours than non­lead­ers. Al­so, there were small to large gen­der differ­ences in abil­i­ties, in­ter­ests, and lifestyle pref­er­ences. Men had more in­tense in­ter­ests in STEM and were more ca­reer-fo­cused. Women had more di­verse ed­u­ca­tional and oc­cu­pa­tional in­ter­ests, and they were more in­ter­ested in ac­tiv­i­ties out­side of work. Early in grad­u­ate school, there­fore, there are signs that pre­dict who will be­come a STEM lead­er—even among elite STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents. Given the many ways in which STEM lead­er­ship can be achieved, the gen­der differ­ences un­cov­ered within this high­-po­ten­tial sam­ple sug­gest that men and women are likely to as­sign differ­ent pri­or­i­ties to these op­por­tu­ni­ties.

Note that this is not a di­rect in­ves­ti­ga­tion of an SMPY co­hort re­cruited through the SAT-M or child­hood test­ing but a fol­lowup in­ves­ti­ga­tion of a co­hort re­cruited as STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents at elite uni­ver­si­ties, re­ported in Lu­bin­ski et al 2001a.

Kell & Wai 2019

, Kell & Wai 2019

It has been claimed by promi­nent au­thors that there is no re­la­tion­ship be­tween differ­ences in some hu­man traits (e.g., cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty, phys­i­cal abil­i­ty) and differ­ences in skill among ex­perts. We as­sert that the fail­ure to de­tect such as­so­ci­a­tions is often due to an ex­treme form of range re­stric­tion that par­tic­u­larly plagues re­search fo­cused on ex­pert sam­ples: right-tail range re­stric­tion (RTRR). RTRR refers to a lack of rep­re­sen­ta­tion of data from the far right seg­ment of the nor­mal dis­tri­b­u­tion, in­hibit­ing the ob­ser­va­tion of sta­tis­ti­cal as­so­ci­a­tions. Us­ing two ex­am­ple stud­ies we demon­strate that, when RTRR is not pre­sent, re­la­tion­ships be­tween differ­ences in ex­perts’ traits and differ­ences in their de­gree of skill can be ob­served. Based on the char­ac­ter­is­tics of these stud­ies we make rec­om­men­da­tions for method­olog­i­cal prac­tices that can be fol­lowed to help in­ves­ti­ga­tors over­come RTRR and fa­cil­i­tate the con­tin­ued de­vel­op­ment of a ro­bust and replic­a­ble sci­ence of ex­per­tise. [Key­words: Range re­stric­tion, ex­per­tise, traits, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty, phys­i­cal abil­i­ty, per­for­mance, ath­let­ics, psy­cho­log­i­cal at­trib­ut­es]

Re-an­a­lyzes Kell et al 2013, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2006, Lu­bin­ski et al 2014, & Makel et al 2016.

2020

Bernstein et al 2020

, Bern­stein et al 2020:

Aca­d­e­mic ac­cel­er­a­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth is be­lieved to harm over­all psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing even though short­-term stud­ies do not sup­port this be­lief. Here we ex­am­ine the long-term effects. Study 1 in­volves three co­horts iden­ti­fied be­fore age 13, then lon­gi­tu­di­nally tracked for over 35 years: Co­hort 1 gifted (top 1% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1972–1974, n = 1,020), Co­hort 2 highly gifted (top 0.5% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1976–1979, n = 396), and Co­hort 3 pro­foundly gifted (top 0.01% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1980–1983, n = 220). Two forms of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion were ex­am­ined: (a) age at high school grad­u­a­tion and (b) quan­tity of ad­vanced learn­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties pur­sued prior to high school grad­u­a­tion. Par­tic­i­pants were eval­u­ated at age 50 on sev­eral well-known in­di­ca­tors of psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Amount of ac­cel­er­a­tion did not co­vary with psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Study 2, a con­struc­tive repli­ca­tion of Study 1, used a differ­ent high­-po­ten­tial sam­ple—elite sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics grad­u­ate stu­dents (n = 478) iden­ti­fied in 1992. Their ed­u­ca­tional his­to­ries were as­sessed at age 25 and they were fol­lowed up at age 50 us­ing the same psy­cho­log­i­cal as­sess­ments. Again, the amount of ed­u­ca­tional ac­cel­er­a­tion did not co­vary with psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Fur­ther, the psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing of par­tic­i­pants in both stud­ies was above the av­er­age of na­tional prob­a­bil­ity sam­ples. Con­cerns about long-term so­cial/e­mo­tional effects of ac­cel­er­a­tion for high­-po­ten­tial stu­dents ap­pear to be un­war­rant­ed, as has been demon­strated for short­-term effects. [Key­words: gift­ed, ac­cel­er­a­tion, repli­ca­tion, ap­pro­pri­ate de­vel­op­men­tal place­ment, psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing]

Im­pact State­ment: Best prac­tices sug­gest that ac­cel­er­a­tion in one of its many forms is ed­u­ca­tion­ally effi­ca­cious for meet­ing the ad­vanced learn­ing needs of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth. Yet, par­ents, teach­ers, aca­d­e­mic ad­min­is­tra­tors, and psy­cho­log­i­cal the­o­rists worry that this prac­tice en­gen­ders neg­a­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal effects. A three­-co­hort study of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth fol­lowed for 35 years sug­gests that there is no cause for con­cern. These find­ings were repli­cated on a sam­ple of elite STEM grad­u­ates whose ed­u­ca­tional his­to­ries were as­sessed at age 25 and tracked for 25 years.

