ese differences. I beg to differ, as molecular and developmental studies have shown that there are structural and biological differences in the brains of males and females (Zhang, 1995; Palego, 2000). As a molecular biologist I would be more inclined to attribute differences to the biochemical aspects of development.The writer next addresses the inequities of intelligence tests and accurately identifies them as mere predictors of future academic performance. We are unable to measure native ability with these instruments but these devices do allow for a comparison of the developmental level of a child in the areas of core knowledge, reasoning and conceptual association. It is through these measures that predictions of future performance are made.The author now brings Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences into the debate. He uses the theory to propose expanding the definition of giftedness. Although I do agree in principle with Gardner's theory, the already limited resources in gifted education would be taxed to the brink if we were to include the majority of children, as strict use of Gardner's theory would necessitate.The final points in the paper relate to what the author calls "tall poppies". This is the approach of Chinese Communism according to the author. The principle is that the poppies growing too rapidly should be hewn down so as not to out grow the rest in the field. At this point there are offerings in the paper concerning the achievement of Asian students in American schools. The writer relates these to the home environment, emphasis on education and tenacity of the Chinese-American students. I believe that this, in essence, is what we have done in education today, we've cut-down our gifted students in an effort to avoid the criticism of elitism. The brightest and the best are denied their potential because it is falsely believed that they can pick it up on their own. I believe that most of the curriculum offe...
