Let's End Adolescence(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
Let's End Adolescence
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_45/b4107085289974.htm
166 comments
It wasn't invented out of the blue, but it was an evolved creation of politics. In classic democratic fashion, a lot of factions were pushing their own agenda that ended up making the country as a whole worse off. The education establishment has continually upped the drop out age. Labor unions ( in alliance with wealthy parents) pushed for stricter child labor laws to reduce competition for jobs. Aristocratic progressives wanted an institution to indoctrinate immigrants in the American way of live. The rise of credentialing laws made college a necessity for earning a decent income. Since colleges require a high school diploma, this put teenagers in an eight year holding pattern, waiting for a piece of paper.
The result of this has been every bit as disastrous as Newt claims.
The result of this has been every bit as disastrous as Newt claims.
You give too much power to politics. I think that the dramatic increase of productivity and the creation of much more wealth in the post-industrial society is the main factor in the emergence of the "adolescent". Suddenly families didn't spend their whole budget on food, housing, and they had a lot more of free time to do something else than satisfying their basic needs. They sent their childs to education because they could afford it, and it made them happy to do so.
You'll notice that it also allowed the society of services to emerge, and we wouldn't have this discussion on Hacker News if we had to work 12 hours a day just to satisfy our basic needs.
Overall, I don't share your opinion that the country is a "whole worse off" now. We only face different challenges because our fathers did their job in their own time.
You'll notice that it also allowed the society of services to emerge, and we wouldn't have this discussion on Hacker News if we had to work 12 hours a day just to satisfy our basic needs.
Overall, I don't share your opinion that the country is a "whole worse off" now. We only face different challenges because our fathers did their job in their own time.
Technology and politics can move in opposite directions. Technology is far, far better. The political situation is much worse. Overall, life is far better.
Unfortunately, we don't have an example of what adolescence would look like if we had the same growth of technology but without the decline in the political system. I suspect though, if we could glimpse into this alternate world it would blow us away.
Unfortunately, we don't have an example of what adolescence would look like if we had the same growth of technology but without the decline in the political system. I suspect though, if we could glimpse into this alternate world it would blow us away.
I don't know. I'm almost certain we'd lose something in that alternate world as well. In particular, we'd lose a tolerance for the diversity of the world. College is tremendous for that: it's the one thing it's tremendous for. You realize what radically different sorts of people there are in the world. Without that, if you're born and raised in a suburb then there's a good chance you never realize what you're missing out on.
The suburbs are isolated because of the decline of the school system. Parents are unwilling to put their kids in schools will they will get harassed and bullied by lower class kids. "Public schooling" results in private communities. It used to be that the richest people in a city would live blocks away from the poor and the working class. That rarely happens anymore because of the association of location with schools.
As for universities - the top universities have a rainbow of skin colors, but the culture is overwhelmingly "Whiter Person" - http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
As for universities - the top universities have a rainbow of skin colors, but the culture is overwhelmingly "Whiter Person" - http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
> You realize what radically different sorts of people there are in the world
I would argue the exact opposite. The majority of college educated people I know have never had a friend of less than middle class origins. The statistics show we have a society of increasing class stratification; people never marry down anymore, for example.
College and credentialism is also reinforcing an elitist attitude to manual labor. I've even seen several posts on this board that implicitly assume someone who works with their hands must be inferior to a "knowledge worker." We're getting MORE social division, not less.
And let's not kid ourselves about the real level of diversity in colleges. Hispanics are WAY underrepresented, and probably always will be. You're not going to come to any sort of understanding of chicano culture by going to college.
I would argue the exact opposite. The majority of college educated people I know have never had a friend of less than middle class origins. The statistics show we have a society of increasing class stratification; people never marry down anymore, for example.
College and credentialism is also reinforcing an elitist attitude to manual labor. I've even seen several posts on this board that implicitly assume someone who works with their hands must be inferior to a "knowledge worker." We're getting MORE social division, not less.
And let's not kid ourselves about the real level of diversity in colleges. Hispanics are WAY underrepresented, and probably always will be. You're not going to come to any sort of understanding of chicano culture by going to college.
The majority of college educated people I know have never had a friend of less than middle class origins.
It depends on the college that you go to. Some colleges don't let anybody of less-than-middle class in.
people never marry down anymore, for example.
You'll have to clarify this a bit more. People marrying down wasn't ever common, to my knowledge. And, this is my biased and bigoted opinion, but people in similar classes often have the same values, and this is why cross-classing never works so well. For instance, I tend to be attracted to people who are very logical and very expressive. I find myself attracted to the gap right in between programmers and actresses, because that's where people share similar values to myself. That might be shown as a sign of bias on my part, and it is, but it's a bias that can't be fixed, because elsewhere people and I are less compatible. I'd assume the same to be true across social boarders: people who go to certain places in society all have similar traits. Forgive me if I sound ignorant: I'm not at all knowledgeable in this field.
I've even seen several posts on this board that implicitly assume someone who works with their hands must be inferior to a "knowledge worker."
I don't look down on people who work with their hands. At the same time, though, I think that the power to create original things is the best power we've got. To be fair, few people ever do this, regardless of position. If you look at hackers as a whole, we're no better.
Hispanics are WAY underrepresented, and probably always will be. You're not going to come to any sort of understanding of chicano culture by going to college.
True. But I was talking more about people based on location. People of similar classes and skin color will be radically different based on where they come from. And some people never realize that until they get to college. It's not a huge change, not as huge as it could be, but it's a change and I'd argue that it's good for most college students.
It depends on the college that you go to. Some colleges don't let anybody of less-than-middle class in.
people never marry down anymore, for example.
You'll have to clarify this a bit more. People marrying down wasn't ever common, to my knowledge. And, this is my biased and bigoted opinion, but people in similar classes often have the same values, and this is why cross-classing never works so well. For instance, I tend to be attracted to people who are very logical and very expressive. I find myself attracted to the gap right in between programmers and actresses, because that's where people share similar values to myself. That might be shown as a sign of bias on my part, and it is, but it's a bias that can't be fixed, because elsewhere people and I are less compatible. I'd assume the same to be true across social boarders: people who go to certain places in society all have similar traits. Forgive me if I sound ignorant: I'm not at all knowledgeable in this field.
I've even seen several posts on this board that implicitly assume someone who works with their hands must be inferior to a "knowledge worker."
I don't look down on people who work with their hands. At the same time, though, I think that the power to create original things is the best power we've got. To be fair, few people ever do this, regardless of position. If you look at hackers as a whole, we're no better.
Hispanics are WAY underrepresented, and probably always will be. You're not going to come to any sort of understanding of chicano culture by going to college.
True. But I was talking more about people based on location. People of similar classes and skin color will be radically different based on where they come from. And some people never realize that until they get to college. It's not a huge change, not as huge as it could be, but it's a change and I'd argue that it's good for most college students.
> Labor unions (in alliance with wealthy parents) pushed for stricter child labor laws to reduce competition for jobs. Aristocratic progressives wanted an institution to indoctrinate immigrants in the American way of live [sic]. The rise of credentialing laws made college a necessity for earning a decent income.
Please provide citations of serious studies of these trends you talk about; this analysis seems facile and frankly misleading, even as a first-order approximation, but I’m not an expert so I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise. In particular, “indoctrination” of immigrants is going to be hard to establish as a primary goal of the education system, and the benefits of credential laws and the technical training institutions that go along with them in fields such as medicine, engineering, and so forth are hard to overstate.
Please provide citations of serious studies of these trends you talk about; this analysis seems facile and frankly misleading, even as a first-order approximation, but I’m not an expert so I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise. In particular, “indoctrination” of immigrants is going to be hard to establish as a primary goal of the education system, and the benefits of credential laws and the technical training institutions that go along with them in fields such as medicine, engineering, and so forth are hard to overstate.