Lubinski & Benbow 2020

, Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow 2020 (re­view):

Over the past 50 years, eight ro­bust gen­er­al­iza­tions about in­tel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity have emerged, been em­pir­i­cally doc­u­ment­ed, and repli­cated through lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­search. Within the top 1% of gen­eral and spe­cific abil­i­ties (math­e­mat­i­cal, spa­tial, and ver­bal) over one third of the range of in­di­vid­ual differ­ences are to be found, and they are mean­ing­ful. These in­di­vid­ual differ­ences in abil­ity level and in pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties, which are un­cov­ered by the use of above-level as­sess­ments, struc­ture con­se­quen­tial quan­ti­ta­tive and qual­i­ta­tive differ­ences in ed­u­ca­tion­al, oc­cu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes. There is no thresh­old effect for abil­i­ties in pre­dict­ing fu­ture ac­com­plish­ments; and the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity evap­o­rates when as­sess­ments cover the full range of all three pri­mary abil­i­ties. Be­yond abil­i­ties, ed­u­ca­tion­al/oc­cu­pa­tional in­ter­ests add value in iden­ti­fy­ing op­ti­mal learn­ing en­vi­ron­ments for pre­co­cious youth and, with the ad­di­tion of cona­tive vari­ables, for mod­el­ing sub­se­quent life span de­vel­op­ment. While over­all pro­fes­sional out­comes of ex­cep­tion­ally pre­co­cious youth are as ex­cep­tional as their abil­i­ties, ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions of suffi­cient dosage en­hance the prob­a­bil­ity of them lead­ing ex­cep­tion­ally im­pact­ful ca­reers and mak­ing cre­ative con­tri­bu­tions. Find­ings have made ev­i­dent the psy­cho­log­i­cal di­ver­sity within in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious pop­u­la­tions, their mean­ing­ful­ness, and the en­vi­ron­men­tal di­ver­sity re­quired to meet their learn­ing needs. See­ing gift­ed­ness and in­ter­ven­tions on their be­half cat­e­gor­i­cally has held the field back. [Key­words: ba­sic in­ter­pre­tive, mixed meth­ods, psy­cho­met­rics, as­sess­ment, cre­ativ­i­ty, gift­ed]

  1. Is there an abil­ity thresh­old, be­yond which more abil­ity does­n’t mat­ter? No.

  2. Does the pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties mat­ter? Yes.

    Is there ev­i­dence for mul­ti­po­ten­tial­i­ty? No.

  3. Is abil­ity pat­tern im­por­tant for stu­dents with es­pe­cially pro­found in­tel­lec­tual gifts? Yes.

  4. Do ed­u­ca­tion­al/oc­cu­pa­tional in­ter­ests add value to abil­ity as­sess­ments of in­tel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth? Yes.

  5. Given the con­tem­po­rary em­pha­sis placed on the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and de­vel­op­ment of hu­man cap­i­tal in STEM dis­ci­plines, are there other im­por­tant find­ings from the gifted field ger­mane to this need? Yes.

  6. Can ed­u­ca­tional in­ter­ven­tions en­hance learn­ing and ul­ti­mate lev­els of cre­ative ex­pres­sion? Yes.

  7. Be­yond abil­i­ty, in­ter­est, and op­por­tu­ni­ty, are cona­tive at­trib­utes im­por­tant? Yes.

  8. Has the study of in­tel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity con­tributed to its par­ent dis­ci­plines in the ed­u­ca­tional and psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ences? Is there a com­mon theme that cuts across the above em­pir­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions, which have been repli­cated over mul­ti­ple decades? Yes. And yes.

Henshon 2020

, Hen­shon 2020:

[Short in­ter­view with Linda Brody, cur­rent di­rec­tor of Study of Ex­cep­tional Tal­ent (SET) at the Johns Hop­kins Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY); she orig­i­nally started work­ing for SMPY in the 1970s along with Cohn/Pyry­t/Ben­bow and for Lynn Fox & Ju­lian Stan­ley, leav­ing in 1991 for CTY. She spe­cial­ized in “twice-ex­cep­tional stu­dents” (both gifted & dis­abled). SET is cur­rently study­ing its alum­ni.]

Schuur et al 2020

, Schuur et al 2020 (sys­tem­atic re­view):

Gifted stu­dents who ex­pe­ri­enced grade-based ac­cel­er­a­tion in pri­mary or sec­ondary ed­u­ca­tion have to meet the chal­lenges of ad­just­ing to uni­ver­sity at a younger age than stu­dents who did not ac­cel­er­ate. This sys­tem­atic re­view crit­i­cally eval­u­ates the re­search on so­cial–e­mo­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics and ad­just­ment of these gifted ac­cel­er­ated uni­ver­sity stu­dents. Based on a re­view of 22 stud­ies, we may con­clude that ac­cel­er­ated stu­dents did not differ very much in do­mains of so­cial–e­mo­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics from their nonac­cel­er­ated gifted and nongifted peers. Fac­tors that fa­cil­i­tated ad­just­ment and well-be­ing were cheer­ful­ness, re­silience, self­-effi­ca­cy, a pos­i­tive self­-con­cept, high prior aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment, and sup­port­ive fam­ily en­vi­ron­ment. Fur­ther­more, it was found that stud­ies were in­com­plete in re­port­ing the pre­vi­ous ac­cel­er­a­tion ex­pe­ri­ences of the stu­dents and that re­search on stu­dents who in­di­vid­u­ally ac­cel­er­ated by 1 or 2 years was scarce. Fu­ture re­search should in­clude in­di­vid­u­ally ac­cel­er­ated stu­dents, pre­vi­ous ac­cel­er­a­tion ex­pe­ri­ences, gen­der differ­ences, and com­par­i­son groups.

