Let's Abolish High School(youthrights.net)
youthrights.net
Let's Abolish High School
http://www.youthrights.net/index.php?title=Let%27s_Abolish_High_School_%28article%29
116 comments
I'm currently a teenager. This is mostly false.
I was a teenager -- I dropped out of school, moved out of my parents home, and took a full time technology job at 16, and began working my way up. This meant that by the time my peers graduated from college, I had 6 years of experience under my belt.
I wasn't special, I was simply motivated. If my home and school life had been satisfactory, I probably would have been content to sit out my future high school and college years with very little responsibility, and I imagine this is the situation that most teenagers find themselves in.
High school works decently enough for the rest of the 95%.
95% of teenagers don't accept real responsibility and behave like capable adults because there is no external motivation or encouragement to do so.
Is this beneficial to their well-being?
Dropping out is not an option. You 100% will have a much harder time with acceptance with most colleges (and asian parents.)
That depends on what you would like to do with your life. Returning to college later in life is surprisingly easy.
I was a teenager -- I dropped out of school, moved out of my parents home, and took a full time technology job at 16, and began working my way up. This meant that by the time my peers graduated from college, I had 6 years of experience under my belt.
I wasn't special, I was simply motivated. If my home and school life had been satisfactory, I probably would have been content to sit out my future high school and college years with very little responsibility, and I imagine this is the situation that most teenagers find themselves in.
High school works decently enough for the rest of the 95%.
95% of teenagers don't accept real responsibility and behave like capable adults because there is no external motivation or encouragement to do so.
Is this beneficial to their well-being?
Dropping out is not an option. You 100% will have a much harder time with acceptance with most colleges (and asian parents.)
That depends on what you would like to do with your life. Returning to college later in life is surprisingly easy.
If you did something that 99.9999% of the population did not do then you are special by definition.
Teenager's have significantly different levels of cognitive ability compared to adults. There is a reason most people look back on their teenage years and say "why was I so stupid" and honestly it's because your brain was less developed on a biological level.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2xpvp4ie_8MC&dq=hippoca...
Teenager's have significantly different levels of cognitive ability compared to adults. There is a reason most people look back on their teenage years and say "why was I so stupid" and honestly it's because your brain was less developed on a biological level.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2xpvp4ie_8MC&dq=hippoca...
If you did something that 99.9999% of the population did not do then you are special by definition.
My circumstances were special, not me.
Teenager's have significantly different levels of cognitive ability compared to adults. There is a reason most people look back on their teenage years and say "why was I so stupid" and honestly it's because your brain was less developed on a biological level.
Cognitive differences do not preclude all responsibility. As it currently stands, most teenagers are provided with none at all, despite their historically demonstrated ability to shoulder considerably more than our institutions provide.
I was not special -- I did quite a few phenomenally stupid things as a teenager -- but I also learned how to be an adult sooner.
[Edit] One of the dangers of expressing this opinion is that it triggers cognitive dissonance amongst those who did follow the standard protocol.
So, allow me to reiterate -- given the proper circumstances, I believe all teenagers are well capable of accepting quite a bit more responsibility than they are currently allowed, but most never have the external encouragement or motivation to do so.
My circumstances were special, not me.
Teenager's have significantly different levels of cognitive ability compared to adults. There is a reason most people look back on their teenage years and say "why was I so stupid" and honestly it's because your brain was less developed on a biological level.
Cognitive differences do not preclude all responsibility. As it currently stands, most teenagers are provided with none at all, despite their historically demonstrated ability to shoulder considerably more than our institutions provide.
I was not special -- I did quite a few phenomenally stupid things as a teenager -- but I also learned how to be an adult sooner.
[Edit] One of the dangers of expressing this opinion is that it triggers cognitive dissonance amongst those who did follow the standard protocol.
So, allow me to reiterate -- given the proper circumstances, I believe all teenagers are well capable of accepting quite a bit more responsibility than they are currently allowed, but most never have the external encouragement or motivation to do so.
You are 100% right. It really works like that. If you grow up with little or no opportunity to meet your responsibilities head on and to shoulder your weight you'll lose a decade. Sometimes more.
I started working at 17, mailroom boy at first, worked my way up to systems programmer then started my own business. By the time my friends graduated I had a nice little business going. But I doubt if that would have been possible in the period after I got started and before the whole www thing happened.
The barrier to entry was pretty high for a long time.
I attribute most of what happened to luck and the little bit that's left to plain old fashioned hard work. But then again, I like my work. That really helps.
I started working at 17, mailroom boy at first, worked my way up to systems programmer then started my own business. By the time my friends graduated I had a nice little business going. But I doubt if that would have been possible in the period after I got started and before the whole www thing happened.
The barrier to entry was pretty high for a long time.
I attribute most of what happened to luck and the little bit that's left to plain old fashioned hard work. But then again, I like my work. That really helps.
Did not or could not? Many people can do a lot more than they actually do do. Just because they choose not to - or are never aware that they have the choice - doesn't make it impossible.
Consider spending less than you make (i.e. not going into massive credit card debt). I highly suspect most people can do this - they certainly did just fine up until the 1970s. But many people don't - at least, enough that the savings rate was negative until the current financial crisis.
I've heard a few people argue that this proves people are constitutionally incapable of managing money. I think this is bullshit. They're incapable of managing money because the environment and incentives around them provides them no reason to manage their money. If you stopped handing out credit like candy, you'd find that people could very easily manage their finances.
So it is with school. Just because 99.99999% of the population doesn't drop out and support themselves while building their career doesn't mean they can't. It just means they find it easier and more imaginable to stay in school.
Consider spending less than you make (i.e. not going into massive credit card debt). I highly suspect most people can do this - they certainly did just fine up until the 1970s. But many people don't - at least, enough that the savings rate was negative until the current financial crisis.
I've heard a few people argue that this proves people are constitutionally incapable of managing money. I think this is bullshit. They're incapable of managing money because the environment and incentives around them provides them no reason to manage their money. If you stopped handing out credit like candy, you'd find that people could very easily manage their finances.
So it is with school. Just because 99.99999% of the population doesn't drop out and support themselves while building their career doesn't mean they can't. It just means they find it easier and more imaginable to stay in school.
> most people look back on their teenage years and say "why was I so stupid"
As far as I can tell, that pattern holds for at least another decade.
As far as I can tell, that pattern holds for at least another decade.
Which is why I tend to believe it has quite a bit more to do with socially encouraged irresponsibility than teenage brain development.
I feel like it's the wrong question. I don't think anyone would really advocate postponing responsibilities until the brain had reached maximum maturity. The responsibility question's function signature is wrong: it's returning a boolean when it should be returning a float.
This discussion highlights why these questions are so difficult and frightening: ethics prevents good science.
Randomly sample a bunch of kids, hook them all up to monitoring devices, put them in different schools and societies that involve transitions into adulthood at different rates and onsets, set up a control group (Lord of the Flies setup), do the longitudinal study, and write it up. An associate professor and his 5 grad students would get a bunch of solid papers out of it. Theorists would have fun defining "optimality" in this context (to be fair, the philosophers have been gnawing at it for a while..)
This is unethical .. right? Then, you have to ask yourself: wouldn't it be more ethical to do the study, figure out how best to raise kids, and let all human young for posterity (or at least 'til the results are invalidated) benefit from the wisdom?
Hmm.. :)
Randomly sample a bunch of kids, hook them all up to monitoring devices, put them in different schools and societies that involve transitions into adulthood at different rates and onsets, set up a control group (Lord of the Flies setup), do the longitudinal study, and write it up. An associate professor and his 5 grad students would get a bunch of solid papers out of it. Theorists would have fun defining "optimality" in this context (to be fair, the philosophers have been gnawing at it for a while..)
This is unethical .. right? Then, you have to ask yourself: wouldn't it be more ethical to do the study, figure out how best to raise kids, and let all human young for posterity (or at least 'til the results are invalidated) benefit from the wisdom?
Hmm.. :)
It would only be more ethical if your ethical system was based on a utilitarian viewpoint.
In contrast, most capitalist democracies (all that I can think of anyway) are centered on individualism... the only ethically allowable sacrifice is the voluntary sacrifice... and children (anyone under 18) are not considered sentient enough to make decisions about their own lives and futures.
In contrast, most capitalist democracies (all that I can think of anyway) are centered on individualism... the only ethically allowable sacrifice is the voluntary sacrifice... and children (anyone under 18) are not considered sentient enough to make decisions about their own lives and futures.
You prove him right: by assuming underage people aren't sentient enough, ethics prevent us to check. Not necessarily bad, but definitely restrictive, and not good science™.
But is it because young adults these days don't have to grow up as much as teenagers had to say a century ago? You can effictively stay a child emotionally for a very long time.
More than one decade.
[This meant that by the time my peers graduated from college, I had 6 years of experience under my belt.]
Invalid assumption, since during my undergrad and graduate years I was exposed/worked on large systems (Vax), administered the math dept systems, tutored statistics/calculus, etc. If I add in the wonderful people I met, studied with or learned from during those college years (something that is hard to find in the common workplace btw), those years are far more valuable that 6 years in the workplace.
Experience isn't just putting down years at task X, it is what you gained and the effort you put forth.
