BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

13 year old at University?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:48 / 12.08.03
Adam Spencer is a 13 year old boy. He's completed his 'A' level and now wants to go university but nowhere will accept him.

My immediate reaction to this article is that no university should take him. This kid is 13, he shouldn't have been pushed to take 'A' levels so young whether he had the intelligence to do so or not. What's he going to do for the next five years? He can't legally get a job until he's 16 and university isn't simply about acheiving some kind of academic education although his father doesn't seem to realise that...

Mr Spencer said Adam was more than capable of adjusting to university life. "When he went into secondary school to do his GCSEs he was studying with older kids.

He also points out that "He is more advanced than many 18-year-olds and would stagnate if we kept him at secondary school". Still I don't understand why this is such a concern. A 13 year old should have a little time to stagnate. Why is this kid's super-brain such a big concern? He can pass exams and is pretty intelligent but if so than it's hardly going to run away- get him to read some big hefty books for a few years. Get him started on some philosophy, a bit of physics, some political theory- he'll just be better read once he goes to uni and he'll be able to sneak in to the union and drink beer illegally.

The worst case scenario is that this kid will burn out completely and reject everything, the best is that he'll grow up to resent the learning that has separated him from other people of his age group. The fun he didn't have because no 13 year old, however clever, can possibly do 'A' levels and do the other things that 13 year olds do (hours of books, TV, smoking your first cigarette, buying really bad pop music that you later pretend you never owned, football on the field at lunch break, sleeping over at people's houses and playing bad computer games). People need time to learn the disciplines of education and to get knowledge that's not too localised- isn't that why we have so many years of schooling?

Of course I'm assuming a lot about this kid but I'm interested to know if any of you would give him a place at university?
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:15 / 12.08.03
Not really my call, but I think he is way too young to be hanging out with men and women, some of whom won't be nearly "advanced" enough to deal with him properly in return. There is no way he can have learnt enough in the way of social skills to guarantee the smallest amount of emotional security and education at university. Presumably, and sadly, his parents don't value this.

At sixteen, I reckon maybe he'd stand a chance. So that gives him three years to "kill". Until then, he's legally allowed to work 12 hours a week -- I think he should try to find somewhere that will let him do that, or, if he's so bright, let him work for himself. He would be challenged, would meet people and get a bigger world view. I would have thought some home schooling would be easy to arrange and have approved as well -- I'm sure there are lots of suitable tutors, music teachers and personal trainers etc. who could make home visits for a few extra quid in their pockets.
 
 
Lionheart
16:20 / 12.08.03
Woah, hold on a sec...

You don't want this kid to go to a university because he might have trouble SOCIALIZING?!!!!!! Wait, wait hold on a sec.. Lemme see if I'm understanding you both... The kid's a genius and all of you are against him learning more because you don't think he'll socialize well?! What're you thinking? Let him do nothing for 5 freaking years?

Let me ask you this...

What socializing is to be done by him at college?! He's gonna go to class then go home! At what time will he be socializing? On the way home?

What the hell is wrong with you? What's up with the whole "FUCK YOU IF YOU'RE SMART" attitude?!
 
 
The Natural Way
16:40 / 12.08.03
What's wrong with you? Can't you see that a child (yes, a CHILD) of 13 might have difficulty adjusting to university life? 13, at least the way I remember it, is a very, very delicate age. All the insecurities of the teen-years have just kicked in and that's difficult enought to deal with on its own, without the added pressures of university. It's got nothing to do with a "FUCK YOU IF YOUR SMART" attitude. It's a genuine, and I think, understandable concern.

My own view on this: we need to be careful before we jump the gun. If, as Lionheart suggests, the kid might be able to find a university that's walking/driving distance from his home then.....maybe. But I certainly wouldn't go sticking him in halls or anything like that. Hmmm... University is an adult world and I'd expect any kid barely out of primary school to have real difficulty finding someone he could talk to... It's potentially SO alienating.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:52 / 12.08.03
It has happened before - there have been several young teenagers here in the past, one girl very recently (her family moved here to support her; she met someone on the internet and ran away to Brighton, IIRC - children are vulnerable anywhere). I assume Oxford was able to absorb the extra vetting costs (unless this was before the requirement for all teachers to go through the criminal records bureau system nightmare - administrative nightmare, that is - which it might well have been).

