I was a classmate of Colin's, and I want to emphasize that he is extremely well adjusted. When he was in high school he struck everyone as a bright--if a little smaller than usual--high school student. So I'd love to not hear any "he should go back and play with his age-mates so he can develop social skills, yadayada." The truth is, 13 year olds are obnoxious, and if I could've skipped that and started interacting with adults earlier I would've.
The article says "He graduated from Stanford University Online High School at age 11, and soon after enrolled full-time at UConn." Did you go to the online high school also? If so, what is that like?
My thoughts on that subject are a bit mixed. Before online high school I was home schooled, and I'm certain I would've learned more had I remained home schooled.
However, as an alternative to a brick and mortar high school, I think the idea has a lot potential still to be unlocked. The high school I attended (Stanford's EPGY Online High School) botched the concept, for lack of good technology. Thus far online HSes have generally hobbled along by using corporate teleconferencing software--a clearly deficient solution. But with tailored software the experience could be very good.
In fact, it's my personal view that online education + OLPC or similar initiative could do wonders for third world countries. One of the biggest obstacles to education in, say, Africa are the lack of school buildings and the lack of local teachers, according to my friends who've done peace corp. Both of these problems are mitigated by online education assuming you have internet infrastructure. Since internet infrastructure is a major component of recent investment in that part of the world, I think it would be achievable.
Somewhat unrelated, but I help to run an organization that is generally unhappy about the raving media attention OLPC gets repeatedly.
While OLPCs cost many hundreds of dollars (not counting the high volume of volunteer hours/dollars), we ship computers all around the world at a cost of usually around $100/computer.
Plus - from a sustainability perspective, our group is leaps and bounds ahead - instead of 3 year-old computers being sent to china to be 'recycled' (which results in significant waste) they are used and reused by very careful and grateful users in Africa, the middle east, and other parts of the developing world.
http://rso.cornell.edu/ccra/ - Check out our website. We're an undergraduate-run org and to our knowledge are the largest organization of our type in the nation. Our efforts to get programs started at other schools have been underwhelming.
Why do people assume that "children" (I would tend to start applying the term "young adult") who learn everything else so quickly, somehow do not learn social skills and socialize at a faster than normal pace? Some individuals may not, but others may and, just as with intellectual capability, these other skills should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Further (as has been discussed here before and in several posted items), some people argue that one problem with kids these days is precisely that they and their culture are so cut off from adult and workplace culture, in general. From that perspective, Colin's interactions with adults might actually be healthy.
I wasn't necessarily as bright as him, but I was considered bright. And was it ever frustrating at times to be forced into extensive interaction with my "peers" who were obsessed with isolated social ranking, posturing, and what was for me dumb/uninformed/boring behavior.
Sure, you don't want a child to be taken advantage of, but a blanket response of "too young" is an excuse not to do your job and actually thereby takes advantage of that child in another way, constraining them for the sake of your convenience and peace of mind.
In Colin's case, at least he has moved on to university, which should have broadened his social as well as intellectual environment. I guess a trip overseas might thereupon rather be posed as a challenge to his problem solving skills, and to his ability to adopt a sufficiently protective posture. (An adult is viewed, on the surface, as a more challenging target for victimization than a kid.)
If he's getting himself through university with a 3.9 grade average and honor roll status, and in the face of the age difference with his peers, I'd argue that he already has problem solving skills at least equal to others participating in the program.
I can imagine him, on the basis of his youthful and diminished stature, perhaps being prone to targeting by criminals and con-artists. I would think the program might be willing to put in a bit of work to counter-balance this concern (which might be legitimate, despite any waiving of liability, both out of genuine interest and out of concern for possible negative publicity). His traveling with a guardian, who can devote her full time to counter-balancing such possible threats, should resolve remaining concerns.
This is an exceptional person. Can the university and program not be a bit exceptional, in return, in helping him achieve his goals?
Hopefully, they'll admit the NSF work as equivalent and sufficient, for credit.
I started college when I was 12, and yes, I was more mature than most of my classmates.
However, I didn't go full time. I still went back to high school. There is some social learning that you just miss out on if you don't spend time with your age-peers.
High School sucked, but I'd still do it all over again.
In the best interest of the kid, they should really send him to interact with some age-peers in some sort of activity, if not High School.
That said, I don't think UConn should be preventing him, especially if his mom will go at her expense.
