We Can't All Make the Grade

October 2008

The phrase "many children are just not gifted enough?.?.?." would be completely uncontroversial if it described any ability but intellectual. A quarter of a century ago, Howard Gardner, the American educational scholar, famously sought to topple the word intelligence from its pedestal by arguing that there are seven different intelligences: kinesthetic (roughly, athletic), musical, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intra-personal, linguistic and logical-mathematical. Let's accept his classification and apply the concept of "just not gifted enough" to the first five of them. Imagine that each sentence begins with "No matter how much training I get?.?.?."

"I am just not gifted enough to do a somersault with a half twist off the pommel horse" (kinesthetic).

"I am just not gifted enough to understand why someone would choose to compose a piece in B major rather than C major" (musical).

"I am just not gifted enough to see a chessboard in my mind and move pieces on it" (visual-spatial).

"I am just not gifted enough to be a first-rate teacher" (inter-personal).

"I am just not gifted enough to stick with a no-sweets diet" (intra-personal).

None of these tasks is especially difficult for someone who is well above average in the ability in question. All of them are extremely difficult for people who are around the average. All of them are impossible for people who are well below average - not just difficult, but impossible. To be below average in any ability is to be quite limited in the things one can do. And when children show up at the school room door, 50 per cent of them are below average in every single one of those abilities.

Now apply the same test to the last two of Gardner's seven intelligences:

"I am just not gifted enough to understand text with big words and complicated syntax" (linguistic).

"I am just not gifted enough to factor an equation" (logical-mathematical).

Tags:

Political Correctness

UK Politics

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Phil Rushton

September 27th, 2008
1:09 AM

Charles Murray has hit the nail on the head again. Most of can accept that some of our siblings are genetically handsomer, healthier, more athletic, or more socially charming than ourselves. Why can't we accept that some of them are more intelligent? We probably do when it comes to within-family relations but find it difficult to do when looking between families. But it is just as true. It is time to become realistic and take off the rose colored glasses. caused

MunsterFellow

September 25th, 2008
2:09 PM

Mr Murray - perhaps instead of dismissing thousands UK students and their abilities and singing the praises of a education system based on the extremely dubious and unproven concept that a IQ gene or gene combination exists, you would be better served referencing the OECD's PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) statistics. The same countries nearly always appear on the top twenty list of reading, scientific and mathematical skills. Of interest is the best performing nation Finland (1st in science/2nd in mathematics and reading skills) with its entirely state owned and operated system. East Asian nations with their "any child can succeed as long as they study hard" attitude also figure prominently. As for the UK, its students (whose efforts you dismiss with contempt)come 14th in science (above Switzerland) and 17th in reading ability (above Germany). The US meanwhile, where the majority of your psychobabble originates from, doesn't even get a single slot in the top twenty. Mr Murray, next time more research as less idle speculation. Back of the class!

Post your comment