If he really wants to study for a degree and isn't being put under too much pressure by his parents, I think he should be allowed to do it - I can't imagine they would just dump him in university halls on his own, after all. In an ideal world they'd make sure that he had enough time to socialise, do outside interests, etc., but that's not the sort of thing that can be guaranteed, unfortunately. I can imagine an intelligent teenager who wants to do a degree getting very frustrated if he is prevented - he's just as likely to stubbornly refuse to read philosophy, etc. I would hope that other students would be decent to him even if they couldn't take him to the pub, etc. (One wonders whether the OU would take him?)

Teenagers develop socially at different rates - I, for one, was pretty reclusive and anti-social until I was seventeen. By the time he sinishes (if he does so on schedule) he'll be coming up to the age of the first year undergrads anyway... oh, I dunno, I just don't think it would do him many favours to stop him doing a degree course when he's already been allowed to progress so quickly through the system.

Of course, if he subsequently decided that he wanted to drop the course, no one should blame him for that either.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
20:07 / 12.08.03
I too am stuck with that 'but what's he going to do for several years' dilemma, but I don't think university is the answer. I went to university straight from school and I found adjusting to the experience one of the most stressful experiences in my life. And Adam is going to be double freakboy. I'm probably talking out of my arse, one of our head-trick docs might need to weigh in here, but isn't there often a problem with high intelligence kids that they have lower emotional coping skills and a reliance on routine and structure?

Anyone of my age might remember that curly haired genius kid that was on Blue Peter and Wogan a few times. Didn't he make a fairly recent brief reappearence to say his high intelligence had almost ruined his life because it put him in situations at a time when he wasn't able to deal with them?
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:26 / 12.08.03
What socializing is to be done by him at college?! He's gonna go to class then go home! At what time will he be socializing? On the way home?

Well, I'd hope so, yes.

I meant, however, social skills in a more general sense, say in the context of a post-lecture seminar. If he doesn't learn these skills, how's he going to persuade, e.g., a technician to give him more lab time or talk money with his publishers? Sit there and say, "I'm a genius so you have to give me what I want"? I don't think so. And as for "genius," let us not forget that he hasn't actually done anything special, he's just done it sooner. He could recite the alphabet at a very early age. How did he come by that? Telepathy? No, someone thought it would be a good idea to teach him. Now, if he could cook his own dinner or build a soap-box racer six months later, I'd be impressed.
 
 
Thjatsi
02:56 / 13.08.03
The social skills you learn in school at the age of thirteen are very different from the ones adults use. Discovering the best ways to physically and verbally humiliate your peers may be a good idea if Adam plans on spending some time in prison, or the house of commons, when he grows up. However, it is unlikely to do him any good in the majority of the adult world.

Thirteen year-olds are generally a bunch of fuckwads who alternate between thoughtlessly lashing out at the people around them, and being supersensitive about the criticism of others. So, the best thing you can do for them, mentally and socially, is to keep them the hell away from other thirteen year-olds.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:44 / 13.08.03
Didn't he make a fairly recent brief reappearence to say his high intelligence had almost ruined his life because it put him in situations at a time when he wasn't able to deal with them?

And there was that girl a few years back (maybe the same one KCC's referring to, I'm a bit hazy) who now, as an adult, has rejected the whole thing, and says her father's hothousing of her academic ability was tantamount to abuse.

I have to say, Lionheart, it's not a "fuck you if you're intelligent" stance... it's just that IMHO intelligence, while it should be nurtured, needs to develop alongside emotional maturity, and, yes, socialisation. Otherwise you end up with an extremely smart adult, with no concept of how to relate to society. I could imagine some nasty war criminals/evil professors coming out of that particular mix.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:21 / 13.08.03
For God's sake, let the kid go to university. Who are you to determine whether he's 'socially ready' to do anything? It's only in the last fifty years that it's been an issue of age what you learned when. Greater standardisation of the educational system... What's so good about that?

If you have worries about this, you should be addressing them to parents who are 'hothousing' their children - but on your own head be it if the result of your interference is a bunch of kids who want to learn who get told they're not allowed to know that stuff until they're older...

