A reader quotes another:
Outside of the yuppie environs McArdle talks about, we live in a culture where academic acheivement is actually frowned on by peers. I went to a nice, suburban school in Nebraska and I was literally beaten up for getting a high score on a test, made fun of constantly for reading, ostracized both for being smart and for trying to do well in class.
I just came home from attending the graduation ceremony for one of my partner's nephews, who attended a large suburban public high school. Two things struck me about the ceremony. One was the relative paucity of young men recognized for academic achievement (somewhat less than a quarter of those recognized). The other was that the handful of kids who had already signed on the dotted line with the Armed Forces got a long rousing standing ovation from the audience while those who were recognized for earning scholarships or obtaining high grades and test scores simply got a smattering of token applause.
I don't want to take anything at all away from the kids heading off to active duty. I was a soldier myself. But there is something seriously wrong with a society that rewards kids who choose a job that frankly just about anyone is capable of doing, while giving short shrift to bright, hardworking young people who excel at what, after all, students are supposed to be concentrating on. It certainly wasn't the fault of the school, which did its best to give those students the recognition they deserved. Rather, it's the parents, who simply don't seem to give a damn about intellectual achievement.
Gifted and Talented programs may very well seem like salvation to a lot of smart kids. But it seems to me that the problem with these programs may be that they end up shoving them off into an academic ghetto, while the vast majority are allowed to inherit their parents' anti-intellectualism without serious challenge.
Another writes:
The simple truth is, there is no greater crime you can commit in American public schools than being too smart. These programs, when properly administered, provide not only a place for gifted kids to thrive, but for them to be safe. The reader who wrote about getting beat up for scoring too high on a test would have broken my heart, were it not for the fact that it is such an oft-told tale.
To bring this around to a national level, we see this played out in national politics on a regular basis. In presidential elections it is really hard for the smarter guy to win. (Think Bush v. Gore, or Bush v. Kerry.) Unless he can also play "one of the boys" – as per Clinton – or there is a total revulsion against what has gone on in the previous four years (as with W's second term) the score goes to the dumber candidate. It is hard to overestimate the strength of the anti-intellectual strand of American culture.
Another:
The commenters that don't see the necessity of G&T classes don't understand the importance of having peers. Years of boredom and social ostracism take their toll. Not until college I was able to surround myself with people as smart as I am, that I overcame the habit of doing less than I was capable of in order to fit in. Anyone who values the impact of bright young people on the world needs to understand that a gifted child, like any child who doesn't fit in, needs to be reassured that it's ok to be different – that it's ok to be smart.
The Dish 