Unfortunately a lot of this came from books and articles I read years ago. "Indoctrination" is a bit of a loaded word, perhaps I should have said "assimilation" or "acculturation". But it was definitely a major factor. I remember reading a long paper about the movement establishing universal high school in New Haven in the early 1900's. It all revolved around dealing with the massive flows of immigrants who had no grounding in American civic culture.
As for credentialing laws, pretty much all professions rely on some level of book knowledge plus on the job training. The book knowledge can be provided for by reading books and passing an exam. You don't need to attend three years of law school in person to become a great lawyer. Nor do you need four years of university to be a great engineer. The architecture profession seems to have been much better off without any degree requirements. Just compare the architecture of the 1800's to that of the past few decades.
30% of jobs in the U.S. economy now have legal credentialing requirements. That includes everything from hair dresser to interior designer. Even jobs like parole officer now require a four year college degree. We're essentially recreating the old guild system, which stifles economic growth. I don't think it's any accident that the most dynamic sectors of the economy - software, consumer electronics, movies - have virtually no licensing requirements.
As for credentialing laws, pretty much all professions rely on some level of book knowledge plus on the job training. The book knowledge can be provided for by reading books and passing an exam. You don't need to attend three years of law school in person to become a great lawyer. Nor do you need four years of university to be a great engineer. The architecture profession seems to have been much better off without any degree requirements. Just compare the architecture of the 1800's to that of the past few decades.
30% of jobs in the U.S. economy now have legal credentialing requirements. That includes everything from hair dresser to interior designer. Even jobs like parole officer now require a four year college degree. We're essentially recreating the old guild system, which stifles economic growth. I don't think it's any accident that the most dynamic sectors of the economy - software, consumer electronics, movies - have virtually no licensing requirements.
For some things (e.g. the hair dressing you mentioned), I concede that licensing requirements are unnecessary, and their use should be reexamined. For others (public defenders, surgeons, structural engineers, etc.) such licensing and formal training is in my opinion critically important. To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading.
What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees?
Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?
What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees?
Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?
What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees?
Today all of them do because it is legally required. My girlfriend is currently attending architecture school and it is beyond useless. She's learned an awful lot about "aura" and "algorithmic design" and precious little about designing buildings for the real world. Architects end up learning everything on the job.
In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for architects to be high school drop outs. The New York Public library, some of the tunnel projects under London, the California Aqueduct, were all designed by drop outs.
The structural integrity of the buildings was very high, and the aesthetics far surpass the creations of modern architects.
To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading.
I obviously would not want an untrained surgeon practicing on me. The trouble is that credentialing laws are a highly unstable equilibrium. It requires 8 years of post-secondary schooling to prescribe penicillin, read an x-ray, or set a broken bone. I could be convinced that 2 years of schooling might be necessary. But not 8. The reason it is so high is because of lobbying by the AMA. I'm sure they argue that the requirements are in the public interest. Perhaps they even believe their own PR. But if you talk to doctors about medical school, most of them will tell you that it had little relevance to their actual job.
Perhaps the most notorious example of credentialing is the orthodontist profession. The average orthodontist works 35 hour weeks and makes 350k ( about 40% more than dentists). The reason for this is that number of orthodontists allowed to graduate each year is actually capped at 280. The orthodontist association have even gone after inventors who devise new labor-saving (and thus income-reducing) braces, See the case of Viazis v. American Association of Orthodontists. This is blatantly anti-competitive, and it costs thousands of dollars from the pocket book of every American.
Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?
I once worked a bit on capitol hill. The civics class description of American democracy bears little resemblance to the reality. However, these the civics class lies are probably necessary to make a democratic system even marginally functional. My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.
Today all of them do because it is legally required. My girlfriend is currently attending architecture school and it is beyond useless. She's learned an awful lot about "aura" and "algorithmic design" and precious little about designing buildings for the real world. Architects end up learning everything on the job.
In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for architects to be high school drop outs. The New York Public library, some of the tunnel projects under London, the California Aqueduct, were all designed by drop outs.
The structural integrity of the buildings was very high, and the aesthetics far surpass the creations of modern architects.
To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading.
I obviously would not want an untrained surgeon practicing on me. The trouble is that credentialing laws are a highly unstable equilibrium. It requires 8 years of post-secondary schooling to prescribe penicillin, read an x-ray, or set a broken bone. I could be convinced that 2 years of schooling might be necessary. But not 8. The reason it is so high is because of lobbying by the AMA. I'm sure they argue that the requirements are in the public interest. Perhaps they even believe their own PR. But if you talk to doctors about medical school, most of them will tell you that it had little relevance to their actual job.
Perhaps the most notorious example of credentialing is the orthodontist profession. The average orthodontist works 35 hour weeks and makes 350k ( about 40% more than dentists). The reason for this is that number of orthodontists allowed to graduate each year is actually capped at 280. The orthodontist association have even gone after inventors who devise new labor-saving (and thus income-reducing) braces, See the case of Viazis v. American Association of Orthodontists. This is blatantly anti-competitive, and it costs thousands of dollars from the pocket book of every American.
Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?
I once worked a bit on capitol hill. The civics class description of American democracy bears little resemblance to the reality. However, these the civics class lies are probably necessary to make a democratic system even marginally functional. My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.
>My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.
To be replaced with...?
To be replaced with...?
One option: Abolish Congress and the presidency. I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years? Use some sort of board of trustees to select the Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs. Perhaps this board of trustees would be selected by existing trustees, or perhaps we could use something like the Venetian lottery system ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect... ).
Other options include something like Juristopia ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html ) or Formalism ( http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... )
Or, if you want something a little more proven, there is always Monarchy.
Basically, anything that doesn't use a ritualized form of gang warfare would be better than democracy in my book.
Other options include something like Juristopia ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html ) or Formalism ( http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... )
Or, if you want something a little more proven, there is always Monarchy.
Basically, anything that doesn't use a ritualized form of gang warfare would be better than democracy in my book.
I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years?
Luckily, the job of the government isn't to do good deeds -- it's to hold onto power in order to stop even worse people from getting it.
The purpose of democracy isn't to get the best people into power, it's to stop the worst people from getting into power.
Luckily, the job of the government isn't to do good deeds -- it's to hold onto power in order to stop even worse people from getting it.
The purpose of democracy isn't to get the best people into power, it's to stop the worst people from getting into power.
I would welcome a government that did absolutely nothing except stop bad guys from getting into power. Unfortunately, Congress thinks its job is to pass "legislation" and it does so in vast quantities. This has piled up over the decades covering the entire country in a gray legislative goo. If abolishing Congress is too big of step, how about changing the rules so that any new law requires a 70% majority? Or maybe even a 90% majority?
I'd also note that democracy is altogether a failure at preventing the worst people from getting into power. Some of histories worst tyrants from history have come to power through party politics.
I'd also note that democracy is altogether a failure at preventing the worst people from getting into power. Some of histories worst tyrants from history have come to power through party politics.
Where could I find a list of terrible tyrants that came to power in a representative democratic system? That ought to be interesting.
Or are you saying that all systems with parties are abominable because of parties, regardless of the details of how the systems work?
Or are you saying that all systems with parties are abominable because of parties, regardless of the details of how the systems work?
Off the top of my head: Sulla, Cromwell, Robespierre, Napolean, Hitler, Mugabe. There are many more, but I'd have to verify.
Where could I find a list of terrible tyrants that came to power in a representative democratic system? That ought to be interesting.
Well, that list mostly goes:
1. Hitler
2. A few others
But, y'know, Hitler counts for something.
Well, that list mostly goes:
1. Hitler
2. A few others
But, y'know, Hitler counts for something.
You could do worse than emulate the Republic of Venice, which lasted about 1000 years and only went down because a big empire (Austria) took them down. I would bet money that the US won't last that long, except that I don't expect to live long enough to collect.
But you could also do a lot worse than US-style democracy. See any number of lunatic 20th century dictators - and lots of monarchs. The disaster of WWI, for example, can largely be blamed on the monarchs of Germany, Austria, and Russia.
But you could also do a lot worse than US-style democracy. See any number of lunatic 20th century dictators - and lots of monarchs. The disaster of WWI, for example, can largely be blamed on the monarchs of Germany, Austria, and Russia.