I didn't go back to high school (you couldn't have made me if you wanted to), and whatever social learning attributed to it I think I made up with friends. This might not be the best transmission medium for our particular brand of culture (I am still told that I have to go to prom!), but I have a hard time believing that those who've grown up without school, either centuries ago or in other nations, were any less well adjusted or healthy. Learning from age peers is important, but I'm very glad I grew up with people of many ages and attitudes and intellects, away from the high school monoculture where age equals authority. The age of best friends now range from 21 to 55, and I am happier and wiser and stronger for it.
More important than age peers, I think, is shared experience with people from diverse backgrounds. Which seems to me to be precisely what he's trying to lobby for...
I wholeheartedly agree with being exposed to people of different age groups and backgrounds, as often and as early as possible.
When I was in the 3rd grade, I got to join an experimental "multi-graded" program which had students from the 1st through 5th grades in a single classroom. It's not that uncommon really, just sadly uncommon in U.S. public schools at the time. Anyway, it gave the older kids an opportunity to take leadership roles in group projects, and it gave the younger kids the opportunity to quickly learn behavior and skills from the older kids. It was a great, successful program, by most metrics.
I agree, I did the whole accelerated education thing early in my life too, and in some ways it's been awesome and in other ways I feel like I missed out even if my parents or I occasionally went back to something more "normal". I went back to high school (and a highly gifted one at that, with pretty much all honors/AP classes) for just short of two years. But in that two years, as miserable as I may have been enough to drop out on my own for good in the end, I met people and went places with said people that I just wouldn't really have had the same experience doing any other way.
(Not to say one should go back to high school or something as silly, but interacting with your own age peers can be an interesting experience...and one that can be done in many different ways, including meeting up with similarly-situated peers.)
I've effectively been taking classes at colleges and universities for like the past ten years of my life, and my college experience ten years ago compared to my college experience at 16 and then at 20 have not been the same in any way. So I hope everyone going this path realizes what kind of ride they're in for.
All that being said, UConn isn't doing anyone any favors trying to prevent this guy from doing what he wants solely based on his age, especially if it's necessary for his major and he and his parents are willing to foot the liability issues.
Several times during my education, my teachers petitioned the school to promote me to more advanced grades. They felt my potential was being stunted. My mother, and sometimes other teachers, thought it would be better to stay with kids my own age, so I never progressed.
I didn't get anything out of interacting with my age group. I may have been worse off for it. I was constantly frustrated by my classmates who asked questions and held up the lesson. We went too slow. I was repeatedly asked to help other students with their homework and even test questions. I always won the math contests, spelling bees and the like to the chagrin of students and even teachers in higher level classes. It created resentment that I faced when I became their students in later years.
When I went to college, I had APed out of almost every freshman class and went straight to sophomore level courses in Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Science. I was never treated differently by the older kids and felt more comfortable with them. They didn't mind asking me for help even.
So I see little anecdotal evidence that stunting a child's potential to give them time to interact with kids their own age is beneficial. Really, what does age have to do with it? As a child, I had better conversations with adults than with children. As a kindergartner I had better conversations with the seniors in high school. I went to a school with K-12 in the same building, so it was easier to interact with older kids, which I much preferred and they seemed to be quite entertained by me as well, so in retrospect, I think everyone would have benefited had I been able to progress at my intellectual rate, rather than the rate at which the earth moves around the sun.
Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating holding the kid back. I was just saying it is important to have that social interaction with your age-peers, especially as a teen.
As some anecdotal evidence, take some of my college classmates who also started early. Most of us went back to high school, but a few just went full time college. After two years, this one guy wanted to transfer to Cal Tech. He was more than smart enough, but after the interview, they told him he wasn't social enough. They suggested to him that he join some youth clubs and get some social interaction with his peers, and they would reconsider him.
So he joined every club he could find, and it made a huge difference. He was much easier to talk to and just more fun to be around.
You can get social experience with students older than yourself. Keeping the child among age peers, but not conversational peers, or intellectual peers may be precisely the reason they are not more social. Like I said, I was always more social with older kids, so putting me with older kids would have improved my social abilities.
I say we should be pragmatic and stop creating generalized rules for these students. It's the general rule is hurting some kids. Let the child go to college. If he can't hack it, kick him out just like you'd kick out any other college kid who can't make the grades, cheating, or breaking school other rules.
