Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I remember my first summer in Canada; I was eleven. My routine was to ride a bike to the local library, borrow 7 books (the maximum allowed) and head home.

The next day, return the 7 books and repeat the cycle.

I had to walk home-couldn't ride my bike with all those books.

To me, summer started when I had a pile of books and a glass of lemonade in the back yard. Of course, everyone thought I was strange.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Our library has MULTIPLE sponsors. The local restaurants give a coupon for sodas, meals, etc. Dollar donations are turned into t-shirt prizes. Other sponsors give pencils, pens and that sort of thing (usually with their logo on there). Our director works hard every year to get prizes.

But it sounds like this library put most of the financial support in the party that everybody who read 10 books gets an invitation for, and just some left over money to acknowledge the kid who reads the most books.

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Well, in the article the call it "summer reading club", don´t they? Or I may be wrong and its the "Summer reading competition". If so, your absolutly right. However, if it´s a club it seems to me it´s more about participation. Still obviously the rules are making it a competition. I think that is stupid, you seem to think that´s a good idea. I guess we just have to agree to disagree

The participation to the club by reading 10 books gets most of the financial support. But they also decided to give a small prize to the kid who reads the most books. I still don't see why kids who haven't found the joy of reading would want to join a "summer reading club" unless their parents made them join, and you still haven't explained why they, who as you put it are slow readers, would be put off by knowing that they can't get the 'read most books' prize.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The only prohibition for many (intelligent) people to not be able to do things is lack of knowledge, and often, lack of money or time to acquire it.

Even people with only average intelligence can often do much more than they, or others, think they are capable of, *if* they have the motivation to work at it. They'll probably need to work harder or practice more than the more intelligent people, but that doesn't take away the fact they can do stuff, if given the chance.

In a perfectly free society, you're right, Katsunami. But not all societies are free, and none are perfectly so. In many cases, governments set up restrictions for who can do certain things (brain surgery, for instance) and then only grant certain applicants the right to do them. If the government or process is corrupt enough, it may take nothing more than a bad grade from a teacher who doesn't like your politics to sink your future career choice.

What all "normal" people have is the ability to learn. Work (practice, done right, with a review process that improves future practice) at something and you will get better at it.

The difference is that intelligence gives you two advantages: first, you have a head start because you've picked things up in the past faster than others so you already know things others would still have to learn. Second, you can stretch that lead on others, because you continue to pick things up faster than others. This is what we generally call intelligence. The same principle applies to people who are "athletic"; the only difference being that the things picked up on are physical rather than academic.

But we all have limits, and those will generally keep all but the very best out of certain fields (brain surgery, even in a perfectly free society.) We don't need 2000 tennis players who can play as well as Rafael Nadal. We don't need 50,000 people who can invent a wonder drug. And for some of us, the pace at which we can learn to do some thing at a useful level (brain surgery) may exceed our mortality, in which case we'll never get there.

There are some things everyone can learn. You can learn to read. You can learn to do basic arithmetic. You can learn to cook. You can even learn to play the drums if you're tone deaf. The mistake is thinking that because everyone can learn these basic skills, everyone could learn the more advanced ones as well.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Sregener

In a perfectly free society, you're right, Katsunami. But not all societies are free, and none are perfectly so. In many cases, governments set up restrictions for who can do certain things (brain surgery, for instance) and then only grant certain applicants the right to do them. If the government or process is corrupt enough, it may take nothing more than a bad grade from a teacher who doesn't like your politics to sink your future career choice.

I know, and it shouldn't be like that.

What all "normal" people have is the ability to learn. <snip rest>

What you are saying is that there are many people that don't have the required intelligence to understand certain things, such as brain surgery, no matter how much and how long they study.

That's certainly true. Maybe that example was a bit too high on the ladder. While I'm convinced that I could probably study and understand (almost) any academic field if I wanted to, and given the time, I'm sure it woudn't be easy.

