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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.