Invalid assumption, since during my undergrad and graduate years I was exposed/worked on large systems (Vax), administered the math dept systems, tutored statistics/calculus, etc. If I add in the wonderful people I met, studied with or learned from during those college years (something that is hard to find in the common workplace btw), those years are far more valuable that 6 years in the workplace.
Experience isn't just putting down years at task X, it is what you gained and the effort you put forth.
That depends very much on where you work. There are plenty of opportunities to grow in some of the larger institutions. I ended up working for a bank and I learned lots of stuff that came in very handy in my later career. Contrast that to my buddies who took the university path and all got stuck in middle level management or very boring code maintenance.
A CS degree is not a free pass to a well paying and interesting job.
A CS degree is not a free pass to a well paying and interesting job.
College can also be a valuable experience, but you're incredibly presumptuous about working experience as "years at task X" and the value of my experience relative to your education.
A degree program provides the opportunity to learn, but no guarantee that you have. Real-world experience provides a measurable demonstration of your abilities. Both are valuable, but for different reasons.
A degree program provides the opportunity to learn, but no guarantee that you have. Real-world experience provides a measurable demonstration of your abilities. Both are valuable, but for different reasons.
However, some people have to live with the systems (err nightmares) that were built by people gaining "real-world experience". Just a little bit of focused education can do wonders (esp if you mix in a little passion).
Why the base insults?
Bad code comes from bad and/or inexperienced programmers, which in my experience seems to have very little correlation with level of education, and quite a bit more to do with a lack of "real-world experience".
Bad code comes from bad and/or inexperienced programmers, which in my experience seems to have very little correlation with level of education, and quite a bit more to do with a lack of "real-world experience".
no base insults, just what my experience has shown me time and time again.
The data doesn't support high school working out for 95% of students.
Fewer than 70% of US high school students graduate with their class. Few districts do better than 80%. About 3% or so homeschool, so that leaves you with about 67% who graduate in the system.
The 2005 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that 34% of 12th graders rated "proficient" reading abilities.
Not exactly a glowing success.
There are good options if you're looking for alternatives. I know a bit about the situation in Seattle because I opted out of high school there. The school district there has a "school" set up where home schoolers can register, do some non-home friendly classes (science & theater mostly IIRC), and benefit from government education funding. Many cities have programs that let high schoolers get credit for taking college classes and some universities are set up to do early admission (I did the UW program). Before all that I did an apprenticeship at a small electronics company (age 13). Pretty much you need to do the legwork though, you may find that the school district isn't interested in helping students leave the system (taking their funding with them).
Fewer than 70% of US high school students graduate with their class. Few districts do better than 80%. About 3% or so homeschool, so that leaves you with about 67% who graduate in the system.
The 2005 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that 34% of 12th graders rated "proficient" reading abilities.
Not exactly a glowing success.
There are good options if you're looking for alternatives. I know a bit about the situation in Seattle because I opted out of high school there. The school district there has a "school" set up where home schoolers can register, do some non-home friendly classes (science & theater mostly IIRC), and benefit from government education funding. Many cities have programs that let high schoolers get credit for taking college classes and some universities are set up to do early admission (I did the UW program). Before all that I did an apprenticeship at a small electronics company (age 13). Pretty much you need to do the legwork though, you may find that the school district isn't interested in helping students leave the system (taking their funding with them).
Couldn't a fail be an indicator that schools still are serving kids? "Oh, Johnny didn't really get it the first time around, let's get him to try again"? I'm not necessarily advocating this point of view, but stating the statistic isn't enough to get your point across. You need to propose a proper way of interpreting those results as well.
High school works decently enough for the rest of the 95%.
Funny. If you listen to the political-sphere, the argument is that high school sucks for most people, but works brilliantly for the well-off.
But if you actually ask the well-off and the people at the top of the class, they almost unanimously decry it as an awful waste of time.
High school does not really work for anyone. The vast majority of people end up learning their trade on the job. Why delay that process 4 (or 8) years?
Funny. If you listen to the political-sphere, the argument is that high school sucks for most people, but works brilliantly for the well-off.
But if you actually ask the well-off and the people at the top of the class, they almost unanimously decry it as an awful waste of time.
High school does not really work for anyone. The vast majority of people end up learning their trade on the job. Why delay that process 4 (or 8) years?
I think to encourage young people to drop out and take up a trade as soon as they think they know what they want to do with their life would be incredibly harmful. Many people think they have an idea of what they want to do at 14, but end up discovering an entirely new field in their course of learning. It would be hard to happen upon a career in physics if you were never introduced to it in high school, and weren't in an environment where you could learn easily at a high level about it.
I think kids should be encouraged do productive things they enjoy. That might mean school, that might mean work.
Nor would getting a job at 14 preclude a career in physics.
Most people who discover an interest do so in their own free time. I know very few creative works (programmers, architects, scientists) who picked up their careers because of a high school class. Do you?
Perhaps a kid might work at carpentry from 14 to 16. Then get interested in physics books he read in the library, and apply for university. Who knows. The real harm is that society has cut off a productive path (work) and forced students into a path that is neither productive nor enjoyable for 99% of the kids (school).
Nor would getting a job at 14 preclude a career in physics.
Most people who discover an interest do so in their own free time. I know very few creative works (programmers, architects, scientists) who picked up their careers because of a high school class. Do you?
Perhaps a kid might work at carpentry from 14 to 16. Then get interested in physics books he read in the library, and apply for university. Who knows. The real harm is that society has cut off a productive path (work) and forced students into a path that is neither productive nor enjoyable for 99% of the kids (school).
"Nor would getting a job at 14 preclude a career in physics."
It does, provided there is an age limit to go to physics. Like, you need a PhD, which can't be attended to if you are past 30 or something. These limits are artificial, but they are, anyway.
There must be ways around the PhD, but I bet they are a lot harder.
There must be ways around the PhD, but I bet they are a lot harder.
Why do you assume that people know what they want to do when they're 13-14 years old? If you were to ask me what I wanted to do back then, I'd look at you funny and say "computers".
Come to think of it, If you were to ask me what I want to do now (I'm 19, a junior in college), I'd probably give you the exact same answer. Even though one of my majors has nothing to do with computers at all (other one does), nor did my internship this summer.
Come to think of it, If you were to ask me what I want to do now (I'm 19, a junior in college), I'd probably give you the exact same answer. Even though one of my majors has nothing to do with computers at all (other one does), nor did my internship this summer.
I don't. But the best way to figure out what you want to do is to actually do it. School does not help in this process.
I'm three years out of college. Most of my friends had no idea what they wanted to do in graduation. They picked a job, didn't like it, and now are switching. Except now the biological clocks are ticking, and it's becoming more important to pick the right path, because there is a major costs in switching careers.
If people started working at 14, or even 18, people would have a lot more time to discover the career they loved, before they had to assume the burden of earning enough to support a family.
I'm three years out of college. Most of my friends had no idea what they wanted to do in graduation. They picked a job, didn't like it, and now are switching. Except now the biological clocks are ticking, and it's becoming more important to pick the right path, because there is a major costs in switching careers.
If people started working at 14, or even 18, people would have a lot more time to discover the career they loved, before they had to assume the burden of earning enough to support a family.
But the best way to figure out what you want to do is to actually do it. School does not help in this process.
I would say that school does help. It exposes people to different ideas and topics (Wait, I can get paid to do something with math besides run a business? You mean I can spend my entire life researching something?).
Personally, my opinion is that its absolutely great to know a lot about your specific field that you (want to) work in. But I would never want to limit myself to only knowing about one particular topic of knowledge.
//edit (to reply to this bit): If people started working at 14, or even 18, people would have a lot more time to discover the career they loved, before they had to assume the burden of earning enough to support a family
There's a lot of careers that require years of training to go through before you can begin working. Lawyers, Doctors, etc. We on HN might like to think that anyone can pick up a profession and just hack away and be able to make a living at it on whim. But it doesn't work like that. Its not as simple as deciding "I don't like being a lawyer, but I think I'd like being a farmer. I'm going to buy some land, plant seeds and call it a day".
I would say that school does help. It exposes people to different ideas and topics (Wait, I can get paid to do something with math besides run a business? You mean I can spend my entire life researching something?).
Personally, my opinion is that its absolutely great to know a lot about your specific field that you (want to) work in. But I would never want to limit myself to only knowing about one particular topic of knowledge.
//edit (to reply to this bit): If people started working at 14, or even 18, people would have a lot more time to discover the career they loved, before they had to assume the burden of earning enough to support a family
There's a lot of careers that require years of training to go through before you can begin working. Lawyers, Doctors, etc. We on HN might like to think that anyone can pick up a profession and just hack away and be able to make a living at it on whim. But it doesn't work like that. Its not as simple as deciding "I don't like being a lawyer, but I think I'd like being a farmer. I'm going to buy some land, plant seeds and call it a day".
Re:Law and Medicine. The US system for both of these is EVIL in its regressivness and waste of time and talent. Most other Common Law countries have undergraduate law degrees, in the UK they're mostly three years. There is also bugger all reason for Medicine to be a graduate degree, it's all taught. Bond University in Australia does an undergrad medicine programme in 4y 5m, with three trimesters per year, and the UK system has undergrad Med degrees of 5 or 6 years.