Many of these lunatic dictators were elected ( Mussolini, Hitler) and the others came to power from revolutions that promised a "people's democracy" ( the Bolsheviks, Mao, Pol Pot).
My take on the origins of World War I is quite different than yours. From my readings, the monarchs were much less willing to go to war than the politicians, and the politicians were less rabid than the mob. Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Russia all had elected parliaments with universal manhood suffrage that voted for the war. The rise of universal suffrage in the late 1800's gave rise to a number of jingoistic newspapers and politicians. Imagine five powerful countries and all the sources of news were like Fox News - no NYTimes or NPR. That's the recipe for one of the worst wars in human history. Pre-democracy, the kings would fight a few battles and call it a day ( see the Franco-Prussian war of 1871). With a democracy, calling a truce was "giving in to the aggressor" and the war lasted four terrible years.
Some good books/articles on the subject: Liberty Or Equality ( http://blog.mises.org/archives/006326.asp ), The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig, Once an ArchDuke by Archduke Ferdinand, "Churchill on the Great War" - http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2008/08/churchill-on-great..., Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"
My take on the origins of World War I is quite different than yours. From my readings, the monarchs were much less willing to go to war than the politicians, and the politicians were less rabid than the mob. Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Russia all had elected parliaments with universal manhood suffrage that voted for the war. The rise of universal suffrage in the late 1800's gave rise to a number of jingoistic newspapers and politicians. Imagine five powerful countries and all the sources of news were like Fox News - no NYTimes or NPR. That's the recipe for one of the worst wars in human history. Pre-democracy, the kings would fight a few battles and call it a day ( see the Franco-Prussian war of 1871). With a democracy, calling a truce was "giving in to the aggressor" and the war lasted four terrible years.
Some good books/articles on the subject: Liberty Or Equality ( http://blog.mises.org/archives/006326.asp ), The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig, Once an ArchDuke by Archduke Ferdinand, "Churchill on the Great War" - http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2008/08/churchill-on-great..., Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"
you are a fucking idiot
Wow. I just read some of your other comments, and you rock. Thanks!
I found one of books: "Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform". You can read a full review here: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000948.html
Thus says the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/):
teenage 1921, formed from -teen as a separate word + age; derived noun teenager is from 1941 (the earlier word for this was teener, attested in Anmer.Eng. from 1894). Teen-aged (adj.) is from 1952; shortened form teen is from 1951 (though this had been used as a noun to mean "teen-aged person" in 1818). Teeny-bopper is recorded from 1966, from teen but also felt as infl. by teeny. For second element, see bop.
Couldn't find the word "adolescence", unfortunately. Based on this, you could argue that the first "teenagers" showed up as early as 1894 or as late as 1941.
teenage 1921, formed from -teen as a separate word + age; derived noun teenager is from 1941 (the earlier word for this was teener, attested in Anmer.Eng. from 1894). Teen-aged (adj.) is from 1952; shortened form teen is from 1951 (though this had been used as a noun to mean "teen-aged person" in 1818). Teeny-bopper is recorded from 1966, from teen but also felt as infl. by teeny. For second element, see bop.
Couldn't find the word "adolescence", unfortunately. Based on this, you could argue that the first "teenagers" showed up as early as 1894 or as late as 1941.
Adolescence is from antiquity, but the meaning has diluted to become the same thing as 'teenagerhood' recently, if I recall correctly. It was more like being a 'young man' prior to that.
The 3 stage process of childhood - adolescence - adulthood is already irrelevant in many affluent Western countries, but what was removed isn't adolescence but adulthood.
Many 40 year olds manage their lives as teenagers (look at the low birth rate in western Europe, or high divorce rate in the US) and vice versa - teenagers build $15b (if you believe it ;)) companies.
Many 40 year olds manage their lives as teenagers (look at the low birth rate in western Europe, or high divorce rate in the US) and vice versa - teenagers build $15b (if you believe it ;)) companies.
I don't believe that a low birth rate says anything about when people grow up. If it did, teenage mothers would be the most responsible people in society.
You know, a teenage mother raised a man who was just elected to the most powerful position on Earth.
Anecdotal, yes. But your comment relies on a stereotype. How do we know that teenage mothers do not quickly start maturing from the point they become teenage mothers, relative to their peers? They almost have no choice.
(I say that knowing of some concrete counter-examples to what I just argued. But that's just anecdotes, too.)
Anecdotal, yes. But your comment relies on a stereotype. How do we know that teenage mothers do not quickly start maturing from the point they become teenage mothers, relative to their peers? They almost have no choice.
(I say that knowing of some concrete counter-examples to what I just argued. But that's just anecdotes, too.)
Unfortunately, Obama is an exceptional case, and the research does not back you up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Impact_on_the...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Impact_on_the...
Furthermore, correlation does not imply causation. There are many factors at play, including the correlation that many teenage mothers are also single mothers.
[deleted]
I mention it as example of adults who have priorities traditionally associated with younger people - the low birth rate in places like Germany or Italy partly comes from adults preferring a certain lifestyle (a better car, exotic vacations, living in fashionable=expensive neighborhoods etc)
(I'm not judging this, btw, it's a valid choice.)
(I'm not judging this, btw, it's a valid choice.)
The reason for the low birth rates in eg. Italy is probably not primarily because people want cars and vacations, but rather that society is structured such that if a woman gets a child, she have to give up her career and become a housewife. Therefore many women defer having kids or choose not to have kids.
In Scandinavia birth rates are relatively higher - definitely not because Scandinavians don't like cars or vacations, but rather because the society makes it easier to have children and a job at the same time (e.g. kindergartens available and so on).
In Scandinavia birth rates are relatively higher - definitely not because Scandinavians don't like cars or vacations, but rather because the society makes it easier to have children and a job at the same time (e.g. kindergartens available and so on).
Very true, same in France where the family benefits are amazing.
I don't think it's fair to assume specific phases of life whatsoever: people don't automatically grow up. Some people seem to skip the adolescence phase and go right to adulthood, for better or for worse.
However, it IS fair to say that society reacts to people of certain ages as if the sheer fact of getting older meant instant change in mood and personality. And that's harmful.
However, it IS fair to say that society reacts to people of certain ages as if the sheer fact of getting older meant instant change in mood and personality. And that's harmful.
maturity has little to do with age and everything to do with responsibility. I remember of hearing about a couple who adopted an orphan from Russia. the kid made people uncomfortable because he acted like an adult. Why? he was the oldest kid at his orphanage and had been looking out for younger kids for years.
The saying my mother used when I was growing up was that "a boy becomes a man when a man is required."
I agree completely.
It goes a lot deeper than a few mismanaged lives. The disregard for personal responsibility and the subsequent politics that result will get much worse as generation x then y come of age.
Every generation thinks the next generation is lazy, shiftless, immoral and will destroy the world. It's been happening for a while. The worrying, not the destroying.
How so? We've already caused a greater mass extinction than the last ice age did, and it's accelerating. Red blooms are sprouting up in our oceans. Methane and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at an accelerating rate, too.
All the while, people are getting fatter and fatter, and less and less active. Our great grandparents had to struggle and suffer just to survive. Most of us have never dealt with true scarcity in our lives.
Each generation is getting lazier, more privilaged and more destructive.
All the while, people are getting fatter and fatter, and less and less active. Our great grandparents had to struggle and suffer just to survive. Most of us have never dealt with true scarcity in our lives.
Each generation is getting lazier, more privilaged and more destructive.
Yeah, it's tough to filter out anything insightful from these kind of arguments.
Pessimists and optimists have said the same things about the next generations over and over again.
Skip the silly arguments with just anecdotal evidence and persuasive tones. Just state the suggestion you think would improve society.
What about people that choose to turn their "parental instinct" to have and nurture children towards helping their society as a whole instead? Is that also a sign of immaturity for lack of "progeny"?
