This study investigates the existential experiences of mathematically gifted students within neoliberal, performance-driven schooling systems. The sample included 25 mathematically gifted students who completed an online qualitative questionnaire capturing first-person accounts of success, failure, and meaning-making. A thematic analysis identified four main themes. First, performance pressures and recognition practices shaped students’ identities, stabilizing but also rendering fragile a “math person” self-concept. Second, students largely adopted external metrics of success, yet often experienced such success as hollow or routine. Third, participants searched for existential meaning through mastery, creativity, and contribution, despite feeling that commodified success diminished authentic engagement. Finally, students reported stress, responsibilisation, and isolation, alongside protective factors such as creative problem-solving and aesthetic appreciation of mathematics. These findings underscore the need for educational practices that support healthier identity development, broaden definitions of success, and foster meaning-making for mathematically gifted learners.
BallS. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316664259
2.
BarbaK. M. (2022). Mathematical identity and the role of the educator. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 13(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.52214/jmetc.v13i1.9187
3.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
ButlerS. M.CowardN. (2024). Young people’s self-making in neoliberal capitalism: Challenges and opportunities. Lateral, 13(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.25158/L13.2.10
7.
CanonigoA. M.JoaquinMa. N. B. (2023). Teacher positioning, student mathematics identity and the mediating effects of problem-solving flexibility. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2190310. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2190310
8.
CarmoJ.dosS.GrisG.PalombariniL. dos S. (2019). Mathematics anxiety: Definition, prevention, reversal strategies and school setting inclusion. In KolloscheD.MarconeR.KniggeM.PenteadoM. G.SkovsmoseO. (Eds.), Inclusive mathematics education (pp. 403–418). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11518-0_24
9.
ColemanL. J.CrossL. T. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Prufrock Press.
DaiD. Y. (2020). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219897850
12.
DeasyC.Mannix-McNamaraP. (2017). Challenging performativity in higher education: Promoting a healthier learning culture. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68736
13.
FranklV. E. (1959/2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
14.
HelsperA.DeShonL.BoylanL. E.GalliherJ.RubensteinL. D. (2025). Under pressure: Gifted students’ vulnerabilities, stressors, and coping mechanisms within a high achieving high school. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020235
15.
KeddieA. (2016). Children of the market: Performativity, neoliberal responsibilisation and the construction of student identities. Oxford Review of Education, 42(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1142865
16.
KernM. L.BensonL.SteinbergE. A.SteinbergL. (2016). The EPOCH measure of adolescent well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 586–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000201
17.
LeikinR.LevM. (2007). Multiple solution tasks as a magnifying glass for observation of mathematical creativity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9046-8
18.
LeikinR.Pitta-PantaziD. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0459-1
19.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
20.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
21.
LyotardJ.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge(G. Bennington & B. Massumi, trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
22.
MendickH. (2006). Masculinities in mathematics. Open University Press.
MossbergF.LundqvistJ. (2025). Giftedness and talent in inclusive preschools: A multiple-case study regarding identification, teaching, quality of interactions, and experiences of children. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(5), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202534450
25.
NeumeisterK. L. S. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800306
26.
NeumeisterK. L. S. (2018). Perfectionism in gifted students. In StoeberJ. (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 134–154). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
27.
PfeifferS. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge.
28.
Salmela-AroK.UpadyayaK. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12018
29.
SeitzS.KaiserM.AuerP.BellaciccoR. (2024). Giftedness, achievement, and inclusion: A discourse analysis. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 23(1), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.14605/ISS2312401
30.
SellarS.LingardB. (2013). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3100
31.
SfardA.PrusakA. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034004014
32.
SheffieldL. J. (2013). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K–8 students. Corwin Press.
StoeberJ.RambowA. (2007). Perfectionism in adolescent school students: Relations with motivation, achievement, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.015
35.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
36.
van ManenM. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.
37.
WilliamsonB. (2017). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. Sage.
38.
WongP. (2012). From logotherapy to meaning-centered counseling and therapy. In WongP. T. P. (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 619–647). Routledge.
39.
ZeidnerM.Shani-ZinovichI. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007
40.
ZipinL. (2015). Educating for future survival: Expansive learning in the shadow of neoliberal performativity. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.959895