...I don't really see what high school did for you, then. That sounds more like an argument for change than against it. If you're not gonna know as a junior in college, having been through high school, any better than you did as a 8th grader - why bother with it at all?
I'm currently frustrated by high school. I've known I wanted to do "computers," like you, since middle school. High school hasn't changed that. Maybe some people aren't exposed to enough options in middle school. So why don't we fix middle school instead of sticking adolescents in 4 more years of useless education? Assuming a high schooler can take 8, and assuming only two will be in his or her subject of interest, fully 75% of the student's time is wasted learning facts and skills that are unimportant. Even accounting for an additional class in a subject of moderate interest that may be useful later in life, that leaves 5/8 periods wasted. Assuming an additional 2 classes (I'm feeling generous) are useful for the skills they provide, such as communication and... (You pick. I can't even think of another useful skill that a high school class might teach.), that leaves 3/8ths of a student's time wasted.
Consider a business where 37.5% of _every_ employee's paid hours was spent playing video games. (For all the good the other 3 classes do our student, I don't think that's an unfair comparison. Except the games would be more fun.) How do you think that company would fare? That's shockingly wasteful under any other circumstances. Why do we expect it of our schools?
I'm currently frustrated by high school. I've known I wanted to do "computers," like you, since middle school. High school hasn't changed that. Maybe some people aren't exposed to enough options in middle school. So why don't we fix middle school instead of sticking adolescents in 4 more years of useless education? Assuming a high schooler can take 8, and assuming only two will be in his or her subject of interest, fully 75% of the student's time is wasted learning facts and skills that are unimportant. Even accounting for an additional class in a subject of moderate interest that may be useful later in life, that leaves 5/8 periods wasted. Assuming an additional 2 classes (I'm feeling generous) are useful for the skills they provide, such as communication and... (You pick. I can't even think of another useful skill that a high school class might teach.), that leaves 3/8ths of a student's time wasted.
Consider a business where 37.5% of _every_ employee's paid hours was spent playing video games. (For all the good the other 3 classes do our student, I don't think that's an unfair comparison. Except the games would be more fun.) How do you think that company would fare? That's shockingly wasteful under any other circumstances. Why do we expect it of our schools?
If you're not gonna know as a junior in college, having been through high school, any better than you did as a 8th grader - why bother with it at all?
Because, as an 8th grader, I wanted "computers". Now, I although I still want "computers", I don't know if I want to focus on web/scripting languages, on embedded systems (or something in between), on computer graphics or on UI/UX, etc. Now, I know what fields I have available to pick from, and have (some) experience in most of them. I can make more of an informed choice now then I could have a decade ago. I can tell you that as an 8th grader, I wouldn't have been able to understand most of the things that I do today.
Maybe some people aren't exposed to enough options in middle school. I think its because when you're 9-13 years old, theres limits to what you're capable of doing and what you know. Its completely and utterly impractical to even pretend that it is possible to expose someone to every field and topic by the time they're 13.
..fully 75% of the student's time is wasted learning facts and skills that are unimportant. See, I don't (and didn't) think think that any of my classes were unimportant or useless. I might not have cared about them. But I could see the value in the fact that the knowledge is there and in knowing the basics of the topic.
I might not be an English major, but I can read a book and then be able to understand it and write about it in a coherent manner. The ability to write (and therefore express yourself) is very important to have. I might not do anything with Chemistry or Biology, but at least now I can look at a food label, read the list of ingredients and (somewhat) break down whats in the food, to figure out how unhealthy it is for me. I might never need to know about the causes of the Industrial Revolution or what the big deal about the Enlightenment was, but, in its own way, thats exploring human thoughts and behaviors - that still influence the world today.
I had to fill a "Modern History" requirement here at college. I took International Relations. I found it interesting enough so that I took on a second major to study it some more.
The knowledge might not be directly useful to you. But its knowledge. And you can take it, and with some thought, apply to the rest of your life. The concept of learning the basics about a number of fields wasn't randomly chosen by people hundreds of years ago for no reason. They were onto something. That something might not work well for everyone. I'm not going to pretend it does. But, a majority of the time, it does work.
Schooling and learning — all of it - is what you make of it. At the end of the day, if you choose to make nothing of it, thats your choice. If you think that you can learn more on your own, then I hope that you're right. Because learning is something good, you should enjoy it, not hope to get out of the way so you can make money.
Oh, just for laughs, I went back to my elementary (primary) school yearbook. In the "When I grow up, I want to be.." field, I had down: "Baseball Player, Stock Broker, Lawyer, Scientist". This completely changed after Middle School. If that yearbook asked a similar question, the answer would read "Computers, Musician, Author, Politician". By the time I graduated High School, it would have read "Computers, Journalist, Graphic Artist". In college, if I had to fill out that field, it would likely read "Computers, Something to do with international politics, Author"
Because, as an 8th grader, I wanted "computers". Now, I although I still want "computers", I don't know if I want to focus on web/scripting languages, on embedded systems (or something in between), on computer graphics or on UI/UX, etc. Now, I know what fields I have available to pick from, and have (some) experience in most of them. I can make more of an informed choice now then I could have a decade ago. I can tell you that as an 8th grader, I wouldn't have been able to understand most of the things that I do today.
Maybe some people aren't exposed to enough options in middle school. I think its because when you're 9-13 years old, theres limits to what you're capable of doing and what you know. Its completely and utterly impractical to even pretend that it is possible to expose someone to every field and topic by the time they're 13.
..fully 75% of the student's time is wasted learning facts and skills that are unimportant. See, I don't (and didn't) think think that any of my classes were unimportant or useless. I might not have cared about them. But I could see the value in the fact that the knowledge is there and in knowing the basics of the topic.
I might not be an English major, but I can read a book and then be able to understand it and write about it in a coherent manner. The ability to write (and therefore express yourself) is very important to have. I might not do anything with Chemistry or Biology, but at least now I can look at a food label, read the list of ingredients and (somewhat) break down whats in the food, to figure out how unhealthy it is for me. I might never need to know about the causes of the Industrial Revolution or what the big deal about the Enlightenment was, but, in its own way, thats exploring human thoughts and behaviors - that still influence the world today.
I had to fill a "Modern History" requirement here at college. I took International Relations. I found it interesting enough so that I took on a second major to study it some more.
The knowledge might not be directly useful to you. But its knowledge. And you can take it, and with some thought, apply to the rest of your life. The concept of learning the basics about a number of fields wasn't randomly chosen by people hundreds of years ago for no reason. They were onto something. That something might not work well for everyone. I'm not going to pretend it does. But, a majority of the time, it does work.
Schooling and learning — all of it - is what you make of it. At the end of the day, if you choose to make nothing of it, thats your choice. If you think that you can learn more on your own, then I hope that you're right. Because learning is something good, you should enjoy it, not hope to get out of the way so you can make money.
Oh, just for laughs, I went back to my elementary (primary) school yearbook. In the "When I grow up, I want to be.." field, I had down: "Baseball Player, Stock Broker, Lawyer, Scientist". This completely changed after Middle School. If that yearbook asked a similar question, the answer would read "Computers, Musician, Author, Politician". By the time I graduated High School, it would have read "Computers, Journalist, Graphic Artist". In college, if I had to fill out that field, it would likely read "Computers, Something to do with international politics, Author"
Unfortunately the problem is that "unimportant" facts and skills are all over the place, and are not limited to subjects outside your interest. I'd bet you might even learn useless things in classes on subjects you are interested in. Combine that with the apathy for teaching and increased focus on testing well for federal funding (in the US), and it's all useless.
(On a less cynical day, I'd say that eventually taking all these "useless" classes in HS might come in handy some day, you never know. I realized what I had gotten out of it the moment I left. I had an art history and ceramics class that's prompted me to look for a pottery studio near my home to continue on because I love making cups. The scant amount of chemistry I've learned bored me in HS (and I thought it was useless...) but it gave me a foundation in college to take so many chem classes I'm considering a double major in chem and CS. My last HS phys ed teacher over the course of a year never let me give up no matter how badly I was doing - something I've never had happen at the gyms I've been to with all the trainers I've seen. His voice is the voice I hear internally encouraging me to keep on running/swimming/working out or to even get my ass out of my chair after sitting in it all day. All these little things I thought were stupid ended up making a fairly large impact on my life. I wonder if I'm the exception to the rule.
I might also note I actually ended up dropping out of HS after my sophomore year because I thought going to college early would help me more with my interest in "computers" since I still had to take some number of "irrelevant" classes but I could focus more on my interests. I don't regret that, and occasionally I wish I had left earlier on, but I can't deny that what little I did do in HS has impacted me.)
(On a less cynical day, I'd say that eventually taking all these "useless" classes in HS might come in handy some day, you never know. I realized what I had gotten out of it the moment I left. I had an art history and ceramics class that's prompted me to look for a pottery studio near my home to continue on because I love making cups. The scant amount of chemistry I've learned bored me in HS (and I thought it was useless...) but it gave me a foundation in college to take so many chem classes I'm considering a double major in chem and CS. My last HS phys ed teacher over the course of a year never let me give up no matter how badly I was doing - something I've never had happen at the gyms I've been to with all the trainers I've seen. His voice is the voice I hear internally encouraging me to keep on running/swimming/working out or to even get my ass out of my chair after sitting in it all day. All these little things I thought were stupid ended up making a fairly large impact on my life. I wonder if I'm the exception to the rule.