I never could relate to kids my own age who didn't understand the world the way I did. They thought I was stupid. I thought they were stupid. The older kids knew I was smart and I thought they were smart and it was awesome to be around them.
As soon as we get out of school, the age association ends. When I started working, I immediately progressed to positions well above the level where other people much older were working for years. I was admired, not hated. I appreciated it and people thanked me for helping them understand their own jobs better.
I hate saying all this because it sounds conceited, but I think it is important for society that we allow the best and brightest to have a positive impact on the world as soon as they can and for as long as possible. People don't live forever, let them get the most out of life that they can and let society reap the rewards of their productivity. As we move forward, it's taking longer and longer to understand the world enough to make a positive contribution and we need to give these prodigies as long as they need to do it.
"I was just saying it is important to have that social interaction with your age-peers, especially as a teen."
Why?
No, seriously, step back a moment. Why is it important that I socialize with high schoolers just because they share the same chronological age? Do you spend a lot of time interacting with people in a high-school fashion? I sure don't.
High-school culture is a dead end; it's an artificial construct brought on by artificial constraints that don't exist in the real world. If high-school culture is anything, it's a trap; all of use who have been out of it for at least five years can probably name a group of people who are "still in high school", to their social and professional detriment.
The only alternative worse than that is no acculturation at all, but that's not usually what's on the table, and that's a pathological outcome regardless of how you get there. School culture is just one step up from that, almost anything else will get you more real-world cultural skills than that.
In fairness every kid I know (about 6 or 7 I guess) who has been pushed up several years in school is generally either completely anti-social or officious and unfriendly (I am being nice here unfortunately). Obviously that is not a complete metric; but all of them, I am sure, are that way due to a lack of social proof/interaction at a crucial point in their lives (early teens).
In this case Colin seems well adjusted and "not a prick" - but there could be all manner of exterior reasons for that.
It's also wrong, I think, to consider high school as training for adult social structure; it clearly is nothing like that. But it does teach you some important things - you face the same issues at the same time as everyone else (example: all of the kids I saw bumped up several levels were either incredibly sexist or had serious issues with women. Typical of the kind of insecurities you face at that age - but when everyone around you has already dealt with that it is hard to sort out).
> all of use who have been out of it for at least five years can probably name a group of people who are "still in high school", to their social and professional detriment.
Agreed; however I don't agree that a different way would have produced any different results. They are stuck there for a variety of reasons - none of them directly because of the high school culture.
In programming, I have found it's very useful to step back and remember why we do things. Unit tests are not intrinsically wonderful, they are a great way to accomplish certain things. If they don't accomplish those things, dump them. Just as a concrete example.
If your goal is to produce a well-socialized child, keep your eyes on the prize. You describe some cases where in fact following the suggestion of leaving them in high school didn't work out; this also matches my experience. My point here is that actually you can't make a call about whether you should leave a given person in high school; in the exact same environment, one will flourish and learn a lot, the other will crash and burn and learn horribly pathological things.
So, ultimately, my point is that if your goal is to have a "good child" (without getting into whatever that may mean), debating whether "children" should or should not be left in school or never accelerated or moved to college or anything is actually a waste of time, because there is no such thing as a "children" in the first place.
I agree with you that high school culture is a dead-end. . .but I do think that social interaction with age-peers is valuable and here is why:
It changes your context of self. If everyone you know is younger than you, or smaller than you, or not as smart as you, you will see yourself as the teacher or protector or strategist. If they are all older, or bigger, or smarter, you will see yourself as the upstart, or weakling, or pupil. If all your friends are always 15 years older than you, when are you an adult (in your own mind)?
Being around age-peers helps one better understand and assert themselves and gives them opportunities to make friendships that may come easier than bridging a 10 year gap.
I'm not saying the age-peers shouldn't also be super smart and accomplished teenagers - I'm saying there are real-world benefits to not always being the youngest of your friends.
I went to college at 15, and didn't go back to high school. My high school peers were dumb and stuck in a cultural rut, and I knew it. And adults had all the social maturity (and all the fun), and I knew it. I could not get out of that system fast enough.
As a college student and an adult, I was free to seek out peers and friends at the level of social and intellectual maturity I was comfortable with. In my late 20's, it's something I still do, and it often means my 'peers' are generally a decade or (sometimes much) more my senior. But I'm of the opinion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, for adults or kids.