On the other hand, I'm also realistic enough to know that I will never ever reach an ELO rating of 2800+ (Garry Kasparov / Magnus Carlsen level), even if I *had* kept up chess after high school. I would probably have become a fair player, somewhere just below master level (~2300-2400 ELO or so, like my teacher), but I know I wouldn't have had the talent OR drive/motivation to ever become a contestant for the world championship.

However, most fields of work or study are not at the level of brain surgery or championship level sports. For most people, things revolve around a difference such as the following.

Let's say, you are working in Photoshop CS4 on Windows, as a "Medior Design Engineer". Then you apply for "Senior Design Engineer", because the one on the team left. However, the SDE converted to a Mac, and Photoshp CS6 last year, after pestering the manager for it.

Then your manager says: "I'm not convinced you can be a SDE, because you have been working with Windows and CS4. The SDE uses a Mac now, and CS6, and you have no experience with them."

That's the sort of stuff I often hear, and it infuriates me. It essentially tells me that the manager thinks the applicant is stupid (can't actually work with a computer or software, and so only "performs steps"), or has another reason to not want to give someone that position, a reason that is forbidden by law to be a reason ("I don't like you because you're black/Jewish/Whatever").

Such a switch would be trivial for anyone who is the least bit intelligent and knows what he's doing. It would probably take less than one workweek to get to full speed after such a switch.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sregener

We don't need 50,000 people who can invent a wonder drug.

Beg to differ.

We absolutely need that many and more.
The Gates Foundation for one would happily fund them if they existed.
The issue isn't need but supply.

The US Government alone has been campaigning to get way more women and minorities into engineering and the hard sciences since the 80's to fill the gap between need and availability and more recently the issue has cropped up in the contentious debate over immigration reform.

If we didn't need more high-grade performers in most all fields educational reform wouldn't be a perpetual issue. (I will, however, readily grant the country has a surplus of lawyers and puppetry majors.) But most productive disciplines have a chronic shortage of qualified personnel which is why many businesses happily pay the tuition for employees willing and able to upgrade their skill set. There just aren't enough takers of their offers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There'll always be "overachievers". As long as they don't set the standards by which everyone else is judged, I have no problem with it.

Unfortunately, by definition, "overachievers" are the gold standard by which we are all measured.
As the saying goes, "What a man has done, another can aspire to."

Whether in sport or the sciences, the high achievers set the bar that the ambitious seek to surpass.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by cortman

Eh? It appears that we agree on virtually every point- why the initial dismissal?

I was agreeing with your negation, that "excelling is not safe."
As in, nope, it isn't safe.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

There just aren't enough takers of their offers.

In the Netherlands, the reason often is this: Everybody wants to be "The Manager". It's where every career path should lead according to many people, and it's the only thing that's often vehemently pursued. Often, it also earns you more, even if your level of education is lower than the people you manage, and your work may actually be easier.

Being the boss of a two-man IT department (including said boss) seems to earn you more status (and money) than being Dr. Janssen trying to finally complete that compiler that will make all new C++ programs 125% faster. The first will probably have "Manager" on his tag, and the second will have "Software Engineer". The first is having a career, the second just has a job.

Almost everybody, even the ones that start out as engineers, start going for the (assistant) team leader and (assistant) manager jobs as soon as possible.

[speakingtohe]

I don't think a straight book club held in a library will teach anyone the joys of reading. Well maybe one person.

If they son't like reading, they are pretty unlikely to even go to the library, although I know there are other functions held there. Most involve reading, being read to or computer literacy courses. Not going to draw in your 9 year old crowd of non-readers. And in the unlikely event of parents forcing children to go, in many cases that will make them resentful and have the opposite effect.

Many people will enter a contest they have no hope or expectation of winning or even doing well. Some are just filling out forms, some are games of skill like poker, bridge, marathons, Soccer games, pool tournaments etc.

To many the competition gives a certain edge. A prime example is a marathon. People enter it who are in poor shape and know they will just as likely finish last. These people can run around the yard for an hour or two a day with the same result. But the fact that it is a competition gives a certain incentive to many people. The aren't trying to overachieve or get a prize. It just spices it up a little.
I loved reading even as a 3 year old, and my brother actually asked me to help him learn to read before he was three. My sister has never read a book, and is 60 now, so unlikely that she will.