I might also note I actually ended up dropping out of HS after my sophomore year because I thought going to college early would help me more with my interest in "computers" since I still had to take some number of "irrelevant" classes but I could focus more on my interests. I don't regret that, and occasionally I wish I had left earlier on, but I can't deny that what little I did do in HS has impacted me.)
9 startups or 9 websites?
I've had my fair share of websites. I don't consider, for example, http://speakhq.com a startup. At all.
Whereas I do consider http://ramamia.com a startup, and http://tickrtalk.com a startup (funded and in dev), and http://classleaf.com a startup.
I can change that to 8 if Avecora (which did previous web stuff, but now is developing a mobile dev) doesn't count as one, since it's in development. In fact. I'll list them and try to qualify them, chronologically sorted.
Whereas I do consider http://ramamia.com a startup, and http://tickrtalk.com a startup (funded and in dev), and http://classleaf.com a startup.
I can change that to 8 if Avecora (which did previous web stuff, but now is developing a mobile dev) doesn't count as one, since it's in development. In fact. I'll list them and try to qualify them, chronologically sorted.
DebateWare - sold enterprise event mgmt software. sponsoring debate event in bos in oct
Avecora - doing a mobile device in dev
Avecora OnDemand - CRM/Project Management app. only connected to Avecora by name. market sucked.
Cadmium - social advertising network. used facebook data to target ads. decent revenue, closed down later b/c market was :/.
Student Concourse - was at WebInno 22. Lots of users but bad retention rate. Closed down.
FB Idol: >15,000 Facebook users and very active. monetized via ads, with good money. said screw it and sold it.
Ramamia: with hnuser:jasonlbaptiste. few thousand users, in public beta. tons of gigs of photos. launching next month.
TickrTalk: in dev. funded by UPenn Weiss Tech Fund.
Classleaf: sales force started making calls last week. software. it's selling.
Adaptance: in dev: advanced ad network built on a complex algorithm combining behavioral + contextual + 3 other targeting metrics.
Yeah I was more curious than anything.
I don't really know what the definition of a startup is, but I know it's certainly different than a website. HN in general tends to have a very liberal definition of the word. Side projects that never made a dime or had more than a few hundreds visitors are rightly or wrongly considered startups rather frequently. The word "startup" is so overused that like the terms "breaking news" and "celebrity" it doesn't really mean much anymore.
Website -> Startup
News -> Breaking News
Reality TV Appearance -> Celebrity
I don't really know what the definition of a startup is, but I know it's certainly different than a website. HN in general tends to have a very liberal definition of the word. Side projects that never made a dime or had more than a few hundreds visitors are rightly or wrongly considered startups rather frequently. The word "startup" is so overused that like the terms "breaking news" and "celebrity" it doesn't really mean much anymore.
Website -> Startup
News -> Breaking News
Reality TV Appearance -> Celebrity
Oh, I definitely agree with you there. I hate the ASK HN: REVIEW MY URL SHORTENER STARTUP and related.
"High school works decently enough for the rest of the 95%."
Toward what end? Babysitting teenagers? Forcing people to memorize information that they forget a day after the final exam?
Toward what end? Babysitting teenagers? Forcing people to memorize information that they forget a day after the final exam?
The way I see it, high school doesn't really teach content, it teaches learning, which we've been learning (cout << recursive_meta_joke) for about eight years now. The second thing that high school gives is a one-year introduction to the various careers that can be taken on.
For example, I notice one thing with many of the people I talk to, to this regard: high school is where the transition from "YEAH MAN, I'm going to be a pro athlete when I grow up dude" to "I thought physiology was pretty cool in bio class, so I'm going to go and do premed."
But of course, this doesn't work for a lot of people. It doesn't work with me, because I've personally already have found my passion (and it has been for three years.) It also didn't work for Richard Branson.
Everyone complains about high school. And there's definitely a lot of rote memorization. But for some people, they might not gain this important "oh, this is actually pretty cool" moment.
For example, I notice one thing with many of the people I talk to, to this regard: high school is where the transition from "YEAH MAN, I'm going to be a pro athlete when I grow up dude" to "I thought physiology was pretty cool in bio class, so I'm going to go and do premed."
But of course, this doesn't work for a lot of people. It doesn't work with me, because I've personally already have found my passion (and it has been for three years.) It also didn't work for Richard Branson.
Everyone complains about high school. And there's definitely a lot of rote memorization. But for some people, they might not gain this important "oh, this is actually pretty cool" moment.
If I believed that most high schools taught people how to learn I'd be very satisfied.
There are many options that we could explore if our political system allowed it. The one that makes the most sense to me is to provide two paths for students: one which leads to a university and one which is vocational. The university path could begin at 16 with the curriculum that would typically be taught to a college freshman.
There are many options that we could explore if our political system allowed it. The one that makes the most sense to me is to provide two paths for students: one which leads to a university and one which is vocational. The university path could begin at 16 with the curriculum that would typically be taught to a college freshman.
You might want to have a look at CEGEPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEGEP
I think this is a pretty good idea! A lot of students at the colleges I went to spent their first year taking core classes or classes in a major they ended up switching out of. Might as well let students take care of that first year somewhere more affordable/accessible to everyone, and then move on to college.
But if you already know most of what they are teaching you, it doesn't teach learning.
School needs to use a pre-test, post-test methodology. Pass the pre-test and you can skip a topic, fail the post-test and you have to study it longer.
School needs to use a pre-test, post-test methodology. Pass the pre-test and you can skip a topic, fail the post-test and you have to study it longer.
Oh, bullshit. It teaches "95% of kids" to hate learning because it turns it into a job.
Learning is a job, if it wasn't so damn hard and stressful everyone would be a quantum physicist. Teenage kids need to accept the realities of life.
Realities of life are not taught in high school. Regular High School is a joke, however, specialized optional programs like International Baccaularate or AP, I found more challenging than most college classes. Unfortunately, these are optional, IB/AP should be the norm.
Sorry, maybe I used the wrong word; learning certainly requires work, but it shouldn't be treated as a chore.
"We teach you how to learn" was repeated over and over again in my engineering department at my university. I always thought it was an excuse and justification that allowed them to save face and make it ok that what was being taught was going to be useless in the "real world"
So sure, content-wise it was useless, but now I see that I can pick up any project or subject learn it and apply it really quickly. But I am still not ok that they were not capable of providing valuable content and practical knowledge in class.
Neither in college nor in high school did I learn anything from class or teachers (except for a handful), my education was mostly Google, Wikipedia, and blogs, not textbooks or teachers. (I stopped buying books my last semesters in College after I realized I never opened them when I did)
So sure, content-wise it was useless, but now I see that I can pick up any project or subject learn it and apply it really quickly. But I am still not ok that they were not capable of providing valuable content and practical knowledge in class.
Neither in college nor in high school did I learn anything from class or teachers (except for a handful), my education was mostly Google, Wikipedia, and blogs, not textbooks or teachers. (I stopped buying books my last semesters in College after I realized I never opened them when I did)
"We teach you how to learn" was repeated over and over again in my engineering department at my university. I always thought it was an excuse and justification that allowed them to save face and make it ok that what was being taught was going to be useless in the "real world"
That's a horrible argument that defines your disdain for learning.
That's a horrible argument that defines your disdain for learning.
It is an argument that defines my methods for learning, which is that I learn on my own. Not a disdain for learning. I strongly believe in learning by doing.
Those of us who went to school in old North Carolina tobacco towns did not learn how to learn in High School.
Dropping out is not an option. You 100% will have a much harder time with acceptance with most colleges (and asian parents.)
I enjoyed turning on, tuning in and dropping out, fwiw. It's not for everyone, but life experience has fine-tuned my BS filter, given me infallible icebreakers and generally purged that poisonous Life-As-A-Race mindset.
By my experience getting into university after doing the dot-com years and a few years of domesticated life, colleges only care about their straight-out-of-secondary rates (given, I went to a state school, not an Ivy League, but I feel that the end effect would be similar.) Asian/1st generation immigrant parents, on the other hand, are a terrible burden to bear!
I would encourage the younger HN demographic to manage their expectations. Spending 3 decades in school doesn't give you a whole lot of common ground with a VC panel, other people in your chosen field or (really) anyone outside of a similarly-academic background. While that may be who you're working with or hiring, 8/10 times that's not who you're ultimately selling to. Freight-train academia can, however, set up a crushingly intense fear of failure that can break a young hacker's willpower in half.
Short story: never be afraid to walk away from a raw deal, especially if there's an implication that it's "mandatory." Life doesn't have to be a Dostoyevsky novel.
I enjoyed turning on, tuning in and dropping out, fwiw. It's not for everyone, but life experience has fine-tuned my BS filter, given me infallible icebreakers and generally purged that poisonous Life-As-A-Race mindset.
By my experience getting into university after doing the dot-com years and a few years of domesticated life, colleges only care about their straight-out-of-secondary rates (given, I went to a state school, not an Ivy League, but I feel that the end effect would be similar.) Asian/1st generation immigrant parents, on the other hand, are a terrible burden to bear!
