The Chapel Hill weekly., 1963-01-27
A Talk With Harold G. McCurdy-
Continued from Page Il

devoted his life to his sons edu-
cation. Goethe's father did, and
PascalS. They got lot of love
and understanding. Another point
was that they were, largely sep
arated from other children. OF
course, you would be if you spent
a lot of time among adults, but
at the same time they didn't run
around with the boys a lot, Wheth-
er deliberately, or because of i'll
ness, or their situation, or what
ever. John Quincy Adams sep
arated himself from other boys
a great deal. The third point is
that they indulged in imagination
a great deal, they lived a lot in
the imagination. For instance,
at the age of six Leibniz was
reading Plato's Dialogues. and
he didn't understand all of it,
bat he said that whatever he
didn't understand was food for
his dreams. So they were dream
ers. OF course, not all of them
turned into poets, they did more
than just dream. | think living
a lot in the imagination can be
a direct result of the first two
points.
AT the end of the article |
tackled a sentence to the effect
that our modern school system
tends to eliminate all three of
these conditions, and consequent
ly tends to suppress genius. |
mean, you have class of thirty
Or forty children, and the first
two points are gone right there.
And privacy is a premium under
those conditions. The child who
wants solitude is considered an
oddball.
1T would take a lot of money
and a lot Of daring, and certainly
| would shrink from doing it, but
it would be interesting to conduct
an experiment with bright chill
dren, exposing one to these three
conditions, and denying them to
another. Of course, right now
we're conducting half the expert
ment with mass education.
"Galton, in his study, said that
a genius should be person with
a lasting reputation for achieve
mcnt, who was revered by every
one and had national funeral,
or at least deserved one. This
would include Marilyn Monroe,
yes. though you have to include
some other characteristics. But
on the other hand, Leibniz went
to his grave attended by only one
person, his secretary, completely
unknown.
II would say. if | we're going
to be radical about it, that we
depend entirely too much on tests
these days. They set up an ar
tificial competition, the kids be-
come test-wise. and | think
there's a tendency to pay more
attention to the intelligence than
to the actual work. These kids
get into scholarship contests. I
remember UP in New York people
were pushing girls for the Re-
gents exams, SO they could get
into Radcliffe. and instead of let
ting them read and think about
things, they gave them vocabu-
larry lists and sample tests to
take. Well, of course, if you hap
pen to know the right words in
the vocabulary lists Or you studi-
ed the right sample, you can
pass the test, but all that proves
is that you could pass the test.
wish We could pay more atten-
ton to the people themselves,
what are this persons particular
qualities?
IF you have a particularly
bright child you don't want him to
be suppressed in school, but you
have to work, you can't be a
James Mill and devote yourself
entirely. to your son. think you
have to encourage the child's par
ticular interests. give him a lot
of understanding, love. support,
friendlineSS. Very bright children
can have a rough time of it. Of
course the friendliness helps, but
he has moments of loneliness. a
sort of inner desolation, resulting
from a great deal of perception.
Sometimes there's rebellion. Take
Boris Sidis's son. Sidis was a
Harvard professor of psychology,
I've forgotten his dates, but he
started around the turn of the
century up to, say, the twenties,
something like that. He had a
very bright son, and he pushed