The Development of Scientific Talent in Westinghouse Finalists and Members of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two studies on the development of scientific talent among the scientific elite: finalists in the Westinghouse Science Competition and members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Sampling four cohorts of finalists, we examined whether these gifted teenagers actually do go on to be the best scientists of the next generation by coding education and career outcomes. Finalists were quite successful and stayed mostly within science and medicine for their career choice. A rather high-although marginally unequal-portion of male (91%) and female (74%) finalists earned a doctoral degree. Women were also more likely to change to non-scientific professions than men. Among the most compelling findings from the NAS study were: age that scientific talent was recognized by self and others was an important predictor of early publication, which in turn was an important predictor of lifetime productivity. Growth curve analyses suggested a cubic model of best-fit productivity data over time. Moreover, in both samples there was an association between scientific achievement and recent immigrant status. Various theoretical models are discussed as possible explanations for the developmental, gender, and immigrant-status findings on scientific talent.

A Longitudinal Examination of Career Expectations and Outcomes of Academically Talented Students 10 and 20 Years Post—High School Graduation

“…Many participants in the current study earned graduate degrees. This supports previous research indicating that gifted individuals are likely to pursue advanced education (e.g., Feist, 2006;Lubinski et al, 2001). Individuals identified as gifted would be intellectually equipped to succeed in graduate training, in turn enhancing their opportunities for career advancement.…”

Intellectual giftedness: Economic, political, cultural, and psychological considerations

“…Similarly, the role of cognitive and non-cognitive indicators has been stressed in sustaining and developing IG across the life span in a number of studies around the world: Australia (Gross, 2006); Canada (Grayson, 1999); Finland (Nokelainen, Tirri, Campbell & Walberg, 2007;Nokelainen, Tirri & Merenti-Välimäki, 2007); Iceland (Freeman & Josepsson, 2002); Israel (Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999); Germany (Rahn, 1986;Trost & Sieglen, 1992), and the USA (Feist, 2006). Of interest here is the observation that there are some cultural differences in patterns of the strengths of these predictors , such that indicators that are predictive of success in one culture might not be that informative in another.…”

“…In this study (Feist, 2006), members of the US National Academy of Sciences were surveyed about their early developmental years. Although they all recognized the importance of having "talent," a prominent theme in the interpretation of their success brought to the fore indicators such as motivation.…”

National academic award winners over time: their family situation, education and interpersonal relations

“…In other words, among those who as adults are particularly successful in a given area, there are very few of those who were the best pupils at school. In the relevant literature, however, one can also come across a contrary statement that school achievements are a good predictor of future attainment and that the range and level of these achievements is a basic indicator of the range and level of giftedness (Feist, 2006;Rosołek, 1990;Szmajke, 1989;Trost, 1993). The achievements are connected with an activity that is much extended over time, requires perseverance, and consistency in the pursuit of a defined goal.…”