I would encourage the younger HN demographic to manage their expectations. Spending 3 decades in school doesn't give you a whole lot of common ground with a VC panel, other people in your chosen field or (really) anyone outside of a similarly-academic background. While that may be who you're working with or hiring, 8/10 times that's not who you're ultimately selling to. Freight-train academia can, however, set up a crushingly intense fear of failure that can break a young hacker's willpower in half.
Short story: never be afraid to walk away from a raw deal, especially if there's an implication that it's "mandatory." Life doesn't have to be a Dostoyevsky novel.
[deleted]
given me infallible icebreakers
Care to share? I've never had much luck on developing those ...
Care to share? I've never had much luck on developing those ...
"Have you ever throttled a mountain lion with your bare hands?"
I think you need to actually experience a story to use it as an icebreaker. Nobody likes a liar.
I think you need to actually experience a story to use it as an icebreaker. Nobody likes a liar.
Exactly. It's not that there are 39 Awesome Icebreakers For Hackers, but rather that I have stories and experiences that (more or less) relate to almost anyone I'm likely to meet.
And yes, the stories are often more fun in the telling than in the living.
And yes, the stories are often more fun in the telling than in the living.
The assertion that teenagers have an 'immature' brain that necessarily causes turmoil is completely invalidated when we look at anthropological research from around the world.
That children and teens have an immature brain is supported by biological research:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1899715
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/15/health/2008091...
I was not happy in high school (only ten years ago), so I think efforts to improve that period of people's lives are well spent. But I can't support something that starts from what I consider a faulty premise, which is the assumption that children and teens are miniature adults.
That children and teens have an immature brain is supported by biological research:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1899715
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/15/health/2008091...
I was not happy in high school (only ten years ago), so I think efforts to improve that period of people's lives are well spent. But I can't support something that starts from what I consider a faulty premise, which is the assumption that children and teens are miniature adults.
What does 'mature' even mean in this context? Don't mistake "not finished growing/changing" with lacking the ability to make mature, thoughtful decisions if given the opportunity/responsibility.
One of the reasons teenagers act so irresponsibly is because they've grown up with the idea that teenagers are inherently irresponsible and therefore aren't completely accountable for their actions. It becomes self-fulfilling.
One of the reasons teenagers act so irresponsibly is because they've grown up with the idea that teenagers are inherently irresponsible and therefore aren't completely accountable for their actions. It becomes self-fulfilling.
Full maturation of the brain - and I do think that indicates being able to reliably make "mature, thoughtful" decisions. I don't think you should deprive teenagers the opportunity to do so in the correct environment, but that's different from assuming they have the same mental faculties as adults.
Personally, I don't feel like I was a mature adult until about 22, and I was never considered an especially immature teen or young adult. I'm 28 now.
Personally, I don't feel like I was a mature adult until about 22, and I was never considered an especially immature teen or young adult. I'm 28 now.
>I don't feel like I was a mature adult until about 22
Was that about the time you left college? I think a lot of feeling "mature" is actually having responsibility for yourself. If teenagers had responsibility for themselves, and didn't have the artificial environment of high school to pressure them in the wrong direction, I believe nearly all of them could be fully functioning adults.
I don't think mature brain connections correlates with mature decision making. People become adults when they're finally faced with adult decisions and have to deal with the consequences.
All one needs to make mature decisions is a sense of the consequences of actions and an ability to delay gratification to reach later goals. Both of which is fully within the grasp of teenagers, if they're taught properly growing up.
Was that about the time you left college? I think a lot of feeling "mature" is actually having responsibility for yourself. If teenagers had responsibility for themselves, and didn't have the artificial environment of high school to pressure them in the wrong direction, I believe nearly all of them could be fully functioning adults.
I don't think mature brain connections correlates with mature decision making. People become adults when they're finally faced with adult decisions and have to deal with the consequences.
All one needs to make mature decisions is a sense of the consequences of actions and an ability to delay gratification to reach later goals. Both of which is fully within the grasp of teenagers, if they're taught properly growing up.
By that standard, probably half of the over-30s out there are not fully mature....
But that's not the point. People with brains that are still developing are perfectly capable of functioning in 'adult' society. Many teenagers, and perhaps society as a whole, would benefit it we allowed those willing young people to make 'adult' contributions.
Your point is too nebulous for me to know what you're really trying to say. What do you mean by "functioning in 'adult' society"? What, specifically, do you think should be different?
My point is that teenagers are mentally not adults, and as such, they should not be in the same place as society as adults. I'm not saying they should be completely divorced from it, but I worry when people claim that the concept of a "teenager" is completely a cultural construction. Neurological research indicates it is not.
My point is that teenagers are mentally not adults, and as such, they should not be in the same place as society as adults. I'm not saying they should be completely divorced from it, but I worry when people claim that the concept of a "teenager" is completely a cultural construction. Neurological research indicates it is not.
I'm agreeing that they are different. I'm merely stating that the physical and neurological differences are not enough to legislate what young people can and can't do. Society will always view young people as inexperienced, and those youngsters who haven't proven themselves will always have their place in society.
What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.
What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.
Actually, these reasons are perfectly sufficient to draw an arbitrary age line. Everyone thinks they are "special" and the exception to the rule. This attitude is especially prevalent on sites like this. Unfortunately, much like our own estimation of our own driving ability in comparison to our view of the driving abilities of everyone else it is easy to see a strong degree of cognative bias in our answers.
The reason that no one cares too much about an age line like this is that it hits everyone equally and eventually you will age past it. During the years immediately following this event you will see it as as unjust but you demographic insignificance will prevent any real change. Only when you can look back with the benefit of a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom will you be able to really make an objective judgement; restrictions that were unjust or ill advised from this perspective might change, but I would not expect much to appear unwise...
The reason that no one cares too much about an age line like this is that it hits everyone equally and eventually you will age past it. During the years immediately following this event you will see it as as unjust but you demographic insignificance will prevent any real change. Only when you can look back with the benefit of a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom will you be able to really make an objective judgement; restrictions that were unjust or ill advised from this perspective might change, but I would not expect much to appear unwise...
I don't get it. Your reasoning for supporting an arbitrary age line is because after "a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom", your perspective changes and you'll know that it's not unwise. I don't doubt the benefit of experience and wisdom, but where is your actual reasoning?
Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens.
But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?
Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens.
But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?
A line needs to be drawn somewhere (since I doubt that you are you suggesting that a five year-old child should be considered "adult" enough to consent to sexual activity or that a ten year-old should be able to legally drive.) Where we draw the line is based upon culture, tradition, and sometimes it will shift up or down based on societal or technological changes. (And _all_ societies are like this, not just this one; a line is drawn in the sand to divide the adults from the children.)
Yeah, I know it sounds lame, but as a matter of fact you _will_ have a better perspective upon the folly of your youth once you are well past it.
Yeah, I know it sounds lame, but as a matter of fact you _will_ have a better perspective upon the folly of your youth once you are well past it.
I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.)
What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one?
Accumulated experience generally correlates with more appropriate responses, granted. But inappropriate experiences lead to inappropriate responses. How do you verify that your experiences have led to correct conclusions? They are influenced by the society in which you live. And society (the entity itself, not the collection of people involved) generally prefers the status quo, because of natural selection.
Of course there must be a line. There is a minimum level of development necessary for reasonable integration into a society with a specific set of values and expectations. But humans mature at different rates. Age is not the appropriate unit to be using, here. We need a measurement of an individual's ability to _grow_ from immersion in the adult world. Instead of the SATs, we need CATs... Coping Aptitude Tests. It's not such a big leap for the College Board, either. (Now all that's left is to figure out how to measure maturity. Sweet deal.)
Accumulated experience generally correlates with more appropriate responses, granted. But inappropriate experiences lead to inappropriate responses. How do you verify that your experiences have led to correct conclusions? They are influenced by the society in which you live. And society (the entity itself, not the collection of people involved) generally prefers the status quo, because of natural selection.
Of course there must be a line. There is a minimum level of development necessary for reasonable integration into a society with a specific set of values and expectations. But humans mature at different rates. Age is not the appropriate unit to be using, here. We need a measurement of an individual's ability to _grow_ from immersion in the adult world. Instead of the SATs, we need CATs... Coping Aptitude Tests. It's not such a big leap for the College Board, either. (Now all that's left is to figure out how to measure maturity. Sweet deal.)
> I'd contend that with youth I have a better perspective on the folly of your adulthood just as you can perceive the folly of my youth. (I'm 17.) What makes your later view more correct than my earlier view, on this one?
Simple, I have experienced life from both perspectives while you have not. You have no basis for evaluating the folly of my adulthood because you have never experienced your own adulthood, while all of us who have made it this far fondly remember the joys and certainties of our youth. I do so miss that period of youthful rebellion, when we managed to figure out a couple of things about life and felt we were ready to pass judgement on everything around us; this conversation is already maxing out my deja vu quota for the week. Enjoy your youth and keep true to what you believe, it is the only way you will ever effect any change in the world, even though the particular cause that started this thread is a fools errand.
Simple, I have experienced life from both perspectives while you have not. You have no basis for evaluating the folly of my adulthood because you have never experienced your own adulthood, while all of us who have made it this far fondly remember the joys and certainties of our youth. I do so miss that period of youthful rebellion, when we managed to figure out a couple of things about life and felt we were ready to pass judgement on everything around us; this conversation is already maxing out my deja vu quota for the week. Enjoy your youth and keep true to what you believe, it is the only way you will ever effect any change in the world, even though the particular cause that started this thread is a fools errand.