Sheesh.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:08 / 13.08.03
My old college took a thirteen year old (I think) just after I left. It went badly, as he was accused of sexual assault during his time there. Not that that means anything in general, I suppose, since the same college has a moderately famous child prodigy who went on to do well. Mind you, her time as an undergrad caused the odd headache as the JCR passed a motion to ban her father from hanging around.

I can't help feeling that a thirteen year old is likely to miss out on a lot of the point of uni, but as Nick says, interference isn't the most desirable course of action either. I do think that Unis should have the right to reject the applicant simply on the grounds of age, however, since there is a reasonable case that a student who is a minor requires special consideration. Then again, I wouldn't accept that argument for the disabled, so there is a question of consistency.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
13:07 / 13.08.03
"Anyone of my age might remember that curly haired genius kid that was on Blue Peter and Wogan a few times."

That would be James Harries, who is now known as Lauren after undergoing a pretty serious identity crisis and subsequent sex change. I get the impression that being a child prodigy didn't put the joycore into his life bigstyle.

That said, I don't see any problem with the kid being taught at the level he needs to be at University, as long as his family's around and he's not sent off to sink or swim. John Donne went to Oxford at age 15, I seem to recall (although that was when the average entrance age was lower and people died earlier).

If people are concerned about the kid's welfare what on earth is wrong with a home tutor or OU course? The worst thing to do to him would be to frustrate, stifle or waste the gifts he has instead of applying them. What if Mozart had been forbidden to play the piano until he was 18?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:00 / 13.08.03
Who are you to determine whether he's 'socially ready' to do anything? It's only in the last fifty years that it's been an issue of age what you learned when.

Erm... this is a discussion forum where we put our opinions forward. The whole point is that we're not determining anything for this kid and quite frankly I wouldn't want to.

Honey pot, you do know how much the world has changed in fifty years right? You do know that legally and socially our surroundings have dramatically changed and that the jobs that a lot of us do didn't even exist in their current form fifty years ago? The education system in this country is abusive enough without separating a 13 year old from its peers, creating a life like no one else's so that it has absolutely no one to relate to for god knows how long and then sending it to university so that it never gets drunk in the college bar. You can get emotive about limiting this kid educationally, about the possibility he might be bullied but at least in school you have an unspoken agreement with the other bullied children and develop some social skills through the experience. Those skills are necessary if you end up temping or in an inbetweeny job.

Why can't this kid be given some degree level books to read for a couple of years so that he can catch up a bit in age, move away and have a fun university education and sleep with a whole great big bunch of slags who pretend to be impressed by his immense brain power?
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:42 / 13.08.03
Yes, I don't think anyone's suggesting this kid be forbidden from learning, just that university is unsuitable for someone his age. One can learn stuff outside university, you know. :-)

I think that the argument about the university having to make special consideration is a red herring and is indeed not consistent. I'd say that a university has the right to refuse him on the grounds of his immaturity alone. The customer isn't always right, and the ability to refuse a request, with good reason, is a mark of professionalism.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
22:08 / 13.08.03
You can get emotive about limiting this kid educationally, about the possibility he might be bullied but at least in school you have an unspoken agreement with the other bullied children and develop some social skills through the experience.

I don't think that the possibility of the kid developing social skills through being bullied is an especially good reason for sending him to school, unspoken agreement or no unspoken agreement. And I do think that limiting him educationally is a problem. I do take the point that doing a degree course might be just as limiting in the short term - but, as has been said, one can learn stuff outside university.

It is a tricky question because there is no option without a down side, but I think that, if he is really keen on doing the degree level course (with all the caveats about doing it at or near home, the OU, external social life, etc.) he should be allowed to have a go. Letting him go to a university as a student would be a totally different matter.

I think Nick's point is actually rather a good one and shouldn't be dismissed - the problem is that the system forces everyone into an artificial learning process irrespective of their interests and abilities, not just children who are academically precocious. I realise that it might be harder to get through if you don't have that normative experience (i.e. the experience most people have of school lessons, exams, breaks, etc.) but it might be easier for some people, and this boy might be one of them. Just can't tell at this stage, which is what makes it a difficult question, of course.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:30 / 13.08.03
don't think that the possibility of the kid developing social skills through being bullied is an especially good reason for sending him to school

Well no... but that's not really what I'm suggesting, it was just a bad example. I'm simply trying to get across the point that there are very few children that have this experience and it's worrying to think that he will have no one to share it with. Even bullied kids know other bullied kids but there are very few 13 year olds that experience university. Say he does become an academic, in ten years time he won't be able to discuss his days as an undergraduate in the same way that every other academic can and no, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing but to have such limited experience of the normal type of institutionalisation has got to be difficult for anyone in this country.

