The Genius of Children

By Mizin P. Kawasaki, M.D.

When my children were young, I was fascinated by their individual abilities. My son could identify dozens of international flags and call out the names of all the cars we passed on the road by the time he was two years old. When he was three years old, he could read books on his own.

Similarly, my six-month-old daughter managed to use her little hands to perform six different tasks on a toy that was meant for twelve- to eighteen-month-old infants. She could also put together a map of the U.S. by the time she was two years old. My friend recalls how astonished she was to watch a toddler in diapers confidently put together a wooden map of the U.S.

I have since learned that children who are given the opportunity to learn may exhibit astonishing abilities. A woman I know insisted that her son was a math prodigy at the age of five. She bought him math workbooks and had him tutored because he was bored with math in kindergarten. He started studying geometry in school when he was eleven years old.

I thought another woman was obnoxious, but it turns out that she was just being honest. She called me one day to ask what the math homework assignment was because her six-year-old daughter was sick at home. When I mentioned that it was addition of numbers with two places, she scoffed that that was so easy. Her eleven-year-old daughter is now in the eighth grade.

I have encountered a ten-year-old who has read books by Charles Dickens and Herman Melville. I have met twelve-year-olds who earned SAT scores that are higher than those of most high school seniors. I also know a child who skipped junior high school and went on to attend college. I also know of several children who skipped high school and started college.

Children’s aptitude for knowledge is astonishing. It has also been acknowledged that kids today are simply smarter than children of previous generations. Within the past century, the IQ score of children has risen.

There is no doubt that children have incredible aptitude. What remains to be seen is what children will do with the talents they develop and how they will live in the future.

***

I have a friend who thought that her bright and talented daughter was easily on track to attend any of the most elite colleges in the country. She was astounded to learn otherwise. Countless other parents have also been disappointed.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times published several stories about the competitive nature of college admissions. A Times editor describes her brilliant sixteen-year-old son and the hurdles he faces, and a writer lauds her sixteen-year-old who will begin college in the fall. Meanwhile, an admissions dean laments the difficulty smart young women have in gaining entrance to some of the country’s best colleges: there is a glut of girls, and boys currently have an advantage when it comes to college admissions.

Then, at the other end of the spectrum is the push for greater academic proficiency at earlier ages. A highly educated writer expresses her frustration in a Los Angeles Times commentary because her five-year-old son is already being informed that he is lagging behind his peers.

Whereas kindergarten was once dedicated to exploration, play, and enjoyment, it is now a series of tedious and rigorous exercises that purportedly prepare children for even more arduous and boring tasks. In other words, school is not much fun.

In California, the trend to make childhood even less enjoyable is evident: on the upcoming June 2006 election ballot is a proposition that would tax wealthy individuals to fund universal preschool. The argument is that children who attend preschool will be better prepared to attend kindergarten and face the rigors of elementary school. Although the measure advocates voluntary preschool, the eventual goal is to institute mandatory preschool.

Disadvantaged youngsters who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may benefit greatly by receiving preschool education. Their parents may be unavailable and perhaps illiterate. Transcending ethnic backgrounds, there are now many illiterate immigrants in the U.S. They may have been illiterate in their native countries, so it is imperative that their youngsters can gain access to high quality education.

The argument that all youngsters need to attend preschool, however, is preposterous. What is early education, after all? Education early in life revolves around learning the basics of living as a human being. Good manners, courtesy, and consideration are all learned in the home.

By the time a child gets to kindergarten, a child should already possess good manners and the ability to behave properly. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consult with kindergarten teachers who face the challenge of interacting with unruly children. It is much harder for these children to learn how to pay attention and to behave well in school if they have not learned to do so in the home.

Moreover, children are ready to learn in school only after they have received a foundation to learn in the home. The habit of learning and achieving has to arise in the home.

The push for universal preschool is absurd. Taxpayer dollars should be directed toward improving educational programs that already exist. Public schools need to be improved: they are so bad that countless parents strive to send their children to private schools. Public education today is a mess, but preschool advocates insist that the program should be expanded to include preschoolers.

Why is there such a push for universal preschool education? In recent years, sociologists have argued that preschool education hinders the development of criminals. How true is that? There are innumerable criminals who have received the best education, and they may have also attended preschool.

There are numerous white-collar criminals who have robbed countless citizens of enormous funds, but the media tend to broadcast news about perpetrators of violent crimes. White-collar criminals, however, harm society and citizens, and many of these individuals are well educated.

