Customer Reviews

Hothouse Kids: The Dilemma of the Gifted Child

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Ms. Quart turned a phone conversation and a few e-mails into parts of pp. 137-38. The author mistakenly has me calling my son "scary" when the entire description came from one of my son's adult opponents in chess. The man shared with me how he himself had felt as if he were being judged by the little boy sitting across from him and how scary it was for him. I shared that story with Ms. Quart, but she confused the speakers. I've made mistakes before, so I can understand such an error. Fortunately, my little boy thought that the line was funny.

There was another error, too. In our brief correspondence I explained that one of the differences between the "good" chess parents and the "bad" ones was that the "bad" ones took ownership of their children's success and had lived such miserable lives that they were now living through their children. Ms. Quart transformed that sharing into the following "quote" attributed to me: "I am following him. I think about what I could have done. For all chess parents, it's too late. You live through your children." There is a limit to one's poetic license.

Much of the rest of the four paragraphs is accurate, namely the events we've been to, the make and year of our car, the reference to the Donald Hall poem, and my general disinterest in wealth for the sake of wealth. I hope that I didn't say, "Ray's so skinny, he has to sit up on his knees so he can see the board." That's a ridiculous sentence. :)

I have two more thoughts to share. If such errors as noted above can occur in my little part, I wonder if the quotes attributed to others were as faulty. If so, I am not sure how much value the book has. I would be interested to hear from any others who were interviewed to see if my case was the norm or the exception.

And here is my final thought. When I was asked about sharing something of my son's story, I agreed because I thought that the author was interested only in sharing the stories of various children who were supported by loving families. I did not know until I saw the book that the author had an ax to grind (as revealed on pp. 11-13 where Ms. Quart discusses the abuse she suffered at the hands of her father based on his plans for her life). While I was lucky enough to fall into the category of parents who offer "a loving and productive strategy" for their children, I wish that none of our story had been mentioned in a book that has as its focus child abuse.

Whoa! I was expecting a well-written study of the lives and perspectives of
young geniuses and high-IQ adults from this New York Times journalist.
Instead, "Hothouse Kids" insults and distorts the subject and subjects of
study.

The author skewers everyone she meets: parents,"gifted" study educators
and researchers, educational product developers and competitive events
organizers, even the bright children--whom she pities for what she sees as their
their "nerdish freakiness".

A former smart girl herself, the author can't seem to find anyone likeable
in the subculture she has chosen to explore. She pokes fun at how these
people look, the clothes they wear, the cars they drive. One mother of a
brilliant child, for example, has hair "suitable for a Journey music
video." Another walks with a "jerky gait which combines a limp and a
strut". One man has "wiry clown hair", another communicates through
"swaggering body language". A gifted child's build reminds the author of
"Matt Damon on a stretching rack" (whatever that means). Somebody has a
"lazy eye", someone else rolls her eyes (which is, apparently, too "Gen X"),
and a respected leader in the field of gifted education is accused of
dressing like "a mystic". One family's kitchen, where the author was
welcomed, confided in, and provided with food and drink, is criticized as
"rickety--even eccentric". The meal, too, is weird, not up to the author's
standards. Apparently, she finds everyone in the "hothouse" she is studying
to be strange and distasteful.

Several interview subjects for this offensive book have complained of being
misquoted (see other reviews). This is not surprising as the included
quotes typically consist of odd jumbles of disconnected ideas and thoughts
--as if the author had extracted sentences from lengthy interviews and
strung them together out of context.

As the author of more than two dozen nonfiction books, I was shocked and
disheartened by "Hothouse Kids". It is difficult enough for writers to
persuade people to agree to interviews without such a glaring reminder of
the potential for journalistic abuse of power. The process of interviewing
requires trust: that the writer will not use the interviewees' words
against them. If I want to write a book on the subject of high-IQ children,
who in the field would gladly agree to an interview now?

Perhaps the author feels that she has exorcised some of her own disturbed
memories of childhood. Unfortunately, she has added little to the study of
gifted kids while hurting a number of people in the process of vindicating
her own bitterness.

Alissa Quart's book takes a particular position which it advances relentless and articulately: Identifying and providing targeted services for gifted children is a form of harm which deprives them of childhood, freedom and a chance to develop without becoming parental "projects." As a prodigy herself, she felt harmed by being identified as gifted; ergo it is bad for all gifted children.

She makes as good a case as I've read, but I doubt that any single solution works for all children. As one of the people she interviewed in the book as having expertise in this area, I see some of the children she describes but I also see the children who are floundering without accommodation. What about the 5-year-old considered "too immature" to be advanced from first grade into second, but her immaturity disappears when she is actually given books at her actual reading level? Would anyone have given her the 4th grade books in class if someone with and alphabet after her name and objective test results hadn't documented it? How many times would she have read "Pat the Bunny" before getting a little punchy?

