For nearly five decades, a groundbreaking study has been tracking the lives of 5,000 intellectually talented children.
The insights uncovered could revolutionize how we educate both gifted and struggling students, challenging long-held assumptions about intelligence and success.
“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program.
“The kids who test in the top 1 percent tend to become our eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs and federal judges, senators, and billionaires.”
This ambitious research, known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), was launched in March 1972 by psychologist Julian C. Stanley from Johns Hopkins University.
What started as a small project with 450 intellectually gifted 12- to 14-year-olds in Baltimore has now expanded into one of the longest-running and most comprehensive studies of talent development in the world.
How the Study Changed the Game
Stanley’s initial goal was to track mathematically gifted children over time, following their educational paths, career choices, and accomplishments.
Over the years, the study expanded to include five groups of students, spanning the top 3 percent to the top 0.01 percent in SAT scores.
A later addition in 1992 included top mathematics and science graduate students, bringing the total number of participants to around 5,000.
To measure long-term impact, follow-up surveys were conducted at key life stages—18, 23, 33, 50, and 65 years old—with newer cohorts still being studied today.
With over 400 research papers and several books analyzing the results, SMPY has reshaped our understanding of talent and intelligence.
The Myth of the 10,000-Hour Rule
A common belief is that hard work trumps innate ability—the idea that with enough practice (often cited as 10,000 hours), anyone can become an expert.
However, SMPY’s findings suggest otherwise.
“I don’t know of any other study in the world that has given us such a comprehensive look at exactly how and why STEM talent develops,” says Christoph Perleth, a psychologist at the University of Rostock in Germany.
SMPY’s data strongly indicate that early cognitive ability is the single biggest predictor of later success, surpassing factors like deliberate practice or socioeconomic background.
Simply put, some people are born with abilities that no amount of training can replicate.
Are We Neglecting Our Brightest Minds?
One of the study’s more controversial findings is that gifted children often suffer from a lack of support—especially in education systems focused on helping struggling students rather than nurturing top performers.
While special programs exist for children with learning disabilities, exceptionally bright students are frequently left to fend for themselves.
“The SMPY data supported the idea of accelerating fast learners by allowing them to skip school grades,” writes Tom Clynes for Nature.
A comparison of children who skipped grades versus those who didn’t revealed striking results:
- Grade-skippers were 60% more likely to earn doctorates or patents.
- They were more than twice as likely to receive a PhD in a STEM field.
Despite these advantages, many schools hesitate to promote grade acceleration, fearing social or emotional repercussions.
However, SMPY suggests that early access to advanced materials is key to unlocking potential.
“These kids often don’t need anything innovative or novel,” says David Lubinski, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University who took over the study after Stanley’s retirement in 1998.
“They just need earlier access to what’s already available to older kids.”
A Flawed System of Identifying Talent?
Despite SMPY’s clear findings, many experts question the traditional ways we label children as ‘gifted’ or ‘not gifted’.
Developmental psychologist Dona Matthews warns that our reliance on standardized tests might be missing a huge number of talented individuals.
“For those children who are tested, it does them no favors to call them ‘gifted’ or ‘ungifted’,” Matthews told Nature.
“Either way, it can really undermine a child’s motivation to learn.”
Spatial Ability
One of the most fascinating discoveries in the study is the role of spatial ability—a skill often overlooked in traditional intelligence testing.
Spatial ability refers to the capacity to visualize and manipulate objects in two, three, or even four dimensions, and it appears to be a strong predictor of creative and technical prowess.
The data revealed that participants who scored high in spatial ability tended to produce more patents and peer-reviewed scientific papers later in life.
In fact, while SAT scores accounted for about 11% of professional achievement variance, spatial ability explained an additional 7.6%.
“I think it may be the largest known untapped source of human potential,” says Lubinski.
“And yet, no admissions directors I know of are looking at this, and it’s generally overlooked in school-based assessments.”
Where Do We Go from Here?
The findings from SMPY hold profound implications for education policy, talent development, and even workforce planning. If we want to maximize human potential, we need to:
- Rethink traditional education models to ensure gifted children are adequately challenged.
- Incorporate spatial ability tests into school assessments to better identify future innovators.
- Support accelerated learning opportunities for those who demonstrate exceptional ability.
- Avoid harmful labels like ‘gifted’ and ‘non-gifted’, focusing instead on fostering a growth mindset.
The Future of Talent Development
SMPY continues to provide groundbreaking insights, shaping how educators, policymakers, and scientists think about intelligence and achievement.
As more follow-up studies are conducted, we will gain an even deeper understanding of how talent unfolds over a lifetime.
While the debate over nature vs. nurture in intelligence continues, one thing is clear: we have the power to shape the future by nurturing the brightest minds of today.