To be honest I have very few qualms about his academic experience in that I don't doubt his intelligence but the average 13 year old can be taught 'A' levels and pass them if they pay enough attention- it's the social aspect of this that really gets to me. I couldn't give a toss if he's a genius... people don't go to school to learn, it's just practice for the work we'll be doing later on, it teaches us to cope with intense boredom and human shitness and eventually you're going to experience that.

I confess I'm incredibly critical of the adults involved for letting a 13 year old do 'A' levels (because you hadn't worked that out, had you?)- even genius kids should just be kids.
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:44 / 13.08.03
to have such limited experience of the normal type of institutionalisation has got to be difficult for anyone in this country.

I find it hard to see that as a good reason to prevent a minor from attending uni. "Institutionalisation" sounds pretty negative to me and while I understand it's neccessity in the universalisation of education and other services, it isn't pursued for its own sake. And shouldn't be, in my view.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:31 / 14.08.03
Anna, I think (to use a term of Deva's which always reduces me to spitting fury) that you're valorising childhood and fixing on a preconceived notion of what a kid is. It seems to me that you're asserting a pre-intellectual Eden, an innocence of youth which is educational and emotional. I don't buy it. I think the artificial divisions we make between childhood and adulthood, which we base on and draw from (circular enough for ya?) arbitrary assignations of appropriate actions for given ages, are ludicrous. There are adults I wouldn't trust to determine the course of their own emotional or practical lives and children I'd allow to run mine.

I think this debate is about a false notion of childhood, and rests on a very hopeful set of assumptions about the capability and adult-ness of the world of grown-ups.

And yes, I know the world has changed in fifty years, but you know, I'm prepared to consider the notion that not every change has been well-informed or positive.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:00 / 14.08.03
No Sam Vega. I'm saying you shouldn't go to university until you can get blind drunk if you want to- whether it's illegal or not- go out dancing and get laid. I don't think that's attributing innocence to kids, I just don't think 13 year olds are ready for that. Hell some 19 year olds aren't but they have the option to do everything available to them at university.

I also think that 13 year olds are children- usually you don't start to regret your parents choices for you until you get to 16 or so. This kid shouldn't regret this choice at that age. I don't think that's valorising childhood in any way, I think I'm making a fair point about the reason the system works usually. The age limits placed upon things are there for a reason and often a lot of things match up to one another... at university you work hard and then you go out and relieve it by doing something moronic (or was that just me?). This kid might never be one of those guys who climbs through the living room window at 3 am and gets his chest waxed by a mad Iranian girl.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:21 / 14.08.03
Look, there's one thing I'm saying here and one thing only... I don't believe that education is purely about doing GCSE's, 'A' Levels and a degree. I think it's actually about learning to live in this world whatever your experience of it may be and while institutionalisation may be a negative thing we do live in a society in which it is a necessary experience. These things teach us how to cope with being adults and so no matter the age that we pass exams, school is so much more. This child has grown up outside that and will continue to do so and I feel that his parents have taken away an experience that serves us all even if it's been a bad one. They shouldn't also take three years of undergraduate degree away because he's going to get good academic grounding from doing a Bachelors at his age but that's all he's going to get. I am concerned about the lack of social fun this child will get from doing these things early, not his capability or the preservation of childhood. You cannot do the things at the age of 13 that people do at 18 because you have not been through the learning process that we have to separate from academia.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:33 / 14.08.03
Broadly, I agree with you Anna de L (and I think Sam Vega's point is unconvincing) but...I can't get past "instituionalised" and that whole part of your argument. What you seem to be saying is that we should support uniformity, and that diverse childhood experiences are a terrible burden to be avoided. OK, maybe you aren't going that far, but you do say that "instiutionalisation" is a "necessary experience".