I don't think people who choose not to have kids are immature, it's a legitimate choice. I just mention it as a measure of certain changes. Nothing necessarily bad or good about it.
Without downplaying anything done for society as a whole, I must say that it's unlikely you'll ever be as influential upon society as a whole as can be upon your own children. Also, children also have a way of exposing your weaknesses that is unique to their relationship with (and reflection of) you.
Granted, these are just vehicles to maturity, not a promise of success. Everyone fails in some measure, some horribly.
Granted, these are just vehicles to maturity, not a promise of success. Everyone fails in some measure, some horribly.
"exposing your weaknesses"
Yeah. They bring out the ASS in some parents.
Yeah. They bring out the ASS in some parents.
One thing that continually throws me is the whole, "more school, especially more college!" idea. The skills that have actually put me in interesting situations, like serious brain machine interface research or a startup doing quantitative methods for human resources, had nothing to do with school. At least for me, I'd have been much better suited for an "apprenticeship" rather than having just having to tolerate classes as a distraction to the lab, where I learned about Kalman filters and intricacies of neuronal tuning in a kind of learn-it-by-yesterday-as-needed setup from the people who were actually writing the papers.
Given the amount of ADD we have as a culture, training hackers with an emphasis on "you as an individual can create things that have the potential to become forces of nature with only a cheap computer and some knowledge" and deep familiarity with the internet (irc? google-fu?) seems to be the best way to graduate world class engineers. You won't get middle American teenagers to sit down and study like Chinese students will; but that's fine. Our hackers will end up just as knowledgeable as theirs, and maybe more creative.
EDIT: One more thing: we need to drill home that "post things to share with your friends for free!" is neither a business model nor a KILLERAPP!!111oneoneone. We need to inspire kids to go after the next big problems, and not just fill them up with hype and dreams, but actually give them the technical abilities to do it.
Given the amount of ADD we have as a culture, training hackers with an emphasis on "you as an individual can create things that have the potential to become forces of nature with only a cheap computer and some knowledge" and deep familiarity with the internet (irc? google-fu?) seems to be the best way to graduate world class engineers. You won't get middle American teenagers to sit down and study like Chinese students will; but that's fine. Our hackers will end up just as knowledgeable as theirs, and maybe more creative.
EDIT: One more thing: we need to drill home that "post things to share with your friends for free!" is neither a business model nor a KILLERAPP!!111oneoneone. We need to inspire kids to go after the next big problems, and not just fill them up with hype and dreams, but actually give them the technical abilities to do it.
You won't get middle American teenagers to sit down and study like Chinese students will; but that's fine. Our hackers will end up just as knowledgeable as theirs, and maybe more creative.
I couldn't agree more.
Our national drive to rebel against things and disobey orders is one of the best, if one of the most frustrating, things we've got going for us. We should encourage people to do things their own way, to try thinking out of the box. Even if it doesn't work, any time you try to do things differently you'll learn something, even if that thing is "what not to do next time."
I couldn't agree more.
Our national drive to rebel against things and disobey orders is one of the best, if one of the most frustrating, things we've got going for us. We should encourage people to do things their own way, to try thinking out of the box. Even if it doesn't work, any time you try to do things differently you'll learn something, even if that thing is "what not to do next time."
Sure, American hackers will be just as knowledgeable as Chinese hackers, but if in general the Chinese population becomes more learned (which is happening at a rapid pace as China gets closer to being a first world nation), we would have disadvantages that they don't have, such as the anti-intellectual attitude that exists in many parts of the US.
Yeah, this is true. It's a problem, and I think it stems in no small part from how deeply rooted religion is in this country. I don't think it has a lot to do with the lack or presence of an adolescence, though, or really much in general to do with childhood altogether.
The real purpose of high school is keeping the roving hordes of teenagers off the street. Teenagers have no judgement (I certainly didn't), and we would like to have some method of keeping them occupied. Unfortunately, where before that method involved actual learning, nowadays schools are basically just low security prisons.
Furthermore, Newt is completely off when he claims that all adolescents want more responsibility. This is simply untrue. A small fraction of adolescents want more responsibility, the rest want to hang out with their friends all day and do nothing. Which is actually pretty close to high school.
Furthermore, Newt is completely off when he claims that all adolescents want more responsibility. This is simply untrue. A small fraction of adolescents want more responsibility, the rest want to hang out with their friends all day and do nothing. Which is actually pretty close to high school.
I think it's really sad that we've come to see teenagers as a liability, not an opportunity. It might be true that teenagers have no judgement, that we need to keep them occupied in "low-security prisons" and that they don't want more responsibility. But I think the way the System(tm) is organised has a lot to do with these behaviors.
Teenagerdom has come to be the no man's land of life, the purgatory.
Teenagerdom has come to be the no man's land of life, the purgatory.
> A small fraction of adolescents want more responsibility
It's a question of the meaning of "want." I think a small fraction of adolescents can articulate that they "want" meaningful responsibility and structure, or make any efforts to get it.
It's a question of the meaning of "want." I think a small fraction of adolescents can articulate that they "want" meaningful responsibility and structure, or make any efforts to get it.
I've always found "want" to be an interesting word in English.
You can really want to be the kind of person who gets up and goes to the gym regularly. And you can also simultaneously want to sit motionless on your sofa and passively watch dumb TV programs, even though those things are totally incompatible.
I suspect it may be similar with figuring out whether teenagers really "want" to be mature, responsible, and productive individuals.
You can really want to be the kind of person who gets up and goes to the gym regularly. And you can also simultaneously want to sit motionless on your sofa and passively watch dumb TV programs, even though those things are totally incompatible.
I suspect it may be similar with figuring out whether teenagers really "want" to be mature, responsible, and productive individuals.
I think that lots of adolescents honestly do not want to do anything. They prefer having no responsibilities whatsoever.
I thought it was otherwise: that people who didn't want to work or improve or learn were people that didn't have a good method of doing so, that they were restricted by the system. Long story short, I found out that's radically not the truth. Some people are a little bit icky inside.
I thought it was otherwise: that people who didn't want to work or improve or learn were people that didn't have a good method of doing so, that they were restricted by the system. Long story short, I found out that's radically not the truth. Some people are a little bit icky inside.
I think that lots of adolescents honestly do not want to do anything. They prefer having no responsibilities whatsoever.
That's because you can't start with adolescence. You have to start increasing responsibility from roughly age 2. Get them used to it, reward it, show them the connection between increased responsibility and increased choice and freedom. Then they'll want it. The problem with most adolescents is the 12 years prior.
That's because you can't start with adolescence. You have to start increasing responsibility from roughly age 2. Get them used to it, reward it, show them the connection between increased responsibility and increased choice and freedom. Then they'll want it. The problem with most adolescents is the 12 years prior.
Adolescence was invented in the 19th century to enable middle-class families to keep their children out of sweatshops. But it has degenerated into a process of enforced boredom and age segregation...
The fact is, most young people want to be challenged and given real responsibility. They want to be treated like young men and women, not old children.
Where have we heard this before?
http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
The fact is, most young people want to be challenged and given real responsibility. They want to be treated like young men and women, not old children.
Where have we heard this before?
http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Is this starting to become like "I, for one, welcome our new X overlords?" is on Slashdot?
PG wrote everything. Let's take that as a given. Now can we move on?
I'm not trying to be persnickety, but your comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and sounds like fanboy tripe. If PGs article was on here, we could talk about that. But it's not. AFAIK, every one of PG's articles has already appeared on here and we've already talked about it. So on with the new material, okay?
PG wrote everything. Let's take that as a given. Now can we move on?
I'm not trying to be persnickety, but your comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and sounds like fanboy tripe. If PGs article was on here, we could talk about that. But it's not. AFAIK, every one of PG's articles has already appeared on here and we've already talked about it. So on with the new material, okay?
You're not being persnickety. You're rushing to judgment because it gives you an excuse to put on a big show of pwning me-the-thoughtless-fanboy.
"X and Y are the same" is a lesson we all learned on Sesame Street, and isn't much worth discussing.