This is exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn't come up with a way to articulate it as well as you did. I wanted to add that as you gain experience and wisdom, you may see just how hard it is to change society to behave in the 'ideal' fashion. Meaning as you become older, you learn better how to adapt to what society is and lose the desire to make society what you want it to be, simply because you learn that the former will give you results much quicker.
Our brain grows and develops not so much as a function of time but of experiences. I don't think MRI images of modern day teens is really enough to base a conclusion on. It may be true that teens today show less development but the reason for that is not a foregone conclusion.
I think what the author is trying to say in his article is that teens are capable of much more than they are allowed to do. And that very fact may be what causes the results in the research you linked above.
I think what the author is trying to say in his article is that teens are capable of much more than they are allowed to do. And that very fact may be what causes the results in the research you linked above.
It would be interesting to see if/how this would change if their environment changed. The brain changes significantly based on its environment, so could the brain mature more quickly if the environment forced it to?
I'm not in any way saying it would, but it would be hard to prove otherwise.
I'm not in any way saying it would, but it would be hard to prove otherwise.
>John Taylor Gatto has long warned about the dangers of artificially extending childhood, and has blamed our schools for damaging families and stifling creativity and a love of learning.
I think it's ridiculous that it is now normal (or actually preferable) now to be in school until you are done with 1/4 to 1/3 of your life without seeing what "the real world" was like. This means the average person won't be able to do anything significant until they have already wasted their best years in school and low level positions.
I can get decent grades pretty easily (much like many people here) and so slacking off and procrastination was just a smart way of using my time. Now that I think I'm of the age where I can make something of myself, I need to unlearn a lot of the bad habits learned in school in order to get things done. Many smart, ambitious people I know do not try to start independant projects because they are still "just students," but then go on to do amazing things after graduating and finding their purpose in life. Much of this can be prevented with an early firsthand exposure to a life outside of the artificial punishment and reward system of school.
Chances are, even after reform people will probably still go on the same path -- highschool, college, graduate school, but they will have a much better reason to do well, since it will be what they chose to do.
I think it's ridiculous that it is now normal (or actually preferable) now to be in school until you are done with 1/4 to 1/3 of your life without seeing what "the real world" was like. This means the average person won't be able to do anything significant until they have already wasted their best years in school and low level positions.
I can get decent grades pretty easily (much like many people here) and so slacking off and procrastination was just a smart way of using my time. Now that I think I'm of the age where I can make something of myself, I need to unlearn a lot of the bad habits learned in school in order to get things done. Many smart, ambitious people I know do not try to start independant projects because they are still "just students," but then go on to do amazing things after graduating and finding their purpose in life. Much of this can be prevented with an early firsthand exposure to a life outside of the artificial punishment and reward system of school.
Chances are, even after reform people will probably still go on the same path -- highschool, college, graduate school, but they will have a much better reason to do well, since it will be what they chose to do.
Whatever happened to the idea of an 'apprenticeship'? Not all teenagers want to pursue 'traditional' studies and would be much better off learning a specific trade or craft that they are interested in.
I think if a 15 year old was put into the position of having to make adult decisions and behave like an adult they would be perfectly capable.
It's just that they either don't have the chance or given the option, prefer to cruse through and muck around for as long as possible before being force to get serious.
It's just that they either don't have the chance or given the option, prefer to cruse through and muck around for as long as possible before being force to get serious.
The objective reality of the sort of decisions made by fifteen year-oldsters on a routine basis show this to be demonstably false.
The point that many of us are attempting to make is that this is so because of how we currently treat teenagers. When you treat someone like a child they tend to act like a child.
I've known a couple of people who grew up too fast, and that can be kind of ugly sometimes. I'm all in favor of the emancipation of children and the abolishment of school, but atta same time, there's gotta be some kinda line.
The objective reality of the soft of decisions made by twenty-five or thirty-five year oldsters on a routine basis shows that we have a problem. Extending childhood is not the answer.
[deleted]
I think you're right. I recall noticing that after I turned 12 my approach to situations was fundamentally adultlike... I don't think I've changed much cognitively since then either... Just the slow accretion of experience, etc.
I did learn how to be more self-actualized, etc. since then, since a good portion of even the best K-6 education constitutes obedience training... which I had to unlearn.
I did learn how to be more self-actualized, etc. since then, since a good portion of even the best K-6 education constitutes obedience training... which I had to unlearn.
I like the ;?> on the top left. The title is a little misleading, the article is actually much more rational than the title sounds.
I’m a father of four children, and about 10 years ago I noticed—I couldn’t help but notice—that my 15-year-old son was remarkably mature. He balanced work and play far better than I did, and he seemed quite ready to live on his own.
For parents that help educate their children, stimulate their interest and set an example this might be so, but for others, school might be a better alternative.
I’m a father of four children, and about 10 years ago I noticed—I couldn’t help but notice—that my 15-year-old son was remarkably mature. He balanced work and play far better than I did, and he seemed quite ready to live on his own.
For parents that help educate their children, stimulate their interest and set an example this might be so, but for others, school might be a better alternative.
The core of the argument, IMO, is that, by 15, the damage has already been done. On the other hand, if kids were set up in a system that expected them to be self-sufficient by 15 and started towards that at 8, then they would be self-sufficient by 15.
If you look at the last 60-70 years, you see that kids become adults later and later. My grandparents were married and on their own in their late teens (15-17 years old). My parents were in their early 20s. My generation seems to average around the end of college. The current generation (my sisters) are approaching 25 and still not making the transition.
This is worrisome for me, since I've got my own kids coming through that process. I know my 15 year old could succeed, but there is no way the societal infrastructure would let him. I worry more about my other kids who aren't as self-aware as he his.
I can say that I totally agree that a huge part of the problem is that kids are kept in the kid group until, one day, they are just expected to flip the switch and be adults. They aren't learning how to be adults in school, that's for sure.
If you look at the last 60-70 years, you see that kids become adults later and later. My grandparents were married and on their own in their late teens (15-17 years old). My parents were in their early 20s. My generation seems to average around the end of college. The current generation (my sisters) are approaching 25 and still not making the transition.
This is worrisome for me, since I've got my own kids coming through that process. I know my 15 year old could succeed, but there is no way the societal infrastructure would let him. I worry more about my other kids who aren't as self-aware as he his.
I can say that I totally agree that a huge part of the problem is that kids are kept in the kid group until, one day, they are just expected to flip the switch and be adults. They aren't learning how to be adults in school, that's for sure.
Agreed. I know if I, for example, had been let loose on the world at 15 things would have turned out BAD.
Did you go to normal school?
A lot of people in this discussion are trying to use the product of the putatively broken system (themselves or others they know) to prove that the putatively broken system must be left in place. This is simply begging the question (in the original sense), not an argument.
Edit: Fine, I'll spell it out. You can't counter an argument that says we have a system that is generating excessively dysfunctional 15-year-olds by pointing out that the 15-year olds generated by the system are excessively dysfunctional, and then follow it up with the conclusion that therefore we need the current system. That doesn't disprove the point, because the point in the first place is that the system is broken. You can cite millions of examples of actions taken by publicly-schooled 15-year-olds that were stupid, but none of them actually provide any useful information about the argument.
My post here isn't an argument either way about the issue; it's just simple logic. Arguing that of course 15-year olds are stupid and need to be in school is begging the question, or circular logic, and an invalid argument. It doesn't prove anything either way, it's not even evidence either way. Modding it down doesn't change that.
This isn't all spelled out in the exact post I'm replying to, but this bad logic is shot through this entire comment thread.
A lot of people in this discussion are trying to use the product of the putatively broken system (themselves or others they know) to prove that the putatively broken system must be left in place. This is simply begging the question (in the original sense), not an argument.
Edit: Fine, I'll spell it out. You can't counter an argument that says we have a system that is generating excessively dysfunctional 15-year-olds by pointing out that the 15-year olds generated by the system are excessively dysfunctional, and then follow it up with the conclusion that therefore we need the current system. That doesn't disprove the point, because the point in the first place is that the system is broken. You can cite millions of examples of actions taken by publicly-schooled 15-year-olds that were stupid, but none of them actually provide any useful information about the argument.
My post here isn't an argument either way about the issue; it's just simple logic. Arguing that of course 15-year olds are stupid and need to be in school is begging the question, or circular logic, and an invalid argument. It doesn't prove anything either way, it's not even evidence either way. Modding it down doesn't change that.
This isn't all spelled out in the exact post I'm replying to, but this bad logic is shot through this entire comment thread.
> Arguing that of course 15-year olds are stupid and need to be in school is begging the question
Where did I argue that! Your putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that, speaking from where I am now, at 15 I wasnt equipped to face the world. School was a good place for me.
This stuff has sod all to do with the schools; it's simple logic about maturity. Have you bothered to read the studies posted elsewhere about brain development??
The education system is broken: but that doesnt means it's a bad idea. If we dont impart our knowledge then you end up with a problem. It could, ofc, be taught better than it is now.
Where did I argue that! Your putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that, speaking from where I am now, at 15 I wasnt equipped to face the world. School was a good place for me.