People your age aren't necessarily your peers. And "universal" high school social experiences are only important if they're important to you. I personally don't regret what I missed at all; I think what I did instead was a lot more fun.
"There is some social learning that you just miss out on if you don't spend time with your age-peers."
What if you've already learned it?
Two examples:
1) My little sister: never skipped a grade, but as early as 6th grade, she preferred the company of teachers to students. At middle school science fairs and such, teachers from other schools would occasionally ask her where she taught. Clearly, she was socializing on an adult level.
2) My wife: through a running start program, ended up going to college at age 15. Someone wrote an editorial in the college newspaper complaining about 16-year-olds on campus being hard to identify, and how embarrassing it is for a 20-year-old to find out he's been flirting with a minor. One of her 16-year-old classmates complained, and she countered that the editorial made a reasonable point. Her classmate's response was "you only think that because you're not sixteen." He mistook her for substantially older, again, because she was socializing like a 21-year-old.
The point of both of these examples: there's no reason to artificially push a kid to socialize with people of his age. Let him socialize with people of his social level. If he already socializes like a college student, he's not going to benefit from hanging out with kids who socialize like 8th graders.
The university should have told him when he enrolled for the course that some classes might not be possible because of his age.
"Summer field work" sounds like it could have a marked degree of risk and/or physical effort required. If that is the case, then I can see that it might not be a good idea for a kid to do them (regardless of how bright or mature he is).
Right, but replace a 13 year old with a 20 year old in a wheel chair and you can see where this gets interesting. If it is a requirement for his degree, I am not sure physical fitness can be used as a determent.
I have to say though, I just finished up a fields method class and they are not easy. And mine was just in the woods of Connecticut not in Africa.
It's different. Just because a 13 year old succeeds academically does not mean he has the skills to handle himself outside of a protected environment.
The world will not care what his IQ is and will not treat him as special. He's a liability in South Africa, full stop. It would take a lot of money and/or risk to send him, so I support their choice.
There is the difference in legal responsibility of the university. I think this is probably the biggest stumbling block here - even with parental consent there is risk to the school.
Imagine facing the newspaper headline "UConn loses 13-year-old prodigy in South Africa" . . .
How so? He is still participating within the school's program. Just because his mom signs the field trip slip (or tags along herself) doesn't absolve the school from any and all responsibility for his well being. What sort of insurance policy do you think a school needs to fly a 13 year old from Connecticut to South Africa for a week? How about a 13 year old prodigy?
I'm all for Colin being able to have this experience - I absolutely would have been thrilled to participate in something like this at any age. I don't think the school has any obligation to allow him to participate in this activity however.
If they allowed him to enroll in this field of study but are now limiting his access to the curriculum, they should have just refused his tuition. That's the legal obligation.
Did you read the article? She offered to sign an explicit legal waiver and accompany him on the trip at her own expense?
It appears they family is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise. If the university would look to "solve" the problem vs. outright denial - the family would probably pay cost of any "additional insurance" rider.
The university should have told him when he enrolled for the course that some classes might not be possible because of his age.
This may not be reported in the submitted article, but if I remember correctly, some press report or another states that the family asked about this issue before enrolling the boy in UConn. He is pursuing a college major that involves fieldwork, and my recollection is that he took initiative to make sure that he would be allowed to do fieldwork before deciding where to enroll for his college major program.
From involvement in the nonprofit organizations that I lead, I have also become aware of federal statutory law on the subject, which generally bars age discrimination (against the old OR THE YOUNG) in educational programs funded by federal appropriations, which would definitely include UConn. It would be the university's burden of proof to show that there is some specific reason that the specific student is unable to participate in the fieldwork (not likely, in this case) rather than the university's prerogative to declare that students below some age are ipso facto ineligible for the program.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it acceptable to discriminate based on age, except under the terms of the ADEA, which only protects people >= 40 in the workplace?
It's not a question of whether or not age discrimination is going on (as the title seems to suggest), the question is whether or not the discrimination is legally justified. The courts will decide that at no small expense to the family and the university. There is plenty of legal discrimination regarding minors designed to protect them. You don't really have same rights as other adults in the US until you turn 18 or (even 21).
In my opinion, the university should allow him to go with the provision that he is chaperoned by a legal guardian.