Consider, for instance, recently sentenced or jailed corporate executives like Andrew Fastow of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco; and Timothy Rigas of Adelphia. These men received high quality educations, but they chose to behave criminally instead of contributing to society.

Contemplate also the recent scandal in the publishing industry that involved Kaavya Viswanathan, a nineteen-year-old sophomore at Harvard University who received a publishing contract at the age of seventeen. Her first novel was feted before it was pulled off bookstore shelves amid allegations of serious charges of plagiarism. The young author may have taken the liberty of using numerous written passages from the books of two contemporary young adult novelists.

When I read about this scandal, I was disappointed that Ms. Viswanathan’s role models were not novelists from another era, like 19^th century England or Russia. She later admitted to admiring the work of today’s young adult novelists. I do not doubt that while favoring Ms. Vswanathan’s admission, Harvard must have turned down countless high achieving students who probably held in great esteem distinguished novelists, thinkers, and philosophers of yore.

Contemporary young adult novels reflect what the late historian and social critic Christopher Lasch decries as the unfortunate trend in modern education. He writes the following of young girls at a private high school:

Their idea of freedom is to “go somewhere of my own choice—like to Burger King or Wendy’s.” Their idea of education is “to get into college, and that’s the only reason I’m here.” Their vocabulary is pathetically reduced, their speech halting and clumsy. “I was like screaming on the phone…. I was like, ‘I don’t care,’ you know.” “She’s like, ‘I’m going to kill myself,’ and I’m like, ‘Don’t kill yourself until morning, I’m really tired.’” *

This is exactly the kind of language Ms. Viswanathan uses in her novel, and it is considered to be literature.

My fifteen-year-old son informs me that I belong in another century, from long ago in the past. My standards are too bizarre for him. He speaks a bit like the girls Lasch quotes, as do all of his friends. In the past, some of his friends did not even speak; they sort of muttered.

More recently, I am happy to report, some of his friends have become more articulate and actually seem to enjoy engaging in conversation. There is little doubt that all of these youngsters will complete their high school education and attend college.

For now, the standards of college admission remain inexplicable to the vast majority of parents, including those of very bright children. What seems evident is that college is not at all what it seems to be. I am not at all convinced that today’s privileged youngsters have any idea how much wisdom they could accrue by just being interested in learning.

***

So much of modern education is a matter of squelching that curiosity.

This is truly a shame. What I hope is that I gave my children enough freedom early in life to understand that they can learn anything they wish.

Neither of my children attended preschool. I home schooled my son for kindergarten, and my daughter started with a half-day of kindergarten. The idea that they should have been forced to attend preschool is silly. I have seen far too many young children suffer as a result of being separated from their mothers when they did not wish to part from them.

Granted, some children love to attend preschool. My friend told me that her three-year-old was anxious for her to leave so that she could enjoy preschool. My sister told me that her three-year-old would have been bored at home.

In any case, I think that the average child receives far too much formal schooling. If one includes kindergarten and college, the average child will face seventeen years of formal schooling by the time she reaches the age of twenty-two. To add on another two years of preschool makes little sense.

Let us remember that most of the world’s geniuses did not attend college. Those who succeed in life do not depend upon their educational degrees. They work hard to nurture their unique talents.

As Thomas Edison said, “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” The crucial issue is whether a child, regardless of socioeconomic and educational background, can learn to work. Such interest in work and learning begins in early childhood.

I am optimistic about my son not because of his early learning aptitude, but because of his tremendous spirit as a young child. He was only four years old one day when he said something that inspired me to comment that he could become a great philosopher. He replied, “No, I’m going to be a great car wash man.”

At the time, he was operating a car wash service in our apartment. He had a little minivan that he took care of and washed frequently. He wore a baseball cap backward on his head, had a spray bottle that hooked onto his belt, a notepad on which he had drawn little boxes to check off items like wax and detail, and his hankies. He worked diligently because he had seen how hard young men at the real car wash work to clean my car.

The spirit to work at something is what creates value in life. Children’s innate talent and genius are meaningless if they cannot learn how to apply their gifts.

Parents work hard outside the home, but I think that children learn so much early in life and in the home by observing their parents. Those early years in life are irreplaceable. That is the time when real education takes place, and true genius is nurtured.

May 10, 2006

Return to Topics of Interest

* Lasch, Christopher. 1997. Women and the Common Life. Ed. Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn. New York: W.W. Norton, 134.