This stuff has sod all to do with the schools; it's simple logic about maturity. Have you bothered to read the studies posted elsewhere about brain development??
The education system is broken: but that doesnt means it's a bad idea. If we dont impart our knowledge then you end up with a problem. It could, ofc, be taught better than it is now.
You said that when you were 15, school was a good place for you. But you are talking about your 15-year-old self who had just spent 10-ish years in school; at this point I'm assuming that if that weren't entirely true you would have said. Since the discussion is about the hypothesis that school is an infantalizing place to be, saying that when you were 15 school was the right place to be is begging the question. If you had been in a hypothetical better environment, your 15-year-old self might have been much more capable of dealing with real challenges.
You don't "say" it. The idea that school is the only way a childhood can be is so deeply ingrained in your argument you can't even perceive it. It's such a given that you consider it a logical axiom, and you end up arguing circularly without even realizing it, you and about half the other posters in this discussion.
Your last sentence would seem to me to reinforce the point. Maybe school can be "improved", but the idea that it is potentially fundamentally flawed doesn't seem to be thinkable. Mind you, I'm not saying that you (and others) think the idea, then reject it (which if done properly would be perfectly valid); people don't seem to be even capable of thinking the idea.
Your picture of maturity is shaped by the system under question.
Again, I'm not actually attacking or defending the schools here. It's the logic I'm talking about. You can't justify the current system by using the current system; it's circular.
You don't "say" it. The idea that school is the only way a childhood can be is so deeply ingrained in your argument you can't even perceive it. It's such a given that you consider it a logical axiom, and you end up arguing circularly without even realizing it, you and about half the other posters in this discussion.
Your last sentence would seem to me to reinforce the point. Maybe school can be "improved", but the idea that it is potentially fundamentally flawed doesn't seem to be thinkable. Mind you, I'm not saying that you (and others) think the idea, then reject it (which if done properly would be perfectly valid); people don't seem to be even capable of thinking the idea.
Your picture of maturity is shaped by the system under question.
Again, I'm not actually attacking or defending the schools here. It's the logic I'm talking about. You can't justify the current system by using the current system; it's circular.
Yeah. It's a damage limitation exercise - sure, some kids are mature enough to run their own lives at 15, but many are not - and you can screw your life far more comprehensively by making bad choices at 15 than at 25 (or 35 or 45).
My impression is that kids that are that mature at 15 find non-school ways to improve their lives/skills/education. The rest need the extra time (and of course for some, no amount of time is enough).
My impression is that kids that are that mature at 15 find non-school ways to improve their lives/skills/education. The rest need the extra time (and of course for some, no amount of time is enough).
Limited to yard work/baby sitting/uninteresting jobs? Where exactly?
After I turned 16 I enrolled in a community college, fully paid by high school, using a local dual enrollment program. When I was 15 I started working as a C++ developer, which was quite fun.
Yes, I was a freak and still am a completely asocial misanthrope. But no one is limited -- it is solely by choice (and probably fear of the unknown) that children stay in high school.
After I turned 16 I enrolled in a community college, fully paid by high school, using a local dual enrollment program. When I was 15 I started working as a C++ developer, which was quite fun.
Yes, I was a freak and still am a completely asocial misanthrope. But no one is limited -- it is solely by choice (and probably fear of the unknown) that children stay in high school.
>> it is solely by choice (and probably fear of the unknown)
Or because of the social benefits. You state that you consider your former self a freak, and consider your current self a completely asocial misanthrope. I was following a very similar path to you, but realized that I was on my way to being a social outcast. To me, being a C++ programmer was not my purpose in life (although it was a very interesting field I ended up making my career). A great deal of what I see as the "purpose of life" consists of those social relationships. If I didn't have those, C++ wouldn't make me happy, so what would be the point of it all?
I don't mean to sound argumentative - I'm just pointing out that although I was capable of doing more, I chose to stay close to my own age group because of a legitimate quality-of-life benefit. You did state that it's by choice, but I think that's an aspect a lot of people don't consider, especially the author in question.
Or because of the social benefits. You state that you consider your former self a freak, and consider your current self a completely asocial misanthrope. I was following a very similar path to you, but realized that I was on my way to being a social outcast. To me, being a C++ programmer was not my purpose in life (although it was a very interesting field I ended up making my career). A great deal of what I see as the "purpose of life" consists of those social relationships. If I didn't have those, C++ wouldn't make me happy, so what would be the point of it all?
I don't mean to sound argumentative - I'm just pointing out that although I was capable of doing more, I chose to stay close to my own age group because of a legitimate quality-of-life benefit. You did state that it's by choice, but I think that's an aspect a lot of people don't consider, especially the author in question.
It is only because high school is the default that those who choose other options feel isolated. Those >25 usually find friends without resorting to spending most of their day in the same overcrowded fishbowl. If 16 year-olds were spread out across various activities, they would make the effort to find each other, but it's easy to exclude those few kids who aren't seen at their lockers everyday when school is the norm.
I believe this is true. Children are adults-in-training and need to be treated as such. Yet we create these unnatural environments and wonder why teenagers act so irresponsibly. And when they finally do become "adults", they can't function as adults.
I believe the majority of teenagers will rise to the responsibility given to them, if it is genuine. You can't expect them to act responsibly on one hand but then subtly treat them as nothing more than overgrown children.
I believe the majority of teenagers will rise to the responsibility given to them, if it is genuine. You can't expect them to act responsibly on one hand but then subtly treat them as nothing more than overgrown children.
There was a post on HN some time back from former house speaker Newt Gingrich, who is a fairly outspoken advocate on this issue:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b41070852...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b41070852...
I came to the same conclusion (based on my own experience in teenage, and observations later) that there is a lot of talent waiting to be tapped in teenage years, and treating teenagers respectfully as young adults and giving them responsibility is good for them and good for society.
That is one of the reasons we like to hire 17 year olds in Zoho and combine education with work. Labor laws won't let us hire any sooner, but if it were my own family members, I would hire them sooner.
That is one of the reasons we like to hire 17 year olds in Zoho and combine education with work. Labor laws won't let us hire any sooner, but if it were my own family members, I would hire them sooner.
That is amazing. I work for the competition (FreshBooks) but I would have relished working right out of high school in a high tech position.
Good on ya.
Good on ya.
There is a lot that independent learning by teenagers can do to help them grow faster and more happily. My son likes Project Euler
http://projecteuler.net/
as a framework for practicing computer programming related to pure mathematics, and runs his own literary discussion website both to learn about online community administration (including coding site features) and about creative writing. The most annoying aspects of his teen years, for him and for me, have been his closest approaches to "high school" experiences. Senior year of high school for him should be mostly dual enrollment at our friendly state university and a distance learning course in advanced microeconomics.
http://projecteuler.net/
as a framework for practicing computer programming related to pure mathematics, and runs his own literary discussion website both to learn about online community administration (including coding site features) and about creative writing. The most annoying aspects of his teen years, for him and for me, have been his closest approaches to "high school" experiences. Senior year of high school for him should be mostly dual enrollment at our friendly state university and a distance learning course in advanced microeconomics.
Is he not allowed to do that? I grew up in Virginia, and two of my friends chose to spend their senior years of high school by taking classes at a local university or the local community college.
(They were, in fact, brother and sister and had spent six years in Denmark as the children of foreign service officers. They did not take well to American high school.)
(They were, in fact, brother and sister and had spent six years in Denmark as the children of foreign service officers. They did not take well to American high school.)
Is he not allowed to do that?
The dual enrollment is allowed here (one must apply to the college that offers the dual enrollment classes). This choice is not used by as many students as could benefit from it. Many seek the "socialization" of high school. Yeesh.
The dual enrollment is allowed here (one must apply to the college that offers the dual enrollment classes). This choice is not used by as many students as could benefit from it. Many seek the "socialization" of high school. Yeesh.
It's not a terribly good use of time for people who actually like to learn. I dropped out of two high schools, including a gifted and talented program - who the hell knows how I got into that one, but I dropped it as well. It really seemed like obedience school to me - capricious, arbitrary, with a focus on discipline and not on learning. A number of times, I would fail a class where I was in the top five most talented people in it. I didn't see much point in doing what they prescribed - I'd rather go explore the world or play around on a computer or read books or go make some money.
I left home at 16, and eventually wound up graduating high school by going into an adult learning center at age 17 or so. I said, "I am fully emancipated, and living as an adult. I would like to complete the adult program." After some talking with a very nice fellow and being politely evasive, he agreed. I took a series of competency exams, completed the silliest multiple choice packet of American history I've ever seen, and I was awarded a diploma. I went and took the standardized tests and got into university. They were kind enough to loan or grant me almost my full tuition, though I dropped out of university once as well. Same reasons.
Anywho, with a quick perusal of history, it's pretty obvious that maturity does not come from age, it comes from having unique experiences and learning from them. If you see someone who is forced to become "head of household" at a young age due to parents illness and cares for his/her siblings, they are very mature and adultlike even in their mid-teens. Likewise, people dragged into a war move differently, with less naivete - characteristics you'd usually see in someone in their 40's. There's kids in their mid-20's with that look.
At least, that's the hypothesis I made: Unique experiences and learning from them = maturity. So I set out to have a lot of unique experiences, and I think I did rather a good job. I've had an interesting, enjoyable life. The only part I regret is wasting my age 13/14/15/16 years in middle school and high school. I had some fun with extracurricular activities and friends, but I could have done something so much more interesting during the actual classtime. Yuck.