Rather than give some kind of credit to PG for anticipating NG, I wanted to point out how weird it is for the two of them to be agreeing. Gingrich is respectful of tradition and has a politician's instincts for rationalization and euphemism. Graham has said (along with everything else) that groups of people are inherently dumb and lazy, and is almost contemptuously truthful.
There's plenty of real intellectual content in there if you take the time to dig for it, and much of it is cool and subversive...
"X and Y are the same" is a lesson we all learned on Sesame Street, and isn't much worth discussing.
Rather than give some kind of credit to PG for anticipating NG, I wanted to point out how weird it is for the two of them to be agreeing. Gingrich is respectful of tradition and has a politician's instincts for rationalization and euphemism. Graham has said (along with everything else) that groups of people are inherently dumb and lazy, and is almost contemptuously truthful.
There's plenty of real intellectual content in there if you take the time to dig for it, and much of it is cool and subversive...
Sorry, Dan, but the strange loop generated by what I am submitting here is irresistible. Cheers:
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/12/the_guy.php
Thanks. That really threw me in a loop.
Or maybe Ivan Illich?
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h...
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h...
Gatto has a lot to say about this in UHoAE as well.
My own thinking is that it is impossible to end adolescence because American society is structured around competition, and competition depends on measurement. And because there's no good theory on what can verse can't be measured, it's too easy for the proponents of adolescence to put some numbers on what they're selling. And because these metrics make the benefits of adolescence seem more salient than the benefits of anything else, adolescence will always beat out every other option, short of some radical philosophical shift in society, which is beyond the scope of this movement.
My own thinking is that it is impossible to end adolescence because American society is structured around competition, and competition depends on measurement. And because there's no good theory on what can verse can't be measured, it's too easy for the proponents of adolescence to put some numbers on what they're selling. And because these metrics make the benefits of adolescence seem more salient than the benefits of anything else, adolescence will always beat out every other option, short of some radical philosophical shift in society, which is beyond the scope of this movement.
* Who are these proponents?
* What are the numbers? What are they selling?
* What benefits? What would "anything else" be?
* Is there anything to take home from that drawn-out paragraph?
Sounds like a bullshit theory to me.
* What are the numbers? What are they selling?
* What benefits? What would "anything else" be?
* Is there anything to take home from that drawn-out paragraph?
Sounds like a bullshit theory to me.
"Who are these proponents?"
Schools, colleges, associated faculty and staff, parents, politicians, employers, etc.
"What are the numbers? What are they selling?"
Degrees, GPA, US News rank, X vs educational attainment (e.g. future earnings potential), etc.
"What benefits?"
The story of school. That is, what it means to be well educated/qualified is having a degree, having gone to a good school, having gotten a good GPA, etc. The social currency these things bring is all tied up with the story of school, or its foundational myth, or whatever you want to call it. By going through the system you earn the right to invoke the story.
"What would "anything else" be?"
Anything else. As it stands the only way to renounce adolescence is to become sanyasi sankalpa, which isn't a very good option.
"Sounds like a bullshit theory to me."
Maybe it's a bullshit theory, maybe it's the most poignant observation about western civ ever made, but you're smart so figure it out for yourself, I'm not here to play Bodhisattva.
Schools, colleges, associated faculty and staff, parents, politicians, employers, etc.
"What are the numbers? What are they selling?"
Degrees, GPA, US News rank, X vs educational attainment (e.g. future earnings potential), etc.
"What benefits?"
The story of school. That is, what it means to be well educated/qualified is having a degree, having gone to a good school, having gotten a good GPA, etc. The social currency these things bring is all tied up with the story of school, or its foundational myth, or whatever you want to call it. By going through the system you earn the right to invoke the story.
"What would "anything else" be?"
Anything else. As it stands the only way to renounce adolescence is to become sanyasi sankalpa, which isn't a very good option.
"Sounds like a bullshit theory to me."
Maybe it's a bullshit theory, maybe it's the most poignant observation about western civ ever made, but you're smart so figure it out for yourself, I'm not here to play Bodhisattva.
OK, good details, now it doesn't sound like so much of a bullshit theory to me. You should have included these details in the first place, I think.
But that's how a debate or a discussion goes. You give a very general overview of your ideas, and you get more detailed after questions arise. That way discussions are more focused and lead themselves to perusal more readily.
yeah nice example...and how long did he stay in college?
I discarded this guy's argument once I read this paragraph:
And experiments such as the one my daughter, Jackie Cushman, is running in Atlanta—where poor children are paid the equivalent of working in a fast-food restaurant to study and do their homework—are examples of a more dynamic future.
How is being paid to study and do homework an example of early adulthood? One huge difference between adults and non-adults is adults tend to grab every opportunity to improve their skills, and understand that those don't come that often.
This article started with an interesting (if incendiary) premise, but then the author showed that he has poor logical skills. Perhaps he should go back to school himself.
In short, this article is a hodge-podge of potentially interesting half-ideas and downright nefarious illogical conclusions.
And experiments such as the one my daughter, Jackie Cushman, is running in Atlanta—where poor children are paid the equivalent of working in a fast-food restaurant to study and do their homework—are examples of a more dynamic future.
How is being paid to study and do homework an example of early adulthood? One huge difference between adults and non-adults is adults tend to grab every opportunity to improve their skills, and understand that those don't come that often.
This article started with an interesting (if incendiary) premise, but then the author showed that he has poor logical skills. Perhaps he should go back to school himself.
In short, this article is a hodge-podge of potentially interesting half-ideas and downright nefarious illogical conclusions.
You discarded all of it because you didn't like that one part? This type of behavior always annoys me. There are lots of interesting and important thoughts here. I agree that these ideas need to be closely examined and refined a great deal before being put into practice -- but I'm not just going to shout "FAIL" -- because while that may be gratifying to the ego, it is utterly counter-productive.
I decided that once you took away that key step of "having a clue what an adult is", the rest of the argument fell away like a puff of smoke in the wind. There may be interesting ideas in there, but they are too closely interweaved with dangerous mistakes and incendiary "political linkbaiting".
> One huge difference between adults and non-adults is adults tend to grab every opportunity to improve their skills, and understand that those don't come that often.
Not most of the adults I know. Nor most of the teenagers either, for that matter. Actually, I think "grab every opportunity to improve their skills" describes children under 10 more than any other age group.
Not most of the adults I know. Nor most of the teenagers either, for that matter. Actually, I think "grab every opportunity to improve their skills" describes children under 10 more than any other age group.
Educated people make for a better society. If that weren't the case, there'd be no point in giving out scholarships either.
"This guy" is Newt Gingrich, btw.
Being famous doesn't preclude being illogical.
No, but his authorship gives this article a fascinating context.
If Newt Gingrich says this, I have to wonder if it is because Republican think tanks have come to the conclusion that the allure of Democratic ideals are too irresistible for school/university inhabiting kids, and they must be converted to tax paying realists much earlier.
The reason republicans so frequently tout this line is because they fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of education. Newt and company believe that education is essentially career training, and as such cannot fathom why kids need to be learning things like calculus and biology.
The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals. Industry does not want to simply hire people who know exactly how to do the job. Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual, and they do this by hiring college grads.
Now certainly the value of a diploma as a measure of intellectual curiosity has gone down dramatically, but I believe this was the original reason.
The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals. Industry does not want to simply hire people who know exactly how to do the job. Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual, and they do this by hiring college grads.
Now certainly the value of a diploma as a measure of intellectual curiosity has gone down dramatically, but I believe this was the original reason.
and as such cannot fathom why kids need to be learning things like calculus and biology
I'm pretty sure that Gingrich who is a professor, and every other republican who has ever considered the question in any way, recognizes the use and purpose of calculus and biology. But don't let reason get in the way of your mindless contempt.
The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals
No, it isn't, unless you are talking about highly selective liberal arts colleges. And even then, the best you are going to get are 3rd generation photocopies of Susan Sontag.
Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual
No it doesn't. Period. Even the relatively "creative" jobs like software engineering want a fundamental skill set and raw intelligence, not the ability to quote Chomsky.