I agree. With his mother willing to sign a waiver releasing the school of any liability and being willing to go with him, at her own expense, I think they should allow him to go. Without those two things, I think they're perfectly justified in saying "no" but with both of those in place, he should be allowed to go and study.
My university is banning under 18s after several centuries of admitting brilliant child prodigies.
Simply because government rules call for detailed background checks for anyone working with children.
We aren't sure if this would only apply to a kid's teachers, all teaching staff, all researchers, all staff or even every other >18year old student they met.
Not joking - there was a case about whether in high school any student who turned 18 in their final year needed a police check if they helped a still 17yro student with their work and so were 'in a teaching position'
36 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 76.6 ms ] threadIn case you are wondering, though, yes I've met him in person. Many of us would meet up during school breaks at a central location, like Chicago.
My thoughts on that subject are a bit mixed. Before online high school I was home schooled, and I'm certain I would've learned more had I remained home schooled.
However, as an alternative to a brick and mortar high school, I think the idea has a lot potential still to be unlocked. The high school I attended (Stanford's EPGY Online High School) botched the concept, for lack of good technology. Thus far online HSes have generally hobbled along by using corporate teleconferencing software--a clearly deficient solution. But with tailored software the experience could be very good.
In fact, it's my personal view that online education + OLPC or similar initiative could do wonders for third world countries. One of the biggest obstacles to education in, say, Africa are the lack of school buildings and the lack of local teachers, according to my friends who've done peace corp. Both of these problems are mitigated by online education assuming you have internet infrastructure. Since internet infrastructure is a major component of recent investment in that part of the world, I think it would be achievable.
http://rso.cornell.edu/ccra/ - Check out our website. We're an undergraduate-run org and to our knowledge are the largest organization of our type in the nation. Our efforts to get programs started at other schools have been underwhelming.
Further (as has been discussed here before and in several posted items), some people argue that one problem with kids these days is precisely that they and their culture are so cut off from adult and workplace culture, in general. From that perspective, Colin's interactions with adults might actually be healthy.
I wasn't necessarily as bright as him, but I was considered bright. And was it ever frustrating at times to be forced into extensive interaction with my "peers" who were obsessed with isolated social ranking, posturing, and what was for me dumb/uninformed/boring behavior.
Sure, you don't want a child to be taken advantage of, but a blanket response of "too young" is an excuse not to do your job and actually thereby takes advantage of that child in another way, constraining them for the sake of your convenience and peace of mind.
In Colin's case, at least he has moved on to university, which should have broadened his social as well as intellectual environment. I guess a trip overseas might thereupon rather be posed as a challenge to his problem solving skills, and to his ability to adopt a sufficiently protective posture. (An adult is viewed, on the surface, as a more challenging target for victimization than a kid.)
If he's getting himself through university with a 3.9 grade average and honor roll status, and in the face of the age difference with his peers, I'd argue that he already has problem solving skills at least equal to others participating in the program.
I can imagine him, on the basis of his youthful and diminished stature, perhaps being prone to targeting by criminals and con-artists. I would think the program might be willing to put in a bit of work to counter-balance this concern (which might be legitimate, despite any waiving of liability, both out of genuine interest and out of concern for possible negative publicity). His traveling with a guardian, who can devote her full time to counter-balancing such possible threats, should resolve remaining concerns.
This is an exceptional person. Can the university and program not be a bit exceptional, in return, in helping him achieve his goals?
Hopefully, they'll admit the NSF work as equivalent and sufficient, for credit.
However, I didn't go full time. I still went back to high school. There is some social learning that you just miss out on if you don't spend time with your age-peers.
High School sucked, but I'd still do it all over again.
In the best interest of the kid, they should really send him to interact with some age-peers in some sort of activity, if not High School.
That said, I don't think UConn should be preventing him, especially if his mom will go at her expense.
More important than age peers, I think, is shared experience with people from diverse backgrounds. Which seems to me to be precisely what he's trying to lobby for...
When I was in the 3rd grade, I got to join an experimental "multi-graded" program which had students from the 1st through 5th grades in a single classroom. It's not that uncommon really, just sadly uncommon in U.S. public schools at the time. Anyway, it gave the older kids an opportunity to take leadership roles in group projects, and it gave the younger kids the opportunity to quickly learn behavior and skills from the older kids. It was a great, successful program, by most metrics.
(Not to say one should go back to high school or something as silly, but interacting with your own age peers can be an interesting experience...and one that can be done in many different ways, including meeting up with similarly-situated peers.)