I think there are two broad points to make. Firstly, a familiarity with appropriate mores does not require uniformity of experience. There is plenty that people can share, from different perspectives, that is a product of living in a country. In order to function, this is probably enough.

Secondly, there is already a good deal of variation in people's childhood education. If one looks at class or ethnic divisions, there can be many differences. In terms of education policy this is a huge issue, IMHO, since personal experiences are too often assumed to be representative of the whole. Arguably, going to uni at thirteen is so unusual as to make these other differences insignificant. I would probably disagree, but mostly I would be worried about how far the need to be "institutionalised" might be taken.
 
 
Lionheart
17:32 / 14.08.03
So the argument against him going to a uni still seems to be based around the idea that he's not emotionally mature yet.

How is he supposed to become "emotionally mature"? By going to school which he already finished? By doing nothing for 5 years?

I also can't understand the following point by Anna de Logadiere:

I'm saying you shouldn't go to university until you can get blind drunk if you want to- whether it's illegal or not- go out dancing and get laid. I don't think that's attributing innocence to kids, I just don't think 13 year olds are ready for that. Hell some 19 year olds aren't but they have the option to do everything available to them at university.

This kid wants to go to the University to learn. Last time I checked people don't get drunk and/or laid while in class. You're saying that the kid is not ready for the social life that people lead outside of the university. But he's not gonna be doing all that. He just wants to take classes. I think it's ridiculous to say that "You can't go to the university because you're not old enough to get laid." This isn't about his social life. This is about the kid wanting to learn.
 
 
Linus Dunce
20:05 / 14.08.03
Lionheart, I think that's a very simplistic view of what going to university is all about. Forgive me for asking, but have you been? It doesn't matter whether you have or not, I'm just curious as to why you have such a view.
 
 
Thjatsi
05:54 / 15.08.03
Why can't Adam go to college for academics, and then learn binge drinking and other social skills while he's in graduate school?

I don't see a problem. This teenager can go to university as a commuter for a couple of hours each day, and then hang out with the other neighborhood kids when he gets home.

There is also no proof the parents are pushing this on their child. For all we know, he spent the last two years begging to take college classes.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
07:41 / 15.08.03
Let him go to uni, for crying out loud. While I do submit that education is possible in places other than university, he's more likely to get the quality of education that he needs there.

I know lots of students who really didn't take part much in the social aspect of university, and it didn't stop them from graduating. At any university there are scads of "invisible students" who are actually there to learn. You could think from this thread that the only place to meet people these days is at uni. You also might think that adults are the only ones who know what's fun for children. I seem to recall that I never smoked my first cigarette until much later than 13, and for me "fun" was best summed up as reading a book or winning a spelling bee. The most important thing that comes to my mind is that this kid is Not You, and he should be able to make his own decisions.

In some ways, I'm fucking annoyed with myself for spending so much of my time at university in the pub and my nose out of books. I would give an arm to go back and hear some lectures by certain profs.

As for the "there are certain things you learn along the road of life" argument, he's not going to be 13 forever! He will learn all of that stuff in due time wherever he is, and last I checked, being able to navelgaze and hate your parents isn't a requirement for a master's.
 
 
Linus Dunce
12:18 / 15.08.03
At any university there are scads of "invisible students" who are actually there to learn.

I do not see why drinking beer means you do not want to learn. But mainly I don't see why beer is seen as the only social exercise on campus. It is probably the most common and visible activity. But, aside from compulsory seminars, there are societies, sports teams, student papers, guest speakers and all sorts of after-hours events to get involved in. Beer is just the icing on the cake. Some just eat the icing, I guess, and some just eat the cake. Some just eat the cake and scrape out the jam in the middle and spit out the fruit, too. From what I could tell as a student, many of these invisible students weren't focused hard workers but people who, for whatever reason, couldn't get involved. Some were bullied by parents. Some were overwhelmed socially and emotionally. And a few were just there to get a piece of paper and tick the "graduated" box on their CV -- i.e., lazy. And here's my point: social skills will help you get a better job or help you do better in your academic career. They are not a waste of time, nor something you can run on a very different timescale than the book-learning.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
12:47 / 15.08.03
They are not a waste of time, nor something you can run on a very different timescale than the book-learning.