THE NURTURING MOTHER TOPICS OF INTEREST


The Genius of Children By Mizin P. Kawasaki, M.D. When my children were young, I was fascinated by their individual abilities. My son could identify dozens of international flags and call out the names of all the cars we passed on the road by the time he was two years old. When he was three years old, he could read books on his own. Similarly, my six-month-old daughter managed to use her little hands to perform six different tasks on a toy that was meant for twelve- to eighteen-month-old infants. She could also put together a map of the U.S. by the time she was two years old. My friend recalls how astonished she was to watch a toddler in diapers confidently put together a wooden map of the U.S. I have since learned that children who are given the opportunity to learn may exhibit astonishing abilities. A woman I know insisted that her son was a math prodigy at the age of five. She bought him math workbooks and had him tutored because he was bored with math in kindergarten. He started studying geometry in school when he was eleven years old. I thought another woman was obnoxious, but it turns out that she was just being honest. She called me one day to ask what the math homework assignment was because her six-year-old daughter was sick at home. When I mentioned that it was addition of numbers with two places, she scoffed that that was so easy. Her eleven-year-old daughter is now in the eighth grade. I have encountered a ten-year-old who has read books by Charles Dickens and Herman Melville. I have met twelve-year-olds who earned SAT scores that are higher than those of most high school seniors. I also know a child who skipped junior high school and went on to attend college. I also know of several children who skipped high school and started college. Children’s aptitude for knowledge is astonishing. It has also been acknowledged that kids today are simply smarter than children of previous generations. Within the past century, the IQ score of children has risen. There is no doubt that children have incredible aptitude. What remains to be seen is what children will do with the talents they develop and how they will live in the future. *** I have a friend who thought that her bright and talented daughter was easily on track to attend any of the most elite colleges in the country. She was astounded to learn otherwise. Countless other parents have also been disappointed. Last month, the Los Angeles Times published several stories about the competitive nature of college admissions. A Times editor describes her brilliant sixteen-year-old son and the hurdles he faces, and a writer lauds her sixteen-year-old who will begin college in the fall. Meanwhile, an admissions dean laments the difficulty smart young women have in gaining entrance to some of the country’s best colleges: there is a glut of girls, and boys currently have an advantage when it comes to college admissions. Then, at the other end of the spectrum is the push for greater academic proficiency at earlier ages. A highly educated writer expresses her frustration in a Los Angeles Times commentary because her five-year-old son is already being informed that he is lagging behind his peers. Whereas kindergarten was once dedicated to exploration, play, and enjoyment, it is now a series of tedious and rigorous exercises that purportedly prepare children for even more arduous and boring tasks. In other words, school is not much fun. In California, the trend to make childhood even less enjoyable is evident: on the upcoming June 2006 election ballot is a proposition that would tax wealthy individuals to fund universal preschool. The argument is that children who attend preschool will be better prepared to attend kindergarten and face the rigors of elementary school. Although the measure advocates voluntary preschool, the eventual goal is to institute mandatory preschool. Disadvantaged youngsters who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may benefit greatly by receiving preschool education. Their parents may be unavailable and perhaps illiterate. Transcending ethnic backgrounds, there are now many illiterate immigrants in the U.S. They may have been illiterate in their native countries, so it is imperative that their youngsters can gain access to high quality education. The argument that all youngsters need to attend preschool, however, is preposterous. What is early education, after all? Education early in life revolves around learning the basics of living as a human being. Good manners, courtesy, and consideration are all learned in the home. By the time a child gets to kindergarten, a child should already possess good manners and the ability to behave properly. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consult with kindergarten teachers who face the challenge of interacting with unruly children. It is much harder for these children to learn how to pay attention and to behave well in school if they have not learned to do so in the home. Moreover, children are ready to learn in school only after they have received a foundation to learn in the home. The habit of learning and achieving has to arise in the home. The push for universal preschool is absurd. Taxpayer dollars should be directed toward improving educational programs that already exist. Public schools need to be improved: they are so bad that countless parents strive to send their children to private schools. Public education today is a mess, but preschool advocates insist that the program should be expanded to include preschoolers. Why is there such a push for universal preschool education? In recent years, sociologists have argued that preschool education hinders the development of criminals. How true is that? There are innumerable criminals who have received the best education, and they may have also attended preschool. There are numerous white-collar criminals who have robbed countless citizens