I've effectively been taking classes at colleges and universities for like the past ten years of my life, and my college experience ten years ago compared to my college experience at 16 and then at 20 have not been the same in any way. So I hope everyone going this path realizes what kind of ride they're in for.
All that being said, UConn isn't doing anyone any favors trying to prevent this guy from doing what he wants solely based on his age, especially if it's necessary for his major and he and his parents are willing to foot the liability issues.
I didn't get anything out of interacting with my age group. I may have been worse off for it. I was constantly frustrated by my classmates who asked questions and held up the lesson. We went too slow. I was repeatedly asked to help other students with their homework and even test questions. I always won the math contests, spelling bees and the like to the chagrin of students and even teachers in higher level classes. It created resentment that I faced when I became their students in later years.
When I went to college, I had APed out of almost every freshman class and went straight to sophomore level courses in Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Science. I was never treated differently by the older kids and felt more comfortable with them. They didn't mind asking me for help even.
So I see little anecdotal evidence that stunting a child's potential to give them time to interact with kids their own age is beneficial. Really, what does age have to do with it? As a child, I had better conversations with adults than with children. As a kindergartner I had better conversations with the seniors in high school. I went to a school with K-12 in the same building, so it was easier to interact with older kids, which I much preferred and they seemed to be quite entertained by me as well, so in retrospect, I think everyone would have benefited had I been able to progress at my intellectual rate, rather than the rate at which the earth moves around the sun.
As some anecdotal evidence, take some of my college classmates who also started early. Most of us went back to high school, but a few just went full time college. After two years, this one guy wanted to transfer to Cal Tech. He was more than smart enough, but after the interview, they told him he wasn't social enough. They suggested to him that he join some youth clubs and get some social interaction with his peers, and they would reconsider him.
So he joined every club he could find, and it made a huge difference. He was much easier to talk to and just more fun to be around.
And then he transferred to Cal Tech.
I say we should be pragmatic and stop creating generalized rules for these students. It's the general rule is hurting some kids. Let the child go to college. If he can't hack it, kick him out just like you'd kick out any other college kid who can't make the grades, cheating, or breaking school other rules.
I never could relate to kids my own age who didn't understand the world the way I did. They thought I was stupid. I thought they were stupid. The older kids knew I was smart and I thought they were smart and it was awesome to be around them.
As soon as we get out of school, the age association ends. When I started working, I immediately progressed to positions well above the level where other people much older were working for years. I was admired, not hated. I appreciated it and people thanked me for helping them understand their own jobs better.
I hate saying all this because it sounds conceited, but I think it is important for society that we allow the best and brightest to have a positive impact on the world as soon as they can and for as long as possible. People don't live forever, let them get the most out of life that they can and let society reap the rewards of their productivity. As we move forward, it's taking longer and longer to understand the world enough to make a positive contribution and we need to give these prodigies as long as they need to do it.
Why?
No, seriously, step back a moment. Why is it important that I socialize with high schoolers just because they share the same chronological age? Do you spend a lot of time interacting with people in a high-school fashion? I sure don't.
High-school culture is a dead end; it's an artificial construct brought on by artificial constraints that don't exist in the real world. If high-school culture is anything, it's a trap; all of use who have been out of it for at least five years can probably name a group of people who are "still in high school", to their social and professional detriment.
The only alternative worse than that is no acculturation at all, but that's not usually what's on the table, and that's a pathological outcome regardless of how you get there. School culture is just one step up from that, almost anything else will get you more real-world cultural skills than that.
In this case Colin seems well adjusted and "not a prick" - but there could be all manner of exterior reasons for that.
It's also wrong, I think, to consider high school as training for adult social structure; it clearly is nothing like that. But it does teach you some important things - you face the same issues at the same time as everyone else (example: all of the kids I saw bumped up several levels were either incredibly sexist or had serious issues with women. Typical of the kind of insecurities you face at that age - but when everyone around you has already dealt with that it is hard to sort out).
> all of use who have been out of it for at least five years can probably name a group of people who are "still in high school", to their social and professional detriment.
Agreed; however I don't agree that a different way would have produced any different results. They are stuck there for a variety of reasons - none of them directly because of the high school culture.