Interesting idea, that you should learn book stuff and social skills simultaneously, or they have a parallel relationship in time. Personally, I don't think that's the case at all. And in the case of this kid, I wonder if he's gearing up for the kind of job where social skills are going to play a big role in his hireability or his suitability for the job.

And to clarify, I guess I could point out that learning and beer aren't necessarily mutually exclusive things, it's just that a proclivity for one led to me missing lots of the other due to the mutually exclusive nature of hangover and learning. Besides, we don't know whether or not Adam will start a rock band, demolish the debating team and edit the leftist student paper.

I don't buy that social skills help you in your academic career. I had a great time at university and a lot of what I learned (from profs, usually) was in the pub, but I definitely wish I'd worked a bit harder, because now I see all the lovely libraries and people with expertise that are no longer as readily available to me. If you're not interested in other things, so what. And I don't think it was all that helpful to spend months pining over stupid boys and worrying what my peers thought of me. Hell, I'm still a repressed geek and I can get just about any job I want, if my track record shows for anything.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:30 / 15.08.03
Wembley -- Well, like you say, we just don't know what he's going to do. But I don't think precocity won't help him at all, academically. I personally would not be interested in his current take on Jean Genet, for example, and I'm not sure he'd be very useful as a lecturer in anything when he's eighteen and pining after people. Even if he's allowed to skip lecturing too, I can't imagine he would have the gravitas to hold his own against an unscrupulous publisher.

I also wish I'd spent a little less time in the bar. I definitely would have got a better result, though I didn't do badly. But at the very least, we've both learnt that human failings are a factor in any endeavour, no matter how important. I would be very surprised if a 16-year-old graduate had genuinely taken this on board.
 
 
C.Elseware
13:36 / 15.08.03
I work for a university. Having underage students causes a world of pain as the staff are in far more of a position of legal responsibility. Esp. if they are in halls. I have a 16 yr old friend in exactly this situation. She was advised VERY unofficially to lie on her application as that way the uni. would not be responsible.

I can see that having the student live at home would make this much easier.

I, for one, resent the two years of my life wasted on GCSE's. It fucked me over as I got lazy and used to being the best without really trying. Most of my friends made a sport out of trying to fail some GCSE's as that was more of a challenge than trying to pass.

I would encourage the kid to go to uni, but make sure he had plenty of extra-curricular activities with kids his own age (sport, kung-fu, magic cards, whatever) to make sure he didn't end up a isolated freak.

The final question should be what does the kid want?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:49 / 15.08.03
This kid might never be one of those guys who climbs through the living room window at 3 am and gets his chest waxed by a mad Iranian girl.

Your objection to his going to university is based on this? You realise it's also possible that by the time he's seriously interested in girls (or boys) he could be the most well-advised kid there's ever been, having seen how eighteen year olds do and don't screw up their lives, and having a host of elder-sibling relationships? You have absolutely no way of knowing how this would pan out for him, but you suggest he should be denied the experienced based on your assumption that he has been pushed to take A levels so early and isn't being given access to a normal childhood - or couldn't be happier doing this than otherwise. Wouldn't you also be horrified if you read a story about some kid who wasn't allowed to study to his level of intelligence, was told to 'go out and be a kid' when he just wanted to learn more maths or more history, and didn't feel like getting his head cracked by the local knuckle-dragging fourteen-year-old? I would.

There's nothing that says he can't learn to live in this world by this method - perhaps better than otherwise.

I am concerned about the lack of social fun this child will get from doing these things early, not his capability or the preservation of childhood.

And yet you assume that he has the capacity to have normal 'social fun' like an ordinary kid, and that this fun is better than the unusual social fun he might have through the university setting. I repeat, you are making assumptions about the positive nature of his childhood experience and its value in comparison to what he will experience being the 'odd one out' as a super-young student at university. You're also assuming that the normal way is the better way, or at least accepting that more comfortable and easier social lessons are at a premium of some kind.
 
 
gingerbop
19:24 / 16.08.03
Eerrrmm its a kinda difficult one. On one hand, i cant believe anyone would *want* to at 13, but very right, what else is a kid with an extremely active brain going to do for 3 to 5 years? I cant imagine him being willing to just work, even if for himself, for that long. If he was refused, i think he'd just get a private tutor, and get a degree, or at least that level of education, another way- this time on his own. If its going to be bad for him to be with people 5 years older than him half the time- would it not be worse for him to be stowed away in his own bedroom for years?