of enormous funds, but the media tend to broadcast news about perpetrators of violent crimes. White-collar criminals, however, harm society and citizens, and many of these individuals are well educated. Consider, for instance, recently sentenced or jailed corporate executives like Andrew Fastow of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco; and Timothy Rigas of Adelphia. These men received high quality educations, but they chose to behave criminally instead of contributing to society. Contemplate also the recent scandal in the publishing industry that involved Kaavya Viswanathan, a nineteen-year-old sophomore at Harvard University who received a publishing contract at the age of seventeen. Her first novel was feted before it was pulled off bookstore shelves amid allegations of serious charges of plagiarism. The young author may have taken the liberty of using numerous written passages from the books of two contemporary young adult novelists. When I read about this scandal, I was disappointed that Ms. Viswanathan’s role models were not novelists from another era, like 19^th century England or Russia. She later admitted to admiring the work of today’s young adult novelists. I do not doubt that while favoring Ms. Vswanathan’s admission, Harvard must have turned down countless high achieving students who probably held in great esteem distinguished novelists, thinkers, and philosophers of yore. Contemporary young adult novels reflect what the late historian and social critic Christopher Lasch decries as the unfortunate trend in modern education. He writes the following of young girls at a private high school: Their idea of freedom is to “go somewhere of my own choice—like to Burger King or Wendy’s.” Their idea of education is “to get into college, and that’s the only reason I’m here.” Their vocabulary is pathetically reduced, their speech halting and clumsy. “I was like screaming on the phone…. I was like, ‘I don’t care,’ you know.” “She’s like, ‘I’m going to kill myself,’ and I’m like, ‘Don’t kill yourself until morning, I’m really tired.’” * This is exactly the kind of language Ms. Viswanathan uses in her novel, and it is considered to be literature. My fifteen-year-old son informs me that I belong in another century, from long ago in the past. My standards are too bizarre for him. He speaks a bit like the girls Lasch quotes, as do all of his friends. In the past, some of his friends did not even speak; they sort of muttered. More recently, I am happy to report, some of his friends have become more articulate and actually seem to enjoy engaging in conversation. There is little doubt that all of these youngsters will complete their high school education and attend college. For now, the standards of college admission remain inexplicable to the vast majority of parents, including those of very bright children. What seems evident is that college is not at all what it seems to be. I am not at all convinced that today’s privileged youngsters have any idea how much wisdom they could accrue by just being interested in learning. *** So much of modern education is a matter of squelching that curiosity. This is truly a shame. What I hope is that I gave my children enough freedom early in life to understand that they can learn anything they wish. Neither of my children attended preschool. I home schooled my son for kindergarten, and my daughter started with a half-day of kindergarten. The idea that they should have been forced to attend preschool is silly. I have seen far too many young children suffer as a result of being separated from their mothers when they did not wish to part from them. Granted, some children love to attend preschool. My friend told me that her three-year-old was anxious for her to leave so that she could enjoy preschool. My sister told me that her three-year-old would have been bored at home. In any case, I think that the average child receives far too much formal schooling. If one includes kindergarten and college, the average child will face seventeen years of formal schooling by the time she reaches the age of twenty-two. To add on another two years of preschool makes little sense. Let us remember that most of the world’s geniuses did not attend college. Those who succeed in life do not depend upon their educational degrees. They work hard to nurture their unique talents. As Thomas Edison said, “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” The crucial issue is whether a child, regardless of socioeconomic and educational background, can learn to work. Such interest in work and learning begins in early childhood. I am optimistic about my son not because of his early learning aptitude, but because of his tremendous spirit as a young child. He was only four years old one day when he said something that inspired me to comment that he could become a great philosopher. He replied, “No, I’m going to be a great car wash man.” At the time, he was operating a car wash service in our apartment. He had a little minivan that he took care of and washed frequently. He wore a baseball cap backward on his head, had a spray bottle that hooked onto his belt, a notepad on which he had drawn little boxes to check off items like wax and detail, and his hankies. He worked diligently because he had seen how hard young men at the real car wash work to clean my car. The spirit to work at something is what creates value in life. Children’s innate talent and genius are meaningless if they cannot learn how to apply their gifts. Parents work hard outside the home, but I think that children learn so much early in life and in the home by observing their parents. Those early years in life are irreplaceable. That is the time when real education takes place, and true genius is nurtured. May 10, 2006 Return to Topics of Interest * Lasch, Christopher. 1997. Women and the Common Life. Ed. Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn. New York: W.W. Norton, 134.