See Also

Misc:

1957

Sci­en­tific Ca­reers and Vo­ca­tional De­vel­op­ment The­o­ry: A re­view, a cri­tique and some rec­om­men­da­tions, Su­per & Bachrach 1957:

The find­ings, con­clu­sions and rec­om­men­da­tions of the panel par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Sci­en­tific Ca­reers Project on the char­ac­ter­is­tics and mo­ti­va­tions of nat­ural sci­en­tists, math­e­mati­cians, and en­gi­neers rep­re­sent an in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary ap­proach to the process of vo­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment and choice. Differ­en­ti­a­tion be­tween ca­reer and oc­cu­pa­tion and among the var­i­ous sub­-spe­cial­ties and sub­cat­e­gories of the same ca­reer is stressed. The 3 ba­sic ori­en­ta­tions, trait-and-fac­tor the­o­ry, so­cial sys­tem the­o­ry, and per­son­al­ity the­ory should be in­te­grated to a dy­namic con­cept of ca­reer pat­tern as ex­pressed in the vo­ca­tional de­vel­op­ment the­ory deal­ing with vo­ca­tional choice as a process which takes place over a pe­riod of time.

1964

Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: Its Ed­u­ca­tional and So­cial Sig­nifi­cance, Smith 1964; from the fore­word:

At first sight it would ap­pear to be a highly tech­ni­cal sur­vey of the sta­tis­ti­cal find­ings of cer­tain men­tal tests. But the con­clu­sions which the au­thor draws from his care­ful weigh­ing of the ev­i­dence have very im­por­tant im­pli­ca­tions for cur­rent ed­u­ca­tional pol­i­cy. It is high time, there­fore, that ed­u­ca­tion­ists should take the trou­ble to ac­quaint them­selves with this tech­ni­cal ev­i­dence, to pon­der on it. Briefly stat­ed, Dr. Mac­far­lane Smith’s the­sis is that British ed­u­ca­tion, par­tic­u­larly that given in gram­mar schools, while stress­ing the de­vel­op­ment of gen­eral or al­l-round in­tel­li­gence, has over-val­ued the ver­bal type of abil­ity at the ex­pense of its psy­cho­log­i­cal op­po­site—s­pa­tial abil­i­ty. The Crowther Re­port, Sir Charles Snow and many other pub­lic fig­ures have, of course, urged the claims of math­e­mat­i­cal, tech­ni­cal and sci­en­tific ed­u­ca­tion, to­gether with Britain’s need for tech­nol­o­gists and sci­en­tists. But few of such ad­vo­cates pos­sess any sci­en­tific knowl­edge of the na­ture of these abil­i­ties they wish to en­cour­age, what is their com­mon essence, nor how this essence is re­lated to other abil­i­ties or to tem­pera­men­tal traits and Per­son­al­ity qual­i­ties. Nor are they, per­haps, suffi­ciently aware that our cur­rent sys­tem of se­lec­tion for sec­ondary and uni­ver­sity ed­u­ca­tion ac­tively dis­crim­i­nates against the pupil or stu­dent who is most likely to be tal­ented in these di­rec­tions.

Dr. Mac­far­lane Smith out­lines a large body of work on spa­tial, per­for­mance, me­chan­i­cal and other non-ver­bal tests and shows th.t there is a ma­jor un­der­ly­ing fac­tor or type of abil­ity which is best de­fined as the ca­pac­ity to per­ceive and hold in mind the struc­ture and pro­por­tions of a form or fig­ure, grasped as a whole. This view rec­on­ciles the some­what di­ver­gent re­sults of British and Amer­i­can work­ers, since the lat­ter have often used less ap­pro­pri­ate mul­ti­ple-choice tests in­volv­ing recog­ni­tion of de­tails rather than per­cep­tion and re­pro­duc­tion of com­plex wholes. There is am­ple ev­i­dence of the use­ful­ness of such tests in se­lec­tion for tech­ni­cal courses and train­ing, for geom­e­try and art. But in ad­di­tion a com­pre­hen­sive sur­vey of work on math­e­mat­i­cal ap­ti­tude in­di­cates that, apart from gen­eral (prefer­ably non-ver­bal) in­tel­li­gence tests, the most pre­dic­tive tests are also those of the spa­tial fac­tor. In con­trast, me­chan­i­cal arith­metic tests give very lit­tle in­di­ca­tion of fu­ture math­e­mat­i­cal or sci­en­tific abil­ity (hence Crowther’s ad­vo­cacy of ‘nu­mer­acy’ is psy­cho­log­i­cally mis­lead­ing). It would seem that the per­cep­tion of form is a gen­eral char­ac­ter­is­tic of the ab­stract think­ing in­volved in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, as dis­tinct from the ver­bal think­ing in­volved in most school sub­jects.

