4 ms·
I agree with Newt Gingrich's assessment of the problem. However, I don't like this solution, particularly within the context of http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/
by qaexl 18y ago
I agree with Newt Gingrich's assessment of the problem. However, I don't like this solution, particularly within the context of http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_col... (warning, very long article) and http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2032 http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=203...
Gingrich is right in that the institution is a failure. However, his proposed solutions merely reinforces those institution. A big part of the problem comes from the shift in meaning of the words "teachers", "students", "homework", "responsibility", etc. As the author from the Wharton article says:
"Consider this one example from my recent experience. I attended a conference of school counselors, where the latest ideas in the realm of student counseling were being presented. I went to a session on the development of self-discipline and responsibility, wondering what these concepts mean to people embedded in traditional schooling. To me, self-discipline means the ability to pursue one's goals without outside coercion; responsibility means taking appropriate action on one's own initiative, without being goaded by others. To the people presenting the session, both concepts had to do solely with the child's ability to do his or her assigned class work. They explained that a guidance counselor's proper function was to get students to understand that responsible behavior meant doing their homework in a timely and effective manner, as prescribed, and self-discipline meant the determination to get that homework done. George Orwell was winking in the back of the room."
I just thought of an alternative solution, one that does not necessarily require a lot of political clout. The solution is something parents can implement directly without having to lobby for legislation. Simply, the parents has their kids pass their GED by the time they are 13. They may be required by different laws to also pass the different standardization tests, but depending on the circumstances, studying for the material in the GED should be enough. This can probably be done over the age normally reserved for middle school.
A 13-year-old with a high school diploma (via GED) has a lot more social clout within the adult world than a middle-school kid. He may not be legally able to vote, or drive, or smoke, or drink, and he'd get in trouble with underage-sex laws. However, he would not be considered a high-school dropout.
The options open up from there. The parents probably should choose an apprenticeship, whether that be something as humble as a janitor, or something more aspiring such as a researcher, a programmer, an entreprenuer, a soldier, a fireman, etc. A more traditional college track would still available.
- run4yourlives 18y agoIf the child has gone through all the effort of completing high school at 13, why - under your model - is the parent deciding what he/she should do after that? Shouldn't the child determine which area of study they would like to pursue?
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- qaexl 18y agoIf the 13-year-old already has his heart set on something, I'm not going to stop him. But I suspect, at least with the first generation, they're going to screw around ... just like the first two or three years of college. Chances are good that if the area of study isn't something he wants to work with, he'll figure it out fast and get on with working on something else.
- run4yourlives 18y agoI would think that screwing around for a few years is exactly what you would want a 13 year old to do. Like you said, better finding your passions at 16 then at 22. Finding your passions though is an essential part of life and shouldn't be taken as "screwing around".
- qaexl 18y agoI think I didn't write the apprenticeship part very well. Choosing an apprenticeship for the 13-year-old is meant to give them a nudge. It doesn't matter if they pick it up or rebel against it. What matters is getting out of the home to see the world. Travelling around the world (without family) accomplishes the same thing. Staying within the comfort of the home is screwing around ... even if it is "exploring" your passions. That's just extending childhood. So what I should have said is that after getting the GED (or equivalent) parents push them out of the nest, whether that results from choosing an apprenticeship for them, or having them travel around the country, or having them take college courses at college campus. That is what the old rites of passages (and the hero myths that go with it) accomplish: force the adolescent out of childhood, just as being born means going from the comfort of the womb to the bright, cold world. And of course, there are some who already know what they want and will already have plans in motion. There is an obstacle with this idea is that many jurisdictions require you to be 16 to take it. Yet I remember hearing of college prodigies earning their degrees before that. It makes me think there is a way to hack it.