I'm pretty sure that Gingrich who is a professor, and every other republican who has ever considered the question in any way, recognizes the use and purpose of calculus and biology. But don't let reason get in the way of your mindless contempt.
The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals
No, it isn't, unless you are talking about highly selective liberal arts colleges. And even then, the best you are going to get are 3rd generation photocopies of Susan Sontag.
Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual
No it doesn't. Period. Even the relatively "creative" jobs like software engineering want a fundamental skill set and raw intelligence, not the ability to quote Chomsky.
No it doesn't. Period. Even the relatively "creative" jobs like software engineering want a fundamental skill set and raw intelligence, not the ability to quote Chomsky.
Right, but the people who have the ability to quote Chomsky may be able to transfer that skill and quote Knuth or Sedgewick instead.
Right, but the people who have the ability to quote Chomsky may be able to transfer that skill and quote Knuth or Sedgewick instead.
Which isn't a useful skill either. I want someone who can work like Knuth, not someone who can quote Knuth. Knuth didn't become Knuth by quoting people like Knuth.
If software engineering jobs want a skill set, then why are technical schools regarded as useless while highly theoretical schools are regarded as top tier?
If you're talking about the Ivy Leagues, it's because those schools are the most selective for people with high test scores and leadership experience.
The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals
No, it isn't, unless you are talking about highly selective liberal arts colleges. And even then, the best you are going to get are 3rd generation photocopies of Susan Sontag.
It would seem to me that that IS the purpose of education, especially a technical one. To me the definition of intellectual is a person who is always seeking to learn new things and better themselves educationally. In a field like engineering where things are constantly changing, the intellectually minded will be on the cutting edge and will be the ones you want to surround yourself with.
No, it isn't, unless you are talking about highly selective liberal arts colleges. And even then, the best you are going to get are 3rd generation photocopies of Susan Sontag.
It would seem to me that that IS the purpose of education, especially a technical one. To me the definition of intellectual is a person who is always seeking to learn new things and better themselves educationally. In a field like engineering where things are constantly changing, the intellectually minded will be on the cutting edge and will be the ones you want to surround yourself with.
I went to a cheep, public, liberal arts school. Granted I know Harvard accepts our English credits, but check out shepherd.edu to see a good education for a reasonable price.
PS: And yes the English department was insanely hard for a public school, but I still got a CS degree while taking 4 English classes, 2 history classes, art, music, horseback riding etc. They even force philosophy majors to take take a single collage level math class.
PS: And yes the English department was insanely hard for a public school, but I still got a CS degree while taking 4 English classes, 2 history classes, art, music, horseback riding etc. They even force philosophy majors to take take a single collage level math class.
English fail.
> The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals
Reminds me of something Seth Godin (?) once said - that the whole purpose of school is to institutionalize mediocrity
Reminds me of something Seth Godin (?) once said - that the whole purpose of school is to institutionalize mediocrity
Don't knock on intellectuals. There's something to be gained from the path they take. The fact that most people miss the path entirely doesn't change that. It's like saying that most programmers never make anything of worth: yes, it's true, but it doesn't make the entire career irrelevant.
That quote, however, is spot-on. Anything that doesn't focus on the best and brightest hurts the best and brightest in a way. And the fact that they survive despite this is a sign of those people ignoring the system rather than of the system's working. I wrote a lengthy post about this long long ago: can't find the link, apparently subjects delete themselves here?, but my point was that by making a system that was hostile to people like that, while ensuring it possible to live without the system, American school systems encourage people driven by ambition to become successes. It's why we have such a powerful entrepreneurial drive in the country.
I wish I could find the link, though, because I said it better back then.
EDIT: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=258239
That quote, however, is spot-on. Anything that doesn't focus on the best and brightest hurts the best and brightest in a way. And the fact that they survive despite this is a sign of those people ignoring the system rather than of the system's working. I wrote a lengthy post about this long long ago: can't find the link, apparently subjects delete themselves here?, but my point was that by making a system that was hostile to people like that, while ensuring it possible to live without the system, American school systems encourage people driven by ambition to become successes. It's why we have such a powerful entrepreneurial drive in the country.
I wish I could find the link, though, because I said it better back then.
EDIT: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=258239
Everyone says that. If anything is mediocre its this realization.
not the ability to quote Chomsky.
if you had a real education you would know that chomsky's initial ground-breaking work was in language structure, and his work is used widely in compsci texts on automaton theory
so you basically just got fucked by your own defense of ignorance
if you had a real education you would know that chomsky's initial ground-breaking work was in language structure, and his work is used widely in compsci texts on automaton theory
so you basically just got fucked by your own defense of ignorance
> Now certainly the value of a diploma as a measure of intellectual curiosity has gone down dramatically, but I believe this was the original reason.
I don't think this was ever true. You can read about the European universities centuries ago and even back then they were about getting the children of the rich to socialize and drink a lot. More recently Jefferson said his time at William & Mary was waste of time, mostly drinking and riding and such. In the same period teenagers like Franklin, John Paul Jones, and Thomas Paine self educated to high levels of sophistication while working full time. In the case of John Paul Jones he was a ship hand from age 13 on at sea for months at a time, for crying out loud.
I really think the institutions of higher education have historically boiled down to the library. Books were extremely expensive and it made sense to collect them in one place for common use.
To be usefully educated about anything now is a lifelong process. This idea that there's something special about four years of the much longer process is a bit silly.
I don't think this was ever true. You can read about the European universities centuries ago and even back then they were about getting the children of the rich to socialize and drink a lot. More recently Jefferson said his time at William & Mary was waste of time, mostly drinking and riding and such. In the same period teenagers like Franklin, John Paul Jones, and Thomas Paine self educated to high levels of sophistication while working full time. In the case of John Paul Jones he was a ship hand from age 13 on at sea for months at a time, for crying out loud.
I really think the institutions of higher education have historically boiled down to the library. Books were extremely expensive and it made sense to collect them in one place for common use.
To be usefully educated about anything now is a lifelong process. This idea that there's something special about four years of the much longer process is a bit silly.
This idea that there's something special about four years of the much longer process is a bit silly.
The idea is that a, colleges move to you places you'd never be (I have friends at NYU and Dublin who absolutely are getting more out of the locale than they are anything else), and b, because college is specifically made so that people can learn, you'll attract a purer blend of people, all of whom are interested in learning.
For the most part, that latter point is absolute bullshit. College has become so psychologically mandatory in the United States that people go to college whether or not they're truly interested in learning. And while I love the idea of liberal arts learning, and while hopefully if I stay I'll learn things I'd never thought to learn otherwise, the fact of the matter is that as colleges defocus themselves, there's less of an emphasis on really bright people who are going to blaze through early college to get to a meaningful level. In my classes, I'm learning to program in Processing and Scratch, for instance: one is a kid's language, for crying out loud, and for the other, I can't see the point of using Processing rather than Java. In my other classes, I'm learning to use Photoshop and Final Cut Pro, both programs that I have a good deal of familiarity with. It's an absolute waste, and my professors absolutely realize this, but they have no choice because other kids don't know a thing about programming, and the course that I'm in makes these classes absolutely mandatory.
As for the kids being enlightened and focused: don't get me started. At the time of this writing, one kid is in trouble because he brought tons of kids to his house and they threw up and now he's refusing to apologize to his parents because, as he puts it, "I'm in college. This should be expected behavior." Same kid told a real knee-slapper about stealing four thousand dollars while working at a Target. I mean, it makes for an amusing story, but it's despicable. And I'm in a pretty top-notch school, for what it's worth.
No, people who are really fascinated in learning nowadays tend to try and be practical about what they know: I'd bet that the brightest people of college age are doing things like trying to create start-ups, or at the very least trying to earn a living with the skills they've got.
The idea is that a, colleges move to you places you'd never be (I have friends at NYU and Dublin who absolutely are getting more out of the locale than they are anything else), and b, because college is specifically made so that people can learn, you'll attract a purer blend of people, all of whom are interested in learning.