If your goal is to produce a well-socialized child, keep your eyes on the prize. You describe some cases where in fact following the suggestion of leaving them in high school didn't work out; this also matches my experience. My point here is that actually you can't make a call about whether you should leave a given person in high school; in the exact same environment, one will flourish and learn a lot, the other will crash and burn and learn horribly pathological things.
So, ultimately, my point is that if your goal is to have a "good child" (without getting into whatever that may mean), debating whether "children" should or should not be left in school or never accelerated or moved to college or anything is actually a waste of time, because there is no such thing as a "children" in the first place.
It changes your context of self. If everyone you know is younger than you, or smaller than you, or not as smart as you, you will see yourself as the teacher or protector or strategist. If they are all older, or bigger, or smarter, you will see yourself as the upstart, or weakling, or pupil. If all your friends are always 15 years older than you, when are you an adult (in your own mind)?
Being around age-peers helps one better understand and assert themselves and gives them opportunities to make friendships that may come easier than bridging a 10 year gap.
I'm not saying the age-peers shouldn't also be super smart and accomplished teenagers - I'm saying there are real-world benefits to not always being the youngest of your friends.
As a college student and an adult, I was free to seek out peers and friends at the level of social and intellectual maturity I was comfortable with. In my late 20's, it's something I still do, and it often means my 'peers' are generally a decade or (sometimes much) more my senior. But I'm of the opinion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, for adults or kids.
People your age aren't necessarily your peers. And "universal" high school social experiences are only important if they're important to you. I personally don't regret what I missed at all; I think what I did instead was a lot more fun.
What if you've already learned it?
Two examples:
1) My little sister: never skipped a grade, but as early as 6th grade, she preferred the company of teachers to students. At middle school science fairs and such, teachers from other schools would occasionally ask her where she taught. Clearly, she was socializing on an adult level.
2) My wife: through a running start program, ended up going to college at age 15. Someone wrote an editorial in the college newspaper complaining about 16-year-olds on campus being hard to identify, and how embarrassing it is for a 20-year-old to find out he's been flirting with a minor. One of her 16-year-old classmates complained, and she countered that the editorial made a reasonable point. Her classmate's response was "you only think that because you're not sixteen." He mistook her for substantially older, again, because she was socializing like a 21-year-old.
The point of both of these examples: there's no reason to artificially push a kid to socialize with people of his age. Let him socialize with people of his social level. If he already socializes like a college student, he's not going to benefit from hanging out with kids who socialize like 8th graders.
"Summer field work" sounds like it could have a marked degree of risk and/or physical effort required. If that is the case, then I can see that it might not be a good idea for a kid to do them (regardless of how bright or mature he is).
I have to say though, I just finished up a fields method class and they are not easy. And mine was just in the woods of Connecticut not in Africa.
The world will not care what his IQ is and will not treat him as special. He's a liability in South Africa, full stop. It would take a lot of money and/or risk to send him, so I support their choice.
That's right, none, but the arbitrary assumption that they are "old enough".
It's just as arbitrary assuming THIS 13-year old is "not capable".
Imagine facing the newspaper headline "UConn loses 13-year-old prodigy in South Africa" . . .
I'm all for Colin being able to have this experience - I absolutely would have been thrilled to participate in something like this at any age. I don't think the school has any obligation to allow him to participate in this activity however.
Did you read the article? She offered to sign an explicit legal waiver and accompany him on the trip at her own expense?
It appears they family is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise. If the university would look to "solve" the problem vs. outright denial - the family would probably pay cost of any "additional insurance" rider.
This may not be reported in the submitted article, but if I remember correctly, some press report or another states that the family asked about this issue before enrolling the boy in UConn. He is pursuing a college major that involves fieldwork, and my recollection is that he took initiative to make sure that he would be allowed to do fieldwork before deciding where to enroll for his college major program.
From involvement in the nonprofit organizations that I lead, I have also become aware of federal statutory law on the subject, which generally bars age discrimination (against the old OR THE YOUNG) in educational programs funded by federal appropriations, which would definitely include UConn. It would be the university's burden of proof to show that there is some specific reason that the specific student is unable to participate in the fieldwork (not likely, in this case) rather than the university's prerogative to declare that students below some age are ipso facto ineligible for the program.
In my opinion, the university should allow him to go with the provision that he is chaperoned by a legal guardian.
Not joking - there was a case about whether in high school any student who turned 18 in their final year needed a police check if they helped a still 17yro student with their work and so were 'in a teaching position'