A good deal of in­ter­est­ing work is sur­veyed, al­so, on de­fects in spa­tial abil­ity as­so­ci­ated with brain in­jury, cere­bral palsy and leu­co­to­my; and a dis­cus­sion of the re­la­tions of this abil­ity to types of at­ten­tion (an­a­lytic vs syn­the­sis) and to EEG brain waves throws fur­ther light on the neu­ro­log­i­cal and men­tal processes in­volved. Fi­nally the au­thor makes a strong case for some re­la­tion be­tween the abil­ity and tem­pera­men­tal qual­i­ties akin to in­tro­ver­sion, mas­culin­ity and ini­tia­tive. The lack of un­der­stand­ing be­tween the sci­en­tist and the hu­man­ist prob­a­bly arises from the fact that their modes of think­ing are in­ti­mately bound up with their whole per­son­al­ity or­ga­ni­za­tion.

1985

“Vi­sual Think­ing: The Art of Imag­in­ing Re­al­ity”, Root-Bern­stein 1985:

[Dis­cus­sion of the role of vi­su­ospa­tial rea­son­ing abil­i­ty/s­pa­tial abil­i­ty/‘imag­i­na­tion’ in sci­en­tific dis­cov­ery, start­ing with the ex­am­ple of , a pro­po­nent of the role of vi­su­al­iza­tion in sci­ence, who pre­dicted the by tak­ing lit­er­ally the idea of ‘atoms’ and imag­in­ing them geo­met­ri­cal­ly. Root-Bern­stein dis­cusses his own bi­o­graph­i­cal stud­ies of em­i­nent sci­en­tists, who are often quite cre­ative in other ar­eas or hob­bies such as paint­ing, and cites ex­am­ples such as Robert Ful­ton or Louis Pas­teur who were painters be­fore they be­came great in­ven­tors or sci­en­tist­s—­such train­ing may have been di­rectly use­ful in care­ful ob­ser­va­tion of spec­i­mens & re­pro­duc­tion in sketch form. Root-Bern­stein con­cludes that

  1. vi­sual rea­son­ing may be dras­ti­cally un­der­rated com­pared to ver­bal rea­son­ing, be­cause “most peo­ple seem to con­sider ver­bal thought to be the high­est or even the only form of thought.”
  2. the diffi­culty of phi­los­o­phy of sci­ence or for­mal logic in pro­vid­ing any mean­ing­ful ac­count of where sci­en­tific ideas come from, as op­posed to how they are ex­pressed or test­ed, may be due to this over­re­liance on ver­bal for­malisms; vi­sual ap­proaches may ex­pose the true logic of sci­en­tific cre­ation
  3. Gard­ner’s ‘mul­ti­ple in­tel­li­gences’ the­ory may be re­lated
  4. cur­rent ed­u­ca­tion, per #1, may badly un­der­mine stu­dents’ sci­en­tific abil­i­ties: “ex­clu­sive re­liance upon book learn­ing is it­self mis­guid­ed. Cer­tainly Ost­wald, Maxwell, and Gibbs learned as much (if not more) about na­ture by ex­plor­ing it through hob­bies such as paint­ing, sculpt­ing, in­vent­ing, and build­ing as they did through for­mal book stud­ies. And, re­turn­ing to Hindle’s study of Morse and Ful­ton, one sees clearly that the non­ver­bal skills of the in­ven­tor sci­en­tist may best be stim­u­lated by ac­tive par­tic­i­pa­tion in the arts. Yet in many Amer­i­can high schools and uni­ver­si­ties, sci­ence ma­jors are ac­tively dis­cour­aged from par­tic­i­pat­ing in arts pro­grams be­cause arts and crafts skills are con­sid­ered to have no in­tel­lec­tual val­ue.”]

See also

1986

“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and fos­ter­ing of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents: Ra­tio­nale of a pi­lot study”, Wag­ner & Zim­mer­man 1986:

In a three year re­search pro­ject, an­nual math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches for highly able and mo­ti­vated twelve year old stu­dents were con­duct­ed. Of the­se, 150 took part in a long term Sat­ur­day en­rich­ment pro­gram to train their math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties in prob­lem find­ing and prob­lem solv­ing. The ar­ti­cle first dis­cusses the ed­u­ca­tional and or­ga­ni­za­tional con­straints of pro­grams for gifted chil­dren. Math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness is de­fined by high achieve­ment in two tests: The Scholas­tic Ap­ti­tude Test (SAT-M) and the HTMB, a set of seven prob­lems spe­cially de­vised for the tal­ent search. The phi­los­o­phy of the teach­ing pro­gram is ex­plained and il­lus­trated by ex­am­ples. Pre­lim­i­nary re­sults in­di­cate the con­sid­er­able suc­cess of the pro­gram. Pos­si­ble con­se­quences for nor­mal class­room teach­ing are in­di­cat­ed.

Anne Roe

Some of the ear­li­est di­rect stud­ies of very high IQ re­searchers were con­ducted by , who, akin to SMPY’s use of the SAT, used spe­cial­ly-con­structed stan­dard­ized test items to avoid ceil­ing effects:

Fullerton Longitudinal Study

Be­low are a sub­set of pa­pers from the FLS on the topic of “In­tel­lec­tual and Mo­ti­va­tional Gift­ed­ness”:

  • Gifted IQ: Early De­vel­op­men­tal As­pects: The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study, Got­tfried et al 1994

  • “A lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion in in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren: Child­hood through ado­les­cence”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 1996:

    Aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion of in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren and a com­par­i­son group was ex­am­ined in the Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study. Chil­dren at ages 9 through 13 years were ad­min­is­tered the Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic In­trin­sic Mo­ti­va­tion In­ven­tory which as­sesses in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion for school learn­ing in read­ing, math, so­cial stud­ies, sci­ence, and for school in gen­er­al. Analy­ses showed that across the ages, rel­a­tive to a peer com­par­ison, gifted chil­dren had sig­nifi­cantly higher aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion across all sub­ject ar­eas and school in gen­er­al. It is sug­gested that: Chil­dren who be­come in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted en­joy the process of learn­ing to a greater ex­tent; in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion is im­por­tant for po­ten­ti­a­tion of gift­ed­ness; As­sess­ment of aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion be in­cluded in se­lec­tion of chil­dren for gifted pro­grams.

  • “To­ward the de­vel­op­ment of a con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of gifted mo­ti­va­tion”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 2004:

    Whereas per­spec­tives on gift­ed­ness have in­cluded mo­ti­va­tion as a con­struct re­lated to gift­ed­ness, the pro­posed con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion ad­vances a new view that mo­ti­va­tion is an area of gift­ed­ness in and of it­self. Aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion (i.e., en­joy­ment of school learn­ing) is the do­main fo­cused upon in this con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion inas­much as it has in­her­ent ties to cog­ni­tion, gifted in­tel­lect, and achieve­ment. Re­search sup­ports the fol­low­ing cri­te­ria, ad­vanced as a be­gin­ning effort to­ward the de­vel­op­ment of a con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of a gifted mo­ti­va­tion con­struct: (a) sig­nifi­cantly higher aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion is ev­i­denced by in­tel­lec­tu­ally gifted com­pared to their com­par­i­son co­hort; (b) aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion is sig­nifi­cant­ly, pos­i­tive­ly, and uniquely re­lated to aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment above and be­yond IQ; (c) aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion ev­i­dences sub­stan­tial con­ti­nu­ity from child­hood through ado­les­cence; and (d) en­vi­ron­ment is sig­nifi­cantly re­lated to aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion. The con­struct of gifted mo­ti­va­tion serves heuris­tic pur­poses to ad­vance fur­ther in­quiry and also has im­pli­ca­tions re­gard­ing the de­vel­op­ment and im­ple­men­ta­tion of gift­ed­ness pro­grams. Sug­ges­tions are made re­gard­ing re­search needed for fur­ther de­vel­op­ment of a gifted mo­ti­va­tion con­struct.

  • “Ed­u­ca­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics of ado­les­cents with gifted mo­ti­va­tion: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion from school en­try through early adult­hood”, Got­tfried et al 2005:

    The con­struct of gifted mo­ti­va­tion was ex­am­ined in a con­tem­po­rary, long-term, lon­gi­tu­di­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Ado­les­cents with ex­tremely high aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion (i.e., gifted mo­ti­va­tion) were com­pared to their co­hort peer com­par­i­son on a va­ri­ety of ed­u­ca­tion­ally rel­e­vant mea­sures from el­e­men­tary school through the early adult­hood years. As­sess­ment of aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion was based on the Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic In­trin­sic Mo­ti­va­tion In­ven­to­ry. Cross-time, per­va­sive differ­ences re­sulted fa­vor­ing the gifted mo­ti­va­tion com­pared to the co­hort com­par­i­son group on mo­ti­va­tion, achieve­ment, class­room func­tion­ing, in­tel­lec­tual per­for­mance, self­-con­cept, and post-sec­ondary ed­u­ca­tional progress. Mean­ing­ful effect sizes were ob­tained and cor­rob­o­rated by teach­ers’ ob­ser­va­tions. Gifted mo­ti­va­tion proved to be dis­tinct from gifted in­tel­li­gence. This re­search serves to ex­pand the de­fi­n­i­tion of gift­ed­ness to in­clude the con­struct of gifted mo­ti­va­tion in its own right. These find­ings have im­pli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fy­ing stu­dents with gifted mo­ti­va­tion for en­try into pro­grams for the gift­ed.

  • “The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study: A long-term in­ves­ti­ga­tion of in­tel­lec­tual and mo­ti­va­tional gift­ed­ness”, Got­tfried et al 2006:

    The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study is a con­tem­po­rary prospec­tive in­ves­ti­ga­tion that spans ap­prox­i­mately a quar­ter of a cen­tu­ry. Com­menc­ing at age 1, [n = 130] chil­dren and their fam­i­lies were sys­tem­at­i­cally fol­lowed every 6 months from in­fancy through preschool and an­nu­ally at ages 5 through 17. They were again as­sessed at age 24. The course of de­vel­op­ment for in­tel­lec­tu­ally [IQ>130, n = 20] and mo­ti­va­tion­ally gifted [“Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic In­trin­sic Mo­ti­va­tion In­ven­tory” (CAIMI); n = 21] chil­dren was stud­ied across a breadth of de­vel­op­men­tal do­mains in­clud­ing aca­d­e­mic, cog­ni­tive, self­-per­cep­tions, tem­pera­ment, be­hav­ioral, so­cial, fam­i­ly/en­vi­ron­men­tal process­es, and adult ed­u­ca­tional achieve­ment. Pre­sented are the method­ol­ogy and unique as­pects of this re­search that con­tribute to the study of gift­ed­ness. Ma­jor find­ings re­gard­ing these two dis­tinct di­men­sions of gift­ed­ness are pre­sent­ed, with some im­pli­ca­tions for prac­tice and di­rec­tions for fu­ture re­search.

  • “Is­sues in early pre­dic­tion and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness”, Got­tfried et al 2009:

    This chap­ter com­prises three sec­tions: (a) com­men­tary on the Colom­bo, Shad­dy, Bla­ga, An­der­son, and Kan­nass chap­ter ti­tled “High Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity in In­fancy and Early Child­hood” (chap. 2, this vol­ume); (b) con­sid­er­a­tion of is­sues con­cern­ing early pre­dic­tion of gifted in­tel­li­gence [e­spe­cially re­li­a­bil­i­ty/test-retest sta­bil­i­ty]; and (c) dis­cus­sion of im­pli­ca­tions re­gard­ing early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­tel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness.

  • “De­vel­op­ment of gifted mo­ti­va­tion: Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Re­search and Ap­pli­ca­tions”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 2009:

    Gifted mo­ti­va­tion was pro­posed by Got­tfried & Got­tfried (2004) as an area of gift­ed­ness in and of it­self dis­tinct from in­tel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness. Gifted mo­ti­va­tion ap­plies to those in­di­vid­u­als who are su­pe­rior in their striv­ings and de­ter­mi­na­tion per­tain­ing to an en­deav­or. The foun­da­tion for the­o­riz­ing about and pro­vid­ing em­pir­i­cal val­i­da­tion for this con­struct is based on the au­thors’ lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of gift­ed­ness in the realm of aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion. Aca­d­e­mic in­trin­sic mo­ti­va­tion is de­fined as en­joy­ment of school learn­ing char­ac­ter­ized by an ori­en­ta­tion to­ward mas­tery, cu­rios­i­ty, per­sis­tence, task-en­dogeny, and the learn­ing of chal­leng­ing, diffi­cult, and novel tasks. The present chap­ter will present the­ory and con­tem­po­rary find­ings re­gard­ing gifted mo­ti­va­tion, and how this re­late to con­cur­rent and long-term out­comes from child­hood through early adult­hood. Im­pli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of gifted mo­ti­va­tion, pro­gram se­lec­tion, and pro­gram de­vel­op­ment and eval­u­a­tion will be ad­vanced.

  • “De­vel­op­ing tal­ents: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion of in­tel­lec­tual abil­ity and aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment”, Mc­Coach et al 2017:

    The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study offers a unique op­por­tu­nity to model the sta­bil­ity of in­tel­li­gence and achieve­ment and their re­la­tions from el­e­men­tary through sec­ondary school. Us­ing la­tent vari­able mod­el­ing, we fit a cross-lagged panel model to ex­am­ine the re­la­tions be­tween in­tel­li­gence and achieve­ment in two aca­d­e­mic do­mains: math­e­mat­ics and read­ing. Find­ings re­vealed that stu­dents’ achieve­ment is highly sta­ble across the school years. Child­hood in­tel­li­gence is a strong pre­dic­tor of ini­tial math­e­mat­ics and read­ing achieve­ment. After age 7-years, in­tel­li­gence is not pre­dic­tive of ei­ther math­e­mat­ics or read­ing achieve­ment after ac­count­ing for prior achieve­ment. Stu­dents who en­ter school with strong aca­d­e­mic skills tend to main­tain their aca­d­e­mic ad­van­tage through­out their el­e­men­tary and sec­ondary ed­u­ca­tion. We dis­cuss the im­pli­ca­tions of these re­sults for tal­ent de­vel­op­ment.

Munich

Munich 1990

Munich 2000

  • “Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of Gifted and Tal­ented Stu­dents”, Heller 2004:

    After a brief in­tro­duc­tion with four main ques­tions re­lated to iden­ti­fy­ing gifted and tal­ented stu­dents, this ar­ti­cle cen­tres on the fol­low­ing top­ics: (1) mul­ti­di­men­sional con­cep­tions of gift­ed­ness as pre­con­di­tions of suit­able iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures, (2) func­tions and ben­e­fits vs. dan­gers of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion mea­sures, (3) method­olog­i­cal prob­lems and (4) prac­ti­cal rec­om­men­da­tions for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of var­i­ous groups of gifted and tal­ented stu­dents.

  • “The Mu­nich model of gift­ed­ness de­signed to iden­tify and pro­mote gifted stu­dents”, Heller et al 2005:

    A de­ci­sive fac­tor in the de­ter­mi­na­tion of effec­tive gifted ed­u­ca­tion is the fit be­tween the in­di­vid­ual cog­ni­tive and noncog­ni­tive (e.g., mo­ti­va­tional and other per­son­al­i­ty) fac­tors of the de­vel­op­men­tal and learn­ing processes on the one hand and the en­vi­ron­men­tal in­flu­ences that are mainly from the so­cial set­tings of fam­i­ly, school, and peers on the other hand. This chap­ter is based on mul­ti­di­men­sional con­cep­tions of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent, such as the Mu­nich Model of Gift­ed­ness (MMG), as well as on in­ter­ac­tion mod­els, such as the Ap­ti­tude-Treat­ment In­ter­ac­tion (ATI) by Cron­bach and Snow (1977) and Corno and Snow (1986).

    When con­sid­er­ing the MMG as an ex­am­ple of a mul­ti­fac­to­r­ial con­cep­tion of gift­ed­ness, along with the re­cently de­vel­oped dy­namic process ap­proach to this model (Mu­nich Dy­namic Abil­i­ty-Achieve­ment Model of Gift­ed­ness [MDAAM]), the fol­low­ing ques­tions arise: How should gifted in­di­vid­u­als be iden­ti­fied and in­struct­ed? And how should their learn­ing out­comes or ex­cel­lent per­for­mance be as­sessed? These and other ques­tions will be an­swered ac­cord­ing to the MMG and the MDAAM, re­spec­tive­ly.

  • “The Mu­nich High Abil­ity Test Bat­tery (MHBT): A mul­ti­di­men­sion­al, mul­ti­method ap­proach”, Heller & Per­leth 2008:

    After a brief in­tro­duc­tion the the­o­ret­i­cal ba­sis of the Mu­nich High Abil­ity Test-Bat­tery (MHBT) will be out­lined in the first part of the ar­ti­cle. The MHBT has been de­vel­oped in the frame­work of the Mu­nich lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent. The MHBT in­cludes not only cog­ni­tive pre­dic­tors mea­sur­ing sev­eral di­men­sions and types of gift­ed­ness con­cern­ing in­tel­lec­tu­al, cre­ative or so­cial abil­i­ties etc., but also gift­ed­ness-rel­e­vant non-cog­ni­tive per­son­al­ity and so­cial mod­er­a­tors mea­sur­ing in­ter­ests, mo­ti­va­tions, learn­ing emo­tions, self­-con­cepts or fam­ily and school cli­mate, ed­u­ca­tional style, qual­ity of in­struc­tion, etc. The MHBT-instruments (d­iffer­ent scales and di­men­sions) are de­scribed in greater de­tail.

    In the sec­ond part of the ar­ti­cle, after deal­ing with the ob­jec­tiv­i­ty, the re­li­a­bil­i­ty, and the va­lid­ity of the MHBT, the au­thors dis­cuss the stan­dard­iza­tion pro­ce­dure in­clud­ing the de­vel­op­ment of grade-based T-norms re­spec­tively as well as sev­eral tal­en­t-pro­files, e.g. of gifted achiev­ers vs. un­der­achiev­ers, in­tel­lec­tu­al, cre­ative, so­cial tal­ents or lin­guis­tic, math, sci­ence tal­ent pro­files etc. Fi­nal­ly, ex­am­ples of tal­ent search for gifted pro­grams and case stud­ies on the ba­sis of MHBT should il­lus­trate mul­ti­di­men­sional iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures.

    The MHBT ful­fills the most rel­e­vant as­sess­ment tasks be­long­ing to the gifted ed­u­ca­tional and coun­sel­ing prac­tice. The use­ful­ness of the MHBT in the frame­work of gift­ed­ness re­search as well as of gifted pro­gram eval­u­a­tion stud­ies has also been proven in the last decade. Hence the MHBT offers many op­por­tu­ni­ties to as­sess­ing gift­ed­ness and tal­ent.

Munich 2010

  • Mu­nich Stud­ies of Gift­ed­ness, ed Heller 2010 (ISBN: 3643107285). An­thol­o­gy.

  • “Find­ings from the Mu­nich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Gift­ed­ness and Their Im­pact on Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, Gifted Ed­u­ca­tion and Coun­sel­ing”, Heller 2013:

    The Mu­nich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Gift­ed­ness Study (MLGS), orig­i­nally car­ried out from 1985 to 1989 and com­pleted by two fol­low-ups in the nineties, fo­cused on three aims in the first project phase and on five aims in the sec­ond phase. From the mid-nineties to the end of 2010, many con­sec­u­tive stud­ies based on the the­o­ret­i­cal and em­pir­i­cal re­sults of the MLGS have been im­ple­mented at the Cen­ter for the Study of Gift­ed­ness at Lud­wig Max­i­m­il­ians Uni­ver­sity (LMU) of Mu­nich. First of all, the “Mu­nich Model of Gift­ed­ness” (MMG) and the ex­tended ver­sion “Mu­nich Dy­namic Abil­ity Achieve­ment Model” (MDAAM) will be ex­plained as the the­o­ret­i­cal frame of the MLGS and the fol­low­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tions. After method­olog­i­cal re­marks, se­lected find­ings of the MLGS are pre­sented in greater de­tail. Prac­ti­cal ap­pli­ca­tions to iden­ti­fy­ing gifted in­di­vid­u­als and tal­ent search for gifted pro­grams are in the cen­ter of the fol­low­ing sec­tion. Of spe­cial in­ter­est should be MMG- and MDAAM-based sci­en­tifi­cally eval­u­ated in­ter­ven­tion strate­gies and mea­sures for en­hanc­ing in­di­vid­ual po­ten­tials ver­sus mea­sures for re­duc­ing in­effec­tive or dys­func­tional mo­ti­va­tion vari­ables and self­-con­cept pat­terns, e.g. with re­gard to STEM- and at-risk-groups. Fi­nal­ly, some con­clu­sions will be dis­cussed.


  1. An ex­am­ple of the ‘Mensa fal­lacy’—us­ing a patho­log­i­cally self­-s­e­lected self­-di­ag­nosed sam­ple—­would be Karpin­ski et al 2018, “High in­tel­li­gence: A risk fac­tor for psy­cho­log­i­cal and phys­i­o­log­i­cal overex­citabil­i­ties”, which takes Mensa sur­vey re­sults at face-value while ig­nor­ing the fact that Mensa has at­tracted losers since its found­ing (a fact that I know was pointed out to the au­thors well be­fore pub­li­ca­tion, and which they de­fend merely by say­ing that self­-re­port data is com­mon in many other ar­eas while ig­nor­ing all con­tra­dic­tory ev­i­dence).