For the most part, that latter point is absolute bullshit. College has become so psychologically mandatory in the United States that people go to college whether or not they're truly interested in learning. And while I love the idea of liberal arts learning, and while hopefully if I stay I'll learn things I'd never thought to learn otherwise, the fact of the matter is that as colleges defocus themselves, there's less of an emphasis on really bright people who are going to blaze through early college to get to a meaningful level. In my classes, I'm learning to program in Processing and Scratch, for instance: one is a kid's language, for crying out loud, and for the other, I can't see the point of using Processing rather than Java. In my other classes, I'm learning to use Photoshop and Final Cut Pro, both programs that I have a good deal of familiarity with. It's an absolute waste, and my professors absolutely realize this, but they have no choice because other kids don't know a thing about programming, and the course that I'm in makes these classes absolutely mandatory.
As for the kids being enlightened and focused: don't get me started. At the time of this writing, one kid is in trouble because he brought tons of kids to his house and they threw up and now he's refusing to apologize to his parents because, as he puts it, "I'm in college. This should be expected behavior." Same kid told a real knee-slapper about stealing four thousand dollars while working at a Target. I mean, it makes for an amusing story, but it's despicable. And I'm in a pretty top-notch school, for what it's worth.
No, people who are really fascinated in learning nowadays tend to try and be practical about what they know: I'd bet that the brightest people of college age are doing things like trying to create start-ups, or at the very least trying to earn a living with the skills they've got.
> the course that I'm in makes these classes absolutely mandatory.
You should try harder to get around this. I've never had a problem getting "mandatory" requirements waived.
If you don't manage to waive the classes, but are indeed hot shit, you should be able to crank out a semester's work in a day or two sometime early on. Professor might be more impressed/willing to waive when you turn in every problem, solved, on day one.
You should try harder to get around this. I've never had a problem getting "mandatory" requirements waived.
If you don't manage to waive the classes, but are indeed hot shit, you should be able to crank out a semester's work in a day or two sometime early on. Professor might be more impressed/willing to waive when you turn in every problem, solved, on day one.
This DH1 feels a bit too tight. Do you have anything in a DH4?
On further inspection, you will find that I am not even objecting to the argument, but merely wondering about the underlying motives. I do believe the argument to be a reasonable one.
they take away a quarter of my life (av age of death 75) holding me back and forcing me to learn for tests things that i dont want to know. i like volcanoes. i know how they work. i dont need to be tested on their intricities.
finally i get a chance at a college education and choose something that i hope better gels. if it doesnt its back to step one. if i succeed, im most likely stuck in a 9-6'er at a job that will eventually bore me, turning the cogs for the economy in the dream i am supposed to have.
the more money i make, the more things cost. meanwhile the politicians take summers off and long breaks, pay themselves handsomely and imagine that this is fair. they wonder why i am not happily churning out kids for them to support their economy and further wedge myself in their dream. i'll keep pissing about thanks.
finally i get a chance at a college education and choose something that i hope better gels. if it doesnt its back to step one. if i succeed, im most likely stuck in a 9-6'er at a job that will eventually bore me, turning the cogs for the economy in the dream i am supposed to have.
the more money i make, the more things cost. meanwhile the politicians take summers off and long breaks, pay themselves handsomely and imagine that this is fair. they wonder why i am not happily churning out kids for them to support their economy and further wedge myself in their dream. i'll keep pissing about thanks.
they take away a quarter of my life (av age of death 75) holding me back and forcing me to learn for tests things that i dont want to know.
then drop the fuck out! go work at ford. see you in twenty years.
then drop the fuck out! go work at ford. see you in twenty years.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are many things wrong with "kids these days," completely abolishing adolescence would... what's a good word here... suck! Look, I did my fair share of dumb stuff when I was younger, most of which was done in the name of boredom. But what's the alternative here? "Happy 13th birthday, son, now go get a job!"?
If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles. I adore the feelings of achievement that being an entrepreneur/adult have brought me, but at the same time I recognize the fact that "being a kid" wasn't as bad the article makes it out to be. I spent most of my time playing video games, hanging out with friends and, yes, doing drugs! OMG! But you know what, at the end of the day, it was still fun.
I think we as a society should do everything in our power to encourage young people to focus on school so that they don't get dragged down into the worlds of drug addiction, poverty, etc. However, the reason I had so much time to dick around during my adolescence/teenage years was mainly because school was far too easy and not engaging enough. The entire schooling system is not nearly as progressive as it needs to be. Furthermore, there are not nearly enough reasons to excel at it. Working hard in high school just means you can get into a good college where you have to work even harder (and, unless you really excel or are financially secure, take a long-term monetary hit for the privilege) and the reality is that where one attended college is rarely relevant today.
School should be designed to provide useful knowledge instead of information that is merely cataloged, regurgitated, and forgotten. It should encourage and enable young people to find something they are passionate about and learn relevant things about that and gain useful experience in the process. The only classes that I worked hard to excel in and go beyond the bare minimum were programming and writing courses. It should come as no surprise that these are the two topics I am most passionate about to this day.
If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles. I adore the feelings of achievement that being an entrepreneur/adult have brought me, but at the same time I recognize the fact that "being a kid" wasn't as bad the article makes it out to be. I spent most of my time playing video games, hanging out with friends and, yes, doing drugs! OMG! But you know what, at the end of the day, it was still fun.
I think we as a society should do everything in our power to encourage young people to focus on school so that they don't get dragged down into the worlds of drug addiction, poverty, etc. However, the reason I had so much time to dick around during my adolescence/teenage years was mainly because school was far too easy and not engaging enough. The entire schooling system is not nearly as progressive as it needs to be. Furthermore, there are not nearly enough reasons to excel at it. Working hard in high school just means you can get into a good college where you have to work even harder (and, unless you really excel or are financially secure, take a long-term monetary hit for the privilege) and the reality is that where one attended college is rarely relevant today.
School should be designed to provide useful knowledge instead of information that is merely cataloged, regurgitated, and forgotten. It should encourage and enable young people to find something they are passionate about and learn relevant things about that and gain useful experience in the process. The only classes that I worked hard to excel in and go beyond the bare minimum were programming and writing courses. It should come as no surprise that these are the two topics I am most passionate about to this day.
"But what's the alternative here? 'Happy 13th birthday, son, now go get a job!'?"
What's wrong with making 13 year-olds support themselves? Why do parents owe their children support? Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son who is bigger and stronger than she is so that he can have plenty of time to hang out with his friends, play video games, do sports, take drugs, etc.?
In my mind adolescence is like venture capital. It only makes sense to fund a person (and thereby to excuse self-funding) if the person being funded works hard during the funding period so as to generate a payoff.
Consider the numbers for a 13-year-old.
$7k education/year
$10k lost wages/year (assume the kid could get a job @$5/hr)
$7k parental support/year
= $24k /year
Seems to me there are better ways of spending $24k than to force a kid who doesn't want to to stay in school and jobless for a year.
What's wrong with making 13 year-olds support themselves? Why do parents owe their children support? Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son who is bigger and stronger than she is so that he can have plenty of time to hang out with his friends, play video games, do sports, take drugs, etc.?
In my mind adolescence is like venture capital. It only makes sense to fund a person (and thereby to excuse self-funding) if the person being funded works hard during the funding period so as to generate a payoff.
Consider the numbers for a 13-year-old.
$7k education/year
$10k lost wages/year (assume the kid could get a job @$5/hr)
$7k parental support/year
= $24k /year
Seems to me there are better ways of spending $24k than to force a kid who doesn't want to to stay in school and jobless for a year.
Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son...
Because she birthed him. Look, if a 13 year old kid wants to get a job, more power to them. However, if they don't, it's the parents' responsibility to provide for that child until they're an adult mainly because, at least in this society, kids aren't raised to be factory workers by 13.
