Will Barratt, Ph.D.
Adventurer, Professor, Raconteur
This past week I happened to have a conversation with a very old friend about IQ, steering him to some more research based complexities about intelligence. In the conversation Lewis Terman came up. Terman, along with colleagues, did some pioneering research on intelligence and life. Terman and colleagues wanted to study the 'quite bright' and developed the Terman Concept Mastery Test to identify the 'quite bright' for their studies, like IQs over 145 bright. Studying smarties is one way to study intelligence. Similarly studying those on the low end of the intelligence spectrum is another way to study intelligence, but what about those in the middle?
Also this past week I had a few conversations about Autism Spectrum Disorder. Most of the study and data comes from studying those, mostly men, on one end of the spectrum. What about those on the other end of the spectrum (and women)?
Somehow this morning I realized that those working with First Generation Student programs are focusing on students in the margins of the college student population, not on the larger class issues. What about Misty and Marky (upper) Middle Class?
The spotlight focusing on the margins doesn't really illuminate the center. If you are in a dark room with a flashlight you tend to look where the light shines. Not a bad thing, but everything else is in the dark. In movies the flashlight is used to dramatic effect to highlight what is seen and to hide what is hiding in the dark. I'm interested in the whole room, not the spotlight. Mine is just a different perspective.
On the one hand, those who are different in a conspicuous way get criticized and sanctioned by the majority. On the other hand, those who are conspicuously different can help us learn a lot about difference, and by comparison, non-difference.
Binary thinking is dangerous. Different/Same, 'quite bright'/not 'quite bright', first generation/second generation are all false binaries. Spectrum in Autism Spectrum Disorder, levels of intelligence across 'domains', social class of origin, current felt social class. These are all complex distributions with complex dimensions.
One of the dangers of shining light on the margins is that whatever is not in the spotlight is not illuminated.
One of the great things about shining a light on a group is that we can focus our attention, especially on a group that is systematically oppressed.
Where to shine the light is a tough, and false, choice. Louis Pasteur was wrong when, on his deathbed, he said "The germ is nothing, the terrain is everything." College is a complex and constantly interacting system and collection of subsystems. This is a basic assumption of the Campus Ecology movement. Jim Banning wrote prolifically about this, back in the paper newsletter days. Today he would probably blog.
There is great work on intelligence, and on high intelligence. There is great work on neurodivergent people and on neurotypical people. There is great work on First Generation students, and great work on Second and Third generation students. This is all a yes-and issue.
Just make sure to put it all in context.
tl;dr attend to the social class of all students on campus, and to members of class group on campus.