I doubt I would have joined a reading club even if such a thing existed for children at that time and place, but I would probably have joined a contest.

I know a lot more people who don't read fiction books or history, or biographies etc. then those that do. Many people do not read fiction books because they just don't enjoy it. Roughly half of them at least read newspapers, magazines, the odd book or two about their hobby, facebook, email, cookbooks and scandal magazines. These aren't stupid people, they just don't enjoy reading books.

A competition might draw in an occasional non-reader just because the like to compete, win or lose (one definition of a good sport), but I doubt a book club would even with a prize for all and a party at the end. Most intelligent nine-year olds would feel that spending time doing something they liked to do could yield as good or better prizes and parties.

Helen

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The first will probably have "Manager" on his tag, and the second will have "Software Engineer". The first is having a career, the second just has a job.

The second will at least know that when the time comes, they will have done something to leave the world in a better shape than they found it.

In the US being a Doctor or Lawyer is a prestige profession.
Being an engineer or physicist? Not so much.

You don't go into engineering if all you care about is getting rich.
You go into politics. Preferably in Chicago or Louisiana.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

In the Netherlands, the reason often is this: Everybody wants to be "The Manager". It's where every career path should lead according to many people, and it's the only thing that's often vehemently pursued. Often, it also earns you more, even if your level of education is lower than the people you manage, and your work may actually be easier.

Being the boss of a two-man IT department (including said boss) seems to earn you more status (and money) than being Dr. Janssen trying to finally complete that compiler that will make all new C++ programs 125% faster. The first will probably have "Manager" on his tag, and the second will have "Software Engineer". The first is having a career, the second just has a job.

Almost everybody, even the ones that start out as engineers, start going for the (assistant) team leader and (assistant) manager jobs as soon as possible.

THis is because managers are in charge and like politicians they raise their own salaries (and those beneath them so that they can raise their own by virtue of being the boss of the manager under them).

This is the way of the world--the guy doing the coding, even though he may be the most valuable to the end product has little say in his salary. He's too busy working to play politics so by default he ends up lower on the salary totem pole. It doesn't mean it should be that way, but in the US he/she has the option of taking his knowledge and starting his own company. And it happens over and over because larger companies end up paying "infastructure" -- management until the engineers get tired of it and leave. Or they get tired of doing the long hours and work and decide to be a manager because it's easier and pays more.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The second will at least know that when the time comes, they will have done something to leave the world in a better shape than they found it.

In the US being a Doctor or Lawyer is a prestige profession.
Being an engineer or physicist? Not so much.

You don't go into engineering if all you care about is getting rich.
You go into politics. Preferably in Chicago or Louisiana.

I worked alongside several engineers who were in it for the money--and they knew engineering was the foot in the door and management was where they had to get to.

In the US they limit the number of doctors graduating every year so that there isn't too many of them (go figure, but the doctors lobby to keep the number low). There is no such thing for lawyers. Or politicians.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

<snip>

Fjtorres, why does your quote in te above post say "Shortwave Engineer"? Weird spelling checker probably.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Fjtorres, why does your quote in te above post say "Shortwave Engineer"? Weird spelling checker probably.

Not sure.
I just deleted everything else in the quote.
Then I added my stuff outside the quote.
Unless Chrome for android changed it...??
I'll edit it.

Sorry. I did not intentionally put words in your mouth.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I worked alongside several engineers who were in it for the money--and they knew engineering was the foot in the door and management was where they had to get to.

I've met my share of those.
But they're not engineers, regardless of what the diploma says. Most of them don't even like SF.
We called them job-hoppers; the moment they walked in the door they started trolling for the next open job elsewhere in the organization.

We had one team lead whose request for a computer wasn't a UNIX workstation like the other leads or even a PC like the managers, but a Mac. Only thing that came out of that office were powerpoint slides. In and out in three months.
Ended up doing community relations.