Good Schools—and College—Are the Way to Financial Success, Right? “Does Intelligence Matter?” 3rd in Series by Deborah Ruf, PhD

There are an astonishing number of assumptions in Dr. Ruf's article; too many, really, to address in a simple blog post comment. That said, here are a few knee jerk reactions:

First, Dr. Ruf focuses a great deal on financial reward. Along these lines, readers might wish to read the paper authored by our dear friend Bill Symonds of the Harvard Graduate School Of Education. It is called "Pathways to Prosperity" and has received a great deal of national attention.

Anyway, back on topic. While financial reward, at least at a certain level whereby one is not always struggling to cover basic living expenses, is indeed important, there are many other aspects that can be both necessary and sufficient conditions of living a fulfilling life. Having lived in affluent suburbia for much of my life, I have met too many miserable, unfulfilled and, quite frankly, uninteresting people to count.

Second, the concept of, to use Dr. Ruf's phrase, "student success" is itself a loaded idea. Many kids who attend rigorous elementary, middle and high schools game the system by learning enough to score strong marks, but do not necessarily absorb the ethical, political, spiritual or societal implications of what they study and how it applies, in practical terms, to their lives. How many more Harvard MBAs and MIT trained mathematicians do we need to blow up the world's economy before the frequent disconnect between academic (and financial) success and a deeper sense of ethical obligation to society is perceived?

Third, the concept of "high paying careers" is a relative term. Part of the problem with modern day America is the vast income inequality between those members of society who are paid (I almost slipped and said "earn") the most and everyone else. Many of our most brilliant people teach college; and college professors earn a decent living compared to a person working in WalMart. However, relative to investment bankers, senior partners in corporate law firms, surgeons and professional athletes, the typical college professor has fairly meager earnings. Consider, further, that teachers in public (or private) high schools often earn less than many college professors. Dr. Ruf states that teachers in affluent towns are "well paid. However, compared to the families of children they teach, they are poorly paid. Unless a teacher is from a two income family, with one spouse in a far more lucrative career, few teachers can afford to live in the affluent towns in which they teach.
The point is that, in so rewarding certain career paths with financial benefits, we create a disincentive for many very bright people to pursue other careers that might benefit society at large more. This is not to say that many people do not choose to do what they believe in rather than just chase the money. But why, as a society, do we create, or tolerate, such income disparity that a brilliant person who wishes to teach or become a social worker needs to face the prospect of earning 5 % of what they could earn as a private equity manager?

Fourth, and to be fair to Dr. Ruf it is difficult to tell if she is making this assumption or not, there are often cases where "success", be it academic, financial, athletic or other types of success, fluctuates. Citing my own history somewhat, I have a very high IQ but have had tremendous ups and downs through both my school experience and my career. In 7th grade (I found the results of an approximately 40 year old exam some time ago) my reading aptitude was measured in two manners. In one, I was somewhat ahead of grade level (8th grade) and in the other I was at 12th grade 9 months plus-essentially college level in 7th grade. However, I was an only child from a broken home and was picked on so much in school that year that I grew to hate school. By the time I was in 10th grade, I had become an accomplished athlete but was rebelling against a system the cracks of which I had slipped through. As a potential state level runner, my grades were so poor (below a D average for the year) that I was ineligible to run on the track team. Switching to a small, private school, I immediately grew to like school, lettered in four different high school sports, attended a respectable small college where I did well and was eventually awarded one of the Du Pont Fellowships at Virginia in the graduate Philosophy department. Being too young and too immature when I began graduate school, though, and not being very interested in modern "Analytic" Philosophy, I put in little effort, did marginally, became disillusioned with academia and eventually discontinued my studies to pursue other interests.

My point in citing the above personal experience is to note that even very gifted individuals excel during certain periods of their lives and struggle during others. I have had a similar experience in my career, being nationally regarded as a specialist in antique Persian rugs, with periods of financial success and periods of tremendous difficulty. The national events of the last few years, with a great number of extremely capable people being unemployed, often for prolonged periods, should highlight the uncertain nature of intelligence in its relation to what would often be deemed "success", at least so far as it is measured financially.

One last point: regarding some of the factors that affect "success", as affluent America might define it, there is a self-perpetuating cycle. Tax laws governing inheritance, when they set limits that allow a socio-economic aristocracy to exist, do nothing but perpetuate the cycle. In the town in which we live (Wellesley, Massachusetts), and no doubt in other, similar suburbs around the United States, the public school systems that might be held in high regard by Dr. Ruf, and understandably so, are still often deemed not good enough for a large percentage of the population whom then attend private schools. It was some time ago, and I am not sure of the accuracy of the report, but I vaguely recall seeing at some point that approximately 40 % of high school aged children from Wellesley attend private school. Now, as a graduate of a private high school myself, and a school that made a tremendous positive impact in my life, I am among the last people who would categorically denounce private schools. My point, rather, is that kids from affluent towns have far greater advantages than simply the advantage of possible innate intelligence.

Dr. Ruf states that access to money doesn't cause high ability. I agree fully. But what access to money does cause (often) are advantages that render our society highly inequitable, both in terms of education and employment. Kids from affluent families might or might not have the involvement of their parents in terms of their education or the setting of their moral compass, but they often attend public schools where academic success is considered by their peers to be a worthy goal. Children from towns with less educated populations might face the additional hurdle of being characterized as a "nerd", which can make it even more difficult for them to excel in school. Furthermore, when kids from affluent towns struggle in school, they often are provided with private tutors by their parents; test prep classes; social connections and possible financial contributions to get them into prep schools; and legacy advantages when it comes to certain colleges. Read Daniel Golden's "The Price of Admission" if you want your eyes opened on that count.

Dr. Ruf does, indeed, note that opportunity matters for helping one to maximize gifts. The sad news is that we still live in a world, and in a country, where some children are afforded vastly greater opportunities than other children.

Douglas B. Stock

Your post had me thinking one thing, and then I changed my thoughts when I read the last paragraph. As a fourth grade teacher, trained in gifted education, I'm constantly trying to find out what each kid needs from me. I offer them all "good teaching", but that's not enough. Teaching is in many ways just like parenting. You can't treat your children the same because they have different needs. One child may need firmer guidelines, while the other may need more emotional support. You have to give each what they need to live their best lives. Same thing in the classroom. While all my students gain benefits from certain lessons and methods of teaching, some learn in different ways and need more or less support to gain understanding. Treating them equally is not fair. They need to be treated equitably. Big difference! Asking my struggling students to work on an open-ended PBL project without proper background knowledge would be unfair, but so would asking my high flyers to sit through days of background knowledge preparation and discussion when they're ready to start on the project.

It's not easy to meet the wide variety of needs in a classroom, but I owe it to the kids to try my best!