There is a reason that gifted is mentioned under the section on Attention Deficit Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR). It reminds all of us in the mental health business that we need to make certain that we aren't labeling and medication children who are simply academically underchallenged. Crushing boredom isn't therapeutic and children don't respond well to it. Bored kids entertain themselves in ways that are sometimes disruptive, thoughtless and annoying. Some of these kids aren't relishing the lack of academic pressure; they are being given prescriptions for Ritalin. Miraca Gross' research on gifted is solid, lovely work - and it supports academic acceleration as generally benign and often transformative for bright, underchallenged children.

In the three hours of telephone conversation, Alissa and I ranged pretty widely. It was sad that she highlighted the exchanges which were the most unkind to parents of gifted children. While there are parents who can be overly invested in their children, most of the parents of gifted children that I have met are not. Many of these parents are slow to embrace the label and worry that they will raise a generation of pint-sized narcissists. Every group has its fringe: a bit entertaining, a bit bizarre and not representative of the community. While they make good anecdotes, they do not make good ambassadors.

I chose to do work with gifted children and their parents because there is a need. The people hovering on either end of the bell curve tend to have a rougher time of it. Few would argue that providing services to children with mental retardation is somehow an expression of parental narcissism, but apparently children who are equally statistically unusual are going to be happier if they are shoehorned into someone else's idea of normality. I'd rather we support them in discovering their own abilities and difficulties while supporting their parents with the shockingly hard job of parenting.

It quickly became clear that the author felt too strongly and personally about this subject to be clearheaded about it. It suffers from poor reporting, awkward writing, and negligent editing. The way she repeatedly harps on how the kids in the book may be gifted and even enjoying life but they are "geeky" or "not cool" is juvenile and ridiculous. She should have written a memoir first.

It's too bad because this is a book that is begging to be written properly. The subject is very timely.

In "Hothouse Kids," Alissa Quart examines the "baby genius" industry and the proliferation of activities and opportunities that claim to stimulate a child's development and guarantee success. She also looks at the sorry state of public education and children's increasingly structured, over-scheduled lives.

From these potentially interesting subjects, Ms. Quart veers off track into criticism of today's gifted children and their parents. Apparently, Ms. Quart was a gifted child, as she details her precocious achievements over several pages; clearly, she resents being pushed by her parents to achieve.

I am troubled by numerous aspects of this book, including an apparent attempt by the author to create and/or heighten a class conflict. Ms. Quart paints poor and/or minority parents of gifted children as "foot soldiers" in the battle to save gifted programs in public schools, while she presents middle-class parents of gifted children as paranoid, hostile to school authorities, and delusional about their children's abilities. I find any attempt to confer moral superiority upon a group by virtue of some characteristic or lack thereof to be repellent.

The arguments and examples presented in "Hothouse Kids" tend to be poorly thought-out and muddled. Ms. Quart argues in favor of increased access to enrichment programs in the schools, a laudable goal, but does not indicate how we are to fund such programs. Moreover, she does the cause a disservice by painting a large portion of the parents of gifted children in such a negative light. The author also calls for more free time for kids, and greater opportunities for them to pursue passions of their choosing. Again, this is a laudable goal, but one that seems to me to be in direct conflict with the author's apparent stance toward homeschooling, which Ms. Quart seems to see as yet another example of super-intensive parenting.

A consistent theme throughout the book is the author's emphasis on the physical appearance of the people she encountered while researching her book. There is a certain disdain for moms in stretch knits and educators in bright, cheery clothing -- in short, for anyone who is not "stylish." This seems like a nitpicky point, but in my opinion this represents an underlying problem with "Hothouse Kids," namely the author's lack of maturity and perspective. I have mixed feelings about using such phrasing in a public forum, but the overall tone of the book is quite catty and junior-high-schoolish, and that both detracts from the book's positive aspects and highlights its weaknesses.

Perhaps after resolving her own childhood issues and gaining several years of first-hand parenting experience, the author will be able to address the issues she presents in this book from a broader perspective.

A dilemma suggests two views, a situation where a difficult choice must be made. The author presents only one view. Over and over again she tells stories of unhappy adults who were paralyzed by the gifted label and the experience of being pushed by extreme parents. While I believe these stories and pain are genuine, I cannot understand why Ms. Quart does not speak of other adults who have thrived, those who look back fondly on their gifted education and the enrichments their parents offered. She mentions the current Spelling Bee pronouncer and former champion, Jacques Bailly. In other venues Bailly has frequently spoken how much he believes in academic competition and how much he enjoyed the experience as a child. But here Bailly is only quoted when he registers a complaint.

Stories of positive experiences never are mentioned. The balance would have made this book live up to the subtitle.

The crucial flaw of the book is that Ms. Quart completely misses the point about gifted children. She speaks of giftedness as something forced on children (or as a classification "bought" by wealthy families.). Anyone who spends time with a truly gifted child knows that the push comes from the child. No parents of a gifted child would ever credit the Baby Einstein videos for their child's intellectual curiousity.