One in particular that made me wake up when I read it was Tokugawa Ieyasu. He was third of Japan's great unifiers. In the 1600's, he founded the Tokugawa Shogunate - his family ruined in almost complete peace for 250 years after one of the most lawless and brutal times in Japanese history. Ieyasu married for the first time at age 13 or 14, and was Captain of a small division of troops around the 14/15 years. He did a pretty admirable job of it, grew up fast, and the rest is history.
But I think the flipside is true, too - if you don't let someone have responsibility, if you treat them like a child, they'll stay childlike and immature. Being an American who has traveled, I see people who are age 26-28 who are barely capable of functioning in the world, and I sometimes see people age 14-18 doing amazing things. This could be the norm, if we wanted it to.
I had a 17 year old fellow apply to work for me - he was half-generation American, if I've got the terminology right - he immigrated here with his parents around age 10 or so. I didn't wind up hiring him, but I became a mentor to him. We'd go get tea or coffee every couple weeks and I'd give him some generally no-BS advise. A very good guy, he's done some really impressive things in a short period of time - all he had to do was shake off the reigns and shackles, but that is harder than it sounds to do. At least in the average American school, they punish you swiftly, thoroughly, and publicly if you try to abstain or dare to question them. There's the occasional good teacher - I had maybe a dozen excellent professional teachers in my life, which I count myself quite lucky to have had. But the rest? Well, I guess we shouldn't be too hard on them. They're just doing what they were taught, too.
I left home at 16, and eventually wound up graduating high school by going into an adult learning center at age 17 or so. I said, "I am fully emancipated, and living as an adult. I would like to complete the adult program." After some talking with a very nice fellow and being politely evasive, he agreed. I took a series of competency exams, completed the silliest multiple choice packet of American history I've ever seen, and I was awarded a diploma. I went and took the standardized tests and got into university. They were kind enough to loan or grant me almost my full tuition, though I dropped out of university once as well. Same reasons.
Anywho, with a quick perusal of history, it's pretty obvious that maturity does not come from age, it comes from having unique experiences and learning from them. If you see someone who is forced to become "head of household" at a young age due to parents illness and cares for his/her siblings, they are very mature and adultlike even in their mid-teens. Likewise, people dragged into a war move differently, with less naivete - characteristics you'd usually see in someone in their 40's. There's kids in their mid-20's with that look.
At least, that's the hypothesis I made: Unique experiences and learning from them = maturity. So I set out to have a lot of unique experiences, and I think I did rather a good job. I've had an interesting, enjoyable life. The only part I regret is wasting my age 13/14/15/16 years in middle school and high school. I had some fun with extracurricular activities and friends, but I could have done something so much more interesting during the actual classtime. Yuck.
One in particular that made me wake up when I read it was Tokugawa Ieyasu. He was third of Japan's great unifiers. In the 1600's, he founded the Tokugawa Shogunate - his family ruined in almost complete peace for 250 years after one of the most lawless and brutal times in Japanese history. Ieyasu married for the first time at age 13 or 14, and was Captain of a small division of troops around the 14/15 years. He did a pretty admirable job of it, grew up fast, and the rest is history.
But I think the flipside is true, too - if you don't let someone have responsibility, if you treat them like a child, they'll stay childlike and immature. Being an American who has traveled, I see people who are age 26-28 who are barely capable of functioning in the world, and I sometimes see people age 14-18 doing amazing things. This could be the norm, if we wanted it to.
I had a 17 year old fellow apply to work for me - he was half-generation American, if I've got the terminology right - he immigrated here with his parents around age 10 or so. I didn't wind up hiring him, but I became a mentor to him. We'd go get tea or coffee every couple weeks and I'd give him some generally no-BS advise. A very good guy, he's done some really impressive things in a short period of time - all he had to do was shake off the reigns and shackles, but that is harder than it sounds to do. At least in the average American school, they punish you swiftly, thoroughly, and publicly if you try to abstain or dare to question them. There's the occasional good teacher - I had maybe a dozen excellent professional teachers in my life, which I count myself quite lucky to have had. But the rest? Well, I guess we shouldn't be too hard on them. They're just doing what they were taught, too.
If you get a crappy education in HS, despite your abilities, you're far behind your peers who got a very good one. Whether you then apply yourself in college, you remain behind those people because they keep on keepin on.
That's not so true today as it once was for kids who have access to the internet. If you've got a hunger to learn, there's plenty of fodder. My life would have been quite different if I'd had the net to learn from.
As to whether it's necessary depends on what you feel life is all about, and/or what real talents (not addressed by mainstream ed) you have. Highly self-motivated people (or who fortune smiles on) can usualy live without HS. Most of the rest of us need it to cope in an ever-more-complex world.
That's not so true today as it once was for kids who have access to the internet. If you've got a hunger to learn, there's plenty of fodder. My life would have been quite different if I'd had the net to learn from.
As to whether it's necessary depends on what you feel life is all about, and/or what real talents (not addressed by mainstream ed) you have. Highly self-motivated people (or who fortune smiles on) can usualy live without HS. Most of the rest of us need it to cope in an ever-more-complex world.
Maybe it isn't all about your profession. Maybe you should try to know some of the basics taught in high school in order to be a good citizen. Not to say that the high school I went to wasn't a waste of time, but that doesn't mean high school has to be a waste of time.
People are good at being smug, and thinking they know everything. The best way to realize that there's actually some depth to a topic is to study it a bit. Since (from reading other comments here) none of us would have wanted to learn some of these topics, maybe we'd all still think that those other topics are all a stupid waste of time, and people who do them are also useless.
People are good at being smug, and thinking they know everything. The best way to realize that there's actually some depth to a topic is to study it a bit. Since (from reading other comments here) none of us would have wanted to learn some of these topics, maybe we'd all still think that those other topics are all a stupid waste of time, and people who do them are also useless.
"and he had no choice but to attend high school for several more years"
This is a very common misconception. It's quite possible and legal in many (most?) US states to remove a child from school and keep them home to let them learn at their own pace.
This is a very common misconception. It's quite possible and legal in many (most?) US states to remove a child from school and keep them home to let them learn at their own pace.
This worked for me and I am definitely better off than if I had stayed in high school. That said, most kids, don't have the necessary drive and motivation to make this work.
[deleted]
NY for instance seems rather restrictive:
http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/New_York.pdf
http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/New_York.pdf
High schools are so unreliable here that we need an AA degree to compensate for it.
I largely agree with his conclusion, but don't like it when people point out history to support it. Sure kids didn't have to go to school in 1850, but black people and women couldn't vote, most people didn't have indoor plumbing (let alone electricity), slavery was still legal.
The fact that kids didn't have to go to school back then is not at all an argument in support of them not doing so now and should be left out of a serious essay in favor of that position.
The fact that kids didn't have to go to school back then is not at all an argument in support of them not doing so now and should be left out of a serious essay in favor of that position.
In case anyone is curious, there are proposals for systems that respect the individual, are libertarian and are passive in the sense that the individual is the active part, choosing when, how, and what he will learn.
Take a look at this article of mine for instance http://cnxs.com.br/posts/an-emergent-participatory-design-fr... .
Take a look at this article of mine for instance http://cnxs.com.br/posts/an-emergent-participatory-design-fr... .
Without yet reading the actual post, let me put my thoughts in there.
After the age of 16, make school non-compulsory. At the end of the 10th grade year, have everyone take the GED/ACT/SAT and if they get a threshold level, congrats, you can now move on.
So when kids start misbehaving, you don't have to keep them there.
After the age of 16, make school non-compulsory. At the end of the 10th grade year, have everyone take the GED/ACT/SAT and if they get a threshold level, congrats, you can now move on.
So when kids start misbehaving, you don't have to keep them there.
Eliminating high school would cut the amount of taxes needed for public schooling, and would instead increase tax revenue by putting more people in the workforce. Not to mention that a more experienced (real-world experience) workforce might be more productive.
I completely agree with this point and I wish he went into more detail about it:
"Finally, a wealth of data shows that when young people are given meaningful responsibility and meaningful contact with adults, they quickly rise to the challenge, and their inner adult emerges."
"Finally, a wealth of data shows that when young people are given meaningful responsibility and meaningful contact with adults, they quickly rise to the challenge, and their inner adult emerges."
See also Grace Llewellyn's Teenage Liberation Handbook:
http://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Liberation-Handbook-School-Edu...
http://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Liberation-Handbook-School-Edu...
Basically what they are proposing is the system of education currently in use in Germany. Once you hit high school you have the choice of preparing for a white or blue collar job. Blue collar jobs gets you out of school and into an apprenticeship at 15 or 16, white collar gets you into high school, or further education at least.
Seems to work quite well.
Seems to work quite well.
I'm currently a teenager. This is mostly false.
--
On a serious note, interesting idea. It won't happen, since the US education system (and the public sector in general) is not open to, well, any kind of change.
But as the founder of 9 startups, high school wasn't a huge help for me in any ways other than somewhere to socialize. However, this is the special case. High school works decently enough for the rest of the 95%.
Dropping out is not an option. You 100% will have a much harder time with acceptance with most colleges (and asian parents.)