    The re­sults are a pri­ori un­likely as all pop­u­la­tion sam­ples show that dys­func­tion­al­ity and men­tal ill­ness rates drop steeply with in­creas­ing IQ up to top per­centile and defi­nitely at least the top decile; these re­sults are so large and well known that Karpin­ski et al can­not doubt them, and so they at­tempt to ‘save the ap­pear­ances’ with ad hoc in­vo­ca­tions of non­lin­ear thresh­olds at high in­tel­li­gence, while still re­ly­ing on the rel­a­tively low IQ thresh­old of Mensa mem­ber­ship. Their re­sults are so ab­surd as to dis­credit any at­tempt to claim that a Mensa sam­ple can tell us any­thing at all about high in­tel­li­gence, as (with the ex­cep­tion of the mod­est al­ler­gies find­ing) they are com­pletely in­con­sis­tent with & phe­no­typic cor­re­la­tions, al­most im­pos­si­ble to rec­on­cile with the uni­ver­sal life-expectancy/SES/education/IQ/wealth/mental-health cor­re­la­tions ob­served every­where in psy­chol­o­gy/­so­ci­ol­o­gy/med­i­cine, and non-self-s­e­lected high­-IQ sam­ples (whether , SMPY, FLS, Mu­nich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study, SET, HCES, Scot­tish sur­vey, Scan­di­na­vian pop­u­la­tion reg­istry-based etc)—in­clud­ing a self­-re­ported As­perg­er’s rel­a­tive risk of 223!

    It’s un­clear how these are even nu­mer­i­cally rec­on­cil­able with the pop­u­la­tion es­ti­mates, as such un­be­liev­ably large risk in­creases ought to push the av­er­ages way up at the top end. Fur­ther, if any of the rel­a­tive risks were true, higher in­tel­li­gence would be one of the strongest risk fac­tors ever dis­cov­ered for men­tal ill­ness, far ex­ceed­ing the effects of mi­nor things like smok­ing. If such rel­a­tive risks were true of Men­sans, who are merely ~+2.3SD (be­ing gen­er­ous & tak­ing their 1% cri­te­rion at face-val­ue), then the RRs of groups like SMPY, MIT, No­belists, or Fields Medal­ists, who are 3–6SD, would be off the charts, and it would be diffi­cult to so much as run a SMPY sum­mer-camp with­out deal­ing with mul­ti­ple sui­cide at­tempts or psy­chotic breaks, or find a sin­gle child who seemed at all so­cial­ly-well-ad­just­ed, or an em­i­nent sci­en­tist who had not been in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized, or… Of course, this is not the case. No re­ported sta­tis­tics from SMPY or other high­-IQ sam­ples not suffer­ing from self­-s­e­lec­tion into ex­ag­ger­ated self­-di­ag­noses agree with this, and re­searchers & jour­nal­ists who in­ter­act with SMPYers and sim­i­lar high­-IQ co­horts fail to men­tion that the en­tire co­hort is nut­tier than a Snick­ers bar, and often men­tion that the mem­bers defy stereo­type by seem­ing quite healthy, well-ad­just­ed, and hap­py. (The im­pli­ca­tions con­tinue to go be­yond that—­con­sid­er­ing just ge­net­ics, such pathol­ogy would force sta­bi­liz­ing se­lec­tion, which we do not ob­serve.)

    So all Karpin­ski et al 2018 has to offer is a cau­tion­ary warn­ing about GIGO: Mensa mem­bers are ei­ther re­mark­ably se­lected for patholo­gies, or are not re­spond­ing hon­estly (per­haps due to the trendi­ness of self­-di­ag­nos­ing autism as an ex­cuse for fail­ure).↩︎

  2. An ex­am­ple would be Gross’s Aus­tralian study, often cited as ev­i­dence that gifted chil­dren/adults are deeply trou­bled and often fail­ures; how­ev­er, to quote Gross 2006, the study “ad­ver­tised 1986–1987 in the Bul­letin of the Aus­tralian Psy­cho­log­i­cal So­ci­ety, in the newslet­ters of the na­tional and state gifted chil­dren’s as­so­ci­a­tions, through let­ters to Col­leges of Ed­u­ca­tion in Aus­tralian uni­ver­si­ties, through let­ters to psy­chol­o­gists in pri­vate prac­tice, and through in­for­mal con­tact with col­leagues across the coun­try who had a spe­cial in­ter­est in gifted ed­u­ca­tion.” It takes lit­tle imag­i­na­tion to won­der how much this method of re­cruit­ing se­lected for un­usu­ally trou­bled or oth­er­wise un­healthy chil­dren. (N­ev­er­the­less, even within Gross’s sam­ple, ac­cel­er­a­tion of ed­u­ca­tion strongly cor­re­lates with bet­ter out­comes, sup­port­ing SMPY’s re­sults and an in­ter­pre­ta­tion that much of Gross’s sam­ple’s pathol­ogy was due to deeply in­ap­pro­pri­ate en­vi­ron­ments.)↩︎

  3. Sub­se­quently re­named “SMPY”.↩︎

  4. Also of in­ter­est in this vol­ume is John­son & Bouchard 2014, .↩︎