You're looking at it from a perhaps pragmatic point of view, but you're missing the human factor; children aren't some investment you can liquidate if it doesn't work out. Having a child is a conscious decision to bring another human being into this world -- a human being who never actually asked to be brought. Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person (or find someone else who can) regardless of whether or not they provide a return on investment.
Because she birthed him. Look, if a 13 year old kid wants to get a job, more power to them. However, if they don't, it's the parents' responsibility to provide for that child until they're an adult mainly because, at least in this society, kids aren't raised to be factory workers by 13.
You're looking at it from a perhaps pragmatic point of view, but you're missing the human factor; children aren't some investment you can liquidate if it doesn't work out. Having a child is a conscious decision to bring another human being into this world -- a human being who never actually asked to be brought. Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person (or find someone else who can) regardless of whether or not they provide a return on investment.
"Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person"
Until when?
I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, but the post you are responding to isn't saying parents have no responsibilities to their children, only that a 13 year old could take on a whole lot more responsibility than is typical in our society.
So, maybe "get a job and take care of yourself" is too harsh, but is there some middle position?
Until when?
I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, but the post you are responding to isn't saying parents have no responsibilities to their children, only that a 13 year old could take on a whole lot more responsibility than is typical in our society.
So, maybe "get a job and take care of yourself" is too harsh, but is there some middle position?
If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles.
Or that they have nothing better to do?
Or that they have nothing better to do?
In fairness, there is never anything technically worse to do than make an impulse decision based on short-term gain at the expense of long-term destruction. There were always better things for me to be doing, it just so happened that I found none of them particularly engaging and enjoyable. The first and only conventional employment I ever had in no way engaged me nor did I gain any measure of joy from it.
Had I gotten a job at 15, I would likely be far worse off than I am now since my life would have been filled with more things I didn't like, leaving less time for me to learn what I did like and make mistakes trying, etc. I believe the fundamental problem here is that kids are basing their actions off of their peers, who are just as bored and unsatisfied and just as immature. Therefore, they end up making the same immature choices. If, instead, schools were improved, parents were more proactive and children were all extended the same opportunities someone like myself was, this wouldn't be an issue.
Of course that's never going to happen so the drug business is safe. Phew.
Had I gotten a job at 15, I would likely be far worse off than I am now since my life would have been filled with more things I didn't like, leaving less time for me to learn what I did like and make mistakes trying, etc. I believe the fundamental problem here is that kids are basing their actions off of their peers, who are just as bored and unsatisfied and just as immature. Therefore, they end up making the same immature choices. If, instead, schools were improved, parents were more proactive and children were all extended the same opportunities someone like myself was, this wouldn't be an issue.
Of course that's never going to happen so the drug business is safe. Phew.
Sex and drugs are not activities exclusive to adults (nor should they be). Kids DO have better things to do, and for them (as well as adults) it's usually sex/drugs/rock&roll that are the 'better things'.
Most kids get into sex and drugs because they're bored. I don't know a person that got into either for any reason but "There's nothing to do." I hear that from every single party-going person on my dorm floor when they go out. "I need to get drunk, because there's no other reason to be in college and there's nothing to do."
> Most kids get into sex and drugs because they're bored.
And here I was thinking that sex and drugs are loads of fun, regardless of whether you're bored or not.
And here I was thinking that sex and drugs are loads of fun, regardless of whether you're bored or not.
Both are true. When you're bored you get into dumber kinds of fun.
You nailed it.
I've smoked marijuana before. I've been drunk. I haven't had sex, because I'm into the idea of abstinence, but I'd done everything but. And absolutely those things are enjoyable.
The difference is that I don't rely on stuff like that. I write, I program, I design things, I read, I try to write music and shoot films. I don't feel the need to drink once a week, or to go out and randomly hook up. And that's because I have so many things I can do at any given moment.
If you don't have that stuff, you're forced to rely on sex and drugs. And those things are both easily abused.
I've smoked marijuana before. I've been drunk. I haven't had sex, because I'm into the idea of abstinence, but I'd done everything but. And absolutely those things are enjoyable.
The difference is that I don't rely on stuff like that. I write, I program, I design things, I read, I try to write music and shoot films. I don't feel the need to drink once a week, or to go out and randomly hook up. And that's because I have so many things I can do at any given moment.
If you don't have that stuff, you're forced to rely on sex and drugs. And those things are both easily abused.
Nuthin dumb about it done right.
Of course it is. Neither is a pleasure derived from your achieving anything whatsoever. It's an automatic pleasure. I'd compare it to the pleasure that you get from eating food, or from drinking soda. It's pleasurable entirely thanks to automatic changes in your body.
Therefore, it's "dumb" in that it requires no effort whatsoever on your part. And if you come to rely on that stuff for entertainment, then you're not gaining anything as you go. As opposed to its being used sparingly, in which case you're off doing more productive things.
Therefore, it's "dumb" in that it requires no effort whatsoever on your part. And if you come to rely on that stuff for entertainment, then you're not gaining anything as you go. As opposed to its being used sparingly, in which case you're off doing more productive things.
Early teenagers, in general, aren't ready for sex and drugs. Sex, even protected, can lead to pregnancy and disease... and let's not forget about the emotional problems casual sex can cause. Psychoactive drugs, although they can be beneficial for a lot of people, are dangerous, especially for a person whose brain is still developing. I don't know what would have happened if I tried pot or LSD at age 13, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a good thing.
That said, if the purpose of "adolescent" institutions such as high school and college is to prevent people from indulging in these things until they're ready, then they're a massive fail.
That said, if the purpose of "adolescent" institutions such as high school and college is to prevent people from indulging in these things until they're ready, then they're a massive fail.
If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything
it tells newt nothing, because stats actually run contrary to his assumption. drug use and teen pregnancy are not rising, they are falling
it tells newt nothing, because stats actually run contrary to his assumption. drug use and teen pregnancy are not rising, they are falling
I don't think adolescence is a social experiment. Its a part of our biology; some more so than others. The article is solid in regards to stating problems with our youth. Fixing our social and economic structures is a very tough process.
The article draws rapid conclusions from its anecdotes. The U.S.'s social problems can't be summed up or resolved by such simplistic ideology.
The article draws rapid conclusions from its anecdotes. The U.S.'s social problems can't be summed up or resolved by such simplistic ideology.
I feel like many of the top comments here don't address the main point of the article:
the US education system needs to be made more efficient.
Instead there are
-arguments about semantics
-Republican VS Democrat
Only lower down, in the less pointed-to comments, is there any meat.
the US education system needs to be made more efficient.
Instead there are
-arguments about semantics
-Republican VS Democrat
Only lower down, in the less pointed-to comments, is there any meat.
A long time ago I listened to "The Bell Curve" on tape. One of valuable ideas I got from the book was that we should strive to create a valuable place for everyone in society. Everyone, whether young or old, intelligent or not, should feel that they are contributing something of value. No one should feel that they have nothing to give and that society would be better off without them. Furthermore, we should encourage everyone to give their best to society. Thus, if the best effort a man with an IQ of 80 can do is sweep the streets, then we should give him job as a streetsweeper and not replace him with a robot.
To me, this idea, that everyone should have a valuable place is society, explains what's wrong with adolescence. We as a society do not allow adolescents (young adults) a valuable place in society; we should be encouraging them to do the most useful work they can do; instead we discourage them. Sure, there is encouragement for being a scholar and for excelling in sports, but only a few adults are gifted in those areas: those few who will later go on to be teachers, professors, writers, and professional sports players. The rest of them are forced to do work which they are not good at, which they don't value, and which society doesn't value. Is it any wonder they become bored and turn to other things?
A better system is described in an old book I recently re-read, "Farmer Boy" (http://www.amazon.com/Farmer-Little-House-Ingalls-Wilder/dp/...), not long ago which describes the life of a boy on a farm in New York in the 19th century. He was given as much work and responsibility on the farm as he could handle and he grew to the challenges. At school he learned to read and write and do arithmetic, and at home on the farm he learned to do useful work, negotiate, and spend wisely. When he was about ten or eleven, a wagon-maker offered to apprentice him. In return for several years of work