And gifted children do ask for academic pre-schools and weekly trips to the museum, and very much enjoy spending hours in a small room being quizzed by an adult. (This may not be a good thing, but it is a real thing.)

I expected the book to examine the actual dilemma parents face--how much should the parent nurture the child's requests, and how much should the children be encouraged to "just go out and play" even though they resist? By dismissing the key element of the child's desires in this equation, Ms. Quart eliminates any value to her argument.

This book does nothing to help gifted children, nor to guide their parents or teachers.

I'm glad that I borrowed this book from the library rather than purchasing it. This is not a book I want to keep on my bookshelf.

Ms. Quart's book is confusing. Sometimes her writing seems sarcastic, especially early in the book. It becomes difficult later in the book to discern whether she is presenting an anecdote as an example of something she would deem as appropriate versus something she would deem as inappropriate. She apparently did a great deal of research for this book, and I was looking for a statement from her that said what percent of those former child prodigies she interviewed ended up happy or unhappy as adults. I didn't find this in her book. She only highlights the unhappy ones. Many of these anecdotes were from adults who felt pushed by their parents. It's not clear how she feels about children who feel personally driven and are pursuing their own passions at earlier than typical ages, or with an intensity not typical to most children. Perhaps her goal was not to give readers some sort of outcome data. Still, elaborating on only the negative outcomes seems to create a negative stereotype of gifted kids and their families.

I did not get a sense that she is opposed to special services for gifted children or to gifted education. In fact, she states clearly how important it is. In her conclusion she writes, "Indeed, there are children who are especially strong learners and who benefit substantially from - and may even need - accelerated school work. Kids who don't have access to the specialized learning they need may tune out and ultimately drop out of school." She goes on to elaborate on why she supports gifted education.

I think the point that she was trying to make is that parents should not try to CREATE gifted kids by pushing them too hard, encouraging them specialize too early, and over-scheduling. I agree with that. But because of Ms. Quart's confusing writing style and the book's lack of objective outcomes, this is a book that could be used out of context. Most parents of gifted, passionate kids aren't PUSHING their kids, but rather they might feel like they are being pulled along by their kids' passions. This book is, in the end, Ms. Quart's personal commentary, and should not be considered as a resource for serious thought on gifted education.

I bought this book in hopes that I would get some information on raising my gifted son. With the book still in my mind, I find it hard to even type the word "gifted" because I don't want to be seen as an elitist. I do agree with much of what she writes regarding the harmfulness of products such as Baby Einstein DVD's and the like, and I can vouch from personal experience that you cannot cause a child to be gifted intellectually. My oldest son is gifted, and when he was born I was only 20 and could not afford expensive educational toys and videos. I also didn't breastfeed him and he went to daycare part-time. I basically did everything wrong but he turned out gifted somehow.

Now that he is 9, he is starting to get the "nerd" comments, so I bought the book thinking that it may help him deal with that. The book makes me feel that I should hide my son from society, teach him that it is not o.k. to be different than the rest, and only speak the work "gifted" with my head hung down in shame.

This has nothing to do with parents providing healthy opportunities for their children to grow.

This is about her own childhood and other extreme, unbalanced childhood lives.

This very well could be "Hothouse Kids: The Dilemma of the Soccer-Parent Coached Child" or the "Dilemma of the Stagemothered CHild"

I give three stars because any parent needs to read this to see how an unbalanced child turns to negativity.

With this knowledge and giftedness she claims to have had; where did common sense come into play and therapy perhaps, so that she could heal?

As someone who lived (and, I guess, is still living) the life of a "gifted" person, I'm not terribly surprised by what I found in this book. Many of the problems held by gifted students originate not from parents but from bureaucrats--people who want to figure out how best to control their talents for profit. There isn't much profit for the parents themselves, so where's the profit going to come from? Other than those kids marked by stock brokers and scientists for high-paying jobs, what's left? Political profit, of course, and this is Quart's real goal. Quart simply oppresses her topic into non-existence unless it can produce the right kind of person that will be sure to vote the right way. Scrabble players, spelling bee kids, math geniuses...they're all weird at best and dangerous at worst, *especially* if they've been home-schooled or attend church. Competitors in chess are hyper-competitive, but (surprisingly?) kids participating in politically-charged poetry slams are "encouraging" and "supportive". She weeps for school districts that support the gifted and thereby thwart the "equal results" that certain political groups seek, yet cannot find anything but disdain for programs that support the results of all students simply (and clearly) because of the political party that happened to begin it. Her descriptions of her subjects are caricatured so badly that one cannot have any faith in the descriptions. And, as some have noted below, she has played loose and fast with those she quotes in order to make the right sort of case. If you have the ability to ignore or refute the author's opinions through basic critical-reading skills, you can get a basic idea of the sorts of issues faced by the gifted. If not, look elsewhere.