Some comments:

I'm not an anthropologist, but I do find the theory that our intelligence evolved to cope with complex social situations compelling; and my *intuition* is that challenging a child on an appropriate level socially is going to spark the development of an interconnected intelligence much more than rote memorization ever could.

I'm still sort of stunned to report that I *am* a teacher, and I believe that in my students I'm regularly confronted with the consequences of an entire educational system which has systematically rewarded them for rote memorization. Many of my students have never been challenged to integrate ideas in any significant way (and the smartest students have never been challenged at all, but that's a different issue.) It makes me want to kick things.

(So does the stuff about the effects of inequity.)

"It has never been able to afford rigorous scientific studies to document its performance." I find it deeply ironic that a program alleging to increase intelligence eschews science. My experience it that most people -- even very smart people -- are somewhat contemptuous of the scientific method; witness the number of "amusing" "duh" comments in re. scientific studies which confirm our intuition or political positions.

I know my parents took me in for an IQ test when I was pretty young (maybe kindergarten), for the purpose of getting me into some kind of gifted program -- based on the fact that I never attended such a program, I assume I "failed" the test. Make of that what you will in re. late bloomers (says the 33-year-old first-year.)

I find the emphasis on understanding the phonetic basis of written language interesting, as, of course, a large proportion of the world's population learns to read a language without phonetic elements (my recollection is that age to literacy is similar regardless of the conceptual underpinnings of the written language, and that comparative studies on the effect of different systems on later cognition found no difference, but I'm very far from being an expert on that.) That puts the wholly inappropriate and liminally racist comment about Austria having many more Nobel prize laureates than Japan in a different light, too. I realize it was meant as a throwaway comment on superbaby syndrome, but it really rankled.

Maybe this is because I'm in a fancy prep school and everyone hates memorization and spends their time on higher-order stuff. The alternative, that schools suck at that other stuff and they suck at inculcating memorization skills, is really too awful to contemplate.

That's really interesting. I feel like most of my memorization skills were acquired shortly after I learned to talk. Starting when I was 2 or 3 mother did things like tell me her shopping lists before going to the grocery store and then using me instead of the list (I was as good as the paper list or better, I am told); kids that age tend to be way better at remembering things than anyone expects (or, often, wants) them to be.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the sucking happens early on, and by the time memorization comes up in school it gets approached as worklike and boring, so the kids muddle through supported by hovering parents.

I'm an extremely novice teacher, and I went to a prep school myself, so I'm largely making inferences based on the results about the nature and quality of my students' preparation. Also, your students are younger than mine -- I teach college students.

That said . . . I think our student bodies differ greatly, possibly more in the kind and quality of their preparation than in their natural talents (though I'd also guess I have a broader range of natural talent in my class than you do.) And, specifically, I think you may be right that your students' preparation is more focused on higher-order learning. I can confirm that my students are very good at hearing and repeating information, but many of them stumble on analysis.

Also, my "better" students tend to have a *worse* time on the more rote exercises, for reasons that have been touched on elsewhere -- but I think the "better" students are less attentive to detail, and prioritize conceptual understanding. (I'm having a heck of a time with one student trying to convince him that no, I can't grade him on what we both know he knows -- I grade him on what he actually *writes*.)

I think officially I failed kindergarten.