Maths and reading skills found to be 75 per cent genetic

[nightflight]

Australian research into the academic performance of twins in NAPLAN tests has revealed that skills in maths, reading and spelling are up to 75 per cent genetic.
Genetics also had a 50 per cent impact on writing skills.
In stark contrast, the influence of teachers and schools on students was only found to be around 5 per cent, when looking at why children performed better or worse than their peers.
The research has been conducted by Emeritus Professor Brian Byrne and colleagues at the Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders, and the University of New England.
Byrne is a guest on this week's episode of Insight, sharing his views on how research into twins can deepen our understanding of the general population.
The research will shortly be published in full, with much of the peer review process complete. Some parts of the study have already been published.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-skills-found-be-75-cent-genetic?cid=trending

Explains my lack of success in life; I wasn't born with genetic privilege.

 

[Belk]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/...-skills-found-be-75-cent-genetic?cid=trending

Explains my lack of success in life; I wasn't born with genetic privilege.

Huh! That is interesting. I wonder how solid their conclusions are?

 

[keith99]

Huh! That is interesting. I wonder how solid their conclusions are?

I'd say their findings are very flimsy. Actually beyond flimsy since it seems this is all from a study of twins in Australia and with the numbers being about 3000 sets it means these are NOT twins who have been separated.

So twins with very similar environments. Twins who may even have the same teachers at some point and where there is little baseline for determining which teachers provide a 'better' teaching situation.

 

[keith99]

I'd say their findings are very flimsy. Actually beyond flimsy since it seems this is all from a study of twins in Australia and with the numbers being about 3000 sets it means these are NOT twins who have been separated.

So twins with very similar environments. Twins who may even have the same teachers at some point and where there is little baseline for determining which teachers provide a 'better' teaching situation.

EDIT: I was a math geek well before I enrolled in school. It would have mattered little which math teachers I had except for how many instances of the teacher being wrong I would have had to deal with. I would have excelled no matter what the school system did as long as I had the same home environment.

 

[seashale76]

EDIT: I was a math geek well before I enrolled in school. It would have mattered little which math teachers I had except for how many instances of the teacher being wrong I would have had to deal with. I would have excelled no matter what the school system did as long as I had the same home environment.

I agree. If nature has anything to do with it, then it's minimal. Nurture goes much further when it comes to these things.

 

[keith99]

I agree. If nature has anything to do with it, then it's minimal. Nurture goes much further when it comes to these things.

Actually I'm inclined to point out that there is no reasonably objective scale for either when it comes to things like this. There is no generally accepted 100 point scale for what nurturing you got in math. And just what scale is used for nature. Do we include those with major mental retardation or taking it a step farther even other species? People who make even one step beyond what others have done in math are less than 1 in a million. For most of us lack of nurture means lack of progress.

Actually I tend to like an entirely different viewpoint that has been around for a long time in athletics. Nature pretty much determines the potential, nurture determines just how much of that potential is fulfilled.

 

[seashale76]

Actually I'm inclined to point out that there is no reasonably objective scale for either when it comes to things like this. There is no generally accepted 100 point scale for what nurturing you got in math. And just what scale is used for nature. Do we include those with major mental retardation or taking it a step farther even other species? People who make even one step beyond what others have done in math are less than 1 in a million. For most of us lack of nurture means lack of progress.

Actually I tend to like an entirely different viewpoint that has been around for a long time in athletics. Nature pretty much determines the potential, nurture determines just how much of that potential is fulfilled.

Home environment and parenting is/was the deciding factor as to whether or not a student was going to be academically successful. I and many others observed it over and over and over throughout the years. It usually is down to nurture. If one has deliberate parenting then it tends to be an equalizer.

 

[MehGuy]

Well I was diagnosed with an unspecified language disability as a kid (despite having above average reading comprehension). More poor output, good input. So I can feel the burn of genetic disadvantage.

Although intelligence comes in many different forms and the brain is a complex structure with many different variables. While I will never be a decent writer, I am grateful for other abilities I have.