Both sides of it is mad. I was gonna go this year, being almost 17, but chose not to, pretty much for the same reasons as you're saying he shouldnt go. I dont know why anyone would put themselves in a situation where they are such obvious outcasts.

But I doubt anything or anyone will stop him. So good luck to him.
 
 
grant
16:39 / 25.08.03
Sho Yano is 12 years old now.

And he's in his first year at medical school at the University of Chicago.

That first link, it's a couple years old. He graduated Loyola Chicago summa cum laude in three years.


Quote that addresses this discussion:

"I hear people saying really rude comments to him as far as like, 'Go back to your own grade. What are you doing here? You don't belong,'" reports student Jenny Pavich. "It's almost like the roles are reversed. He's acting like a mature 19-year-old, and they're acting like a little kid."

But Sho seems to take such negativity in stride: "OK, somebody says something mean to me. I walk away, and I think to myself, 'Yeah maybe some people are mean,' and I usually forget about it by the time the day ends."
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:01 / 26.08.03
What you seem to be saying is that we should support uniformity, and that diverse childhood experiences are a terrible burden to be avoided. OK, maybe you aren't going that far, but you do say that "instiutionalisation" is a "necessary experience".

Hell I've never said I think it's positive, just that it's necessary. I've always held the opinion that school is negative, that it is abusive to make seven year old children take exams, that the education system does not work and its point is vastly misinterpreted and consistently used as a political tool and that these things are abhorrent.

I don't doubt that children have a vast array of experience and that they each deal with these experiences in different ways. Children though need to have common ground, need to understand ritual and how far it can be disobeyed in order to survive. Schools are training grounds and we live in a society which uses them extremely effectively. I don't approve of them and I think they're nasty but I recognise that this is not an anarchist society but a capitalist one and school's teach us how to get through a day of boredom in an office and how to deal with students who aren't motivated.

Lurid, you work in one of the single most institutional jobs in the world? Do you not think that having been in the same place as those you work with, you deal with them a little better? That's the only point I'm really trying to make.

Your objection to his going to university is based on this? You realise it's also possible that by the time he's seriously interested in girls (or boys) he could be the most well-advised kid there's ever been, having seen how eighteen year olds do and don't screw up their lives, and having a host of elder-sibling relationships?

Yeah, right, that's realistic. My objection is entirely based on that Sam because people don't learn about relationships by watching everyone else screw up. When your parents argue when you're a small kid you don't automatically learn how to make a relationship work. Often the kids who are abused become the abusers... I'm not suggesting that this kid's been abused, just using this as an example. So no, I don't think this kid's going to be incredibly advised, mature and with it. I think that you're associating school with bad things and university with good things and actually the reason that so many people prefer university is because they have a freedom that they haven't experienced before. 13 years old at university= no new freedom.
 
 
HCE
22:53 / 26.08.03
It isn't as though the basic methods for dealing with the stresses of pubescence are substantially different for somebody exposed to university life, are they? You need parental guidance, good relationships with instructors, a strong sense of self, etc. Is that right? So if these kids have access to these kinds of social and emotional resources they should be fine? To say he shouldn't be permitted even to try it out and see how it suits him seems rather silly.

Really, it's only university, not Beijing opera school.
 
 
Grand Panjandrum of the Pointless
22:29 / 31.08.03
So I'm resurrecting this because I just found out that one of my acquaintance who is a PhD student at my university is in fact 17. I'd already noticed that he was slightly immature for a postgrad, but hadn't quite figured out why.
Anyway, on finding out I proceeded to grill him about his university experience (he started B.A. maths when he was 11 &in the States) . He said that he basically outstripped high school maths and couldn't take classes at the local college without full enrolment- so he just signed up for the B.A. and ditched high school.
He's actually pretty normal, as far as I can tell. He is a little arrogant- as is to be expected given his achievements- but generally well adjusted and interesting conversationally- no more or less fucked up than I was at 17- which is not much. He's actually a lot more gregarious and outgoing than most people i knew at that age- and more willing to talk to people who are not at all like him.
So I don't really think there is any harm in v.young people going to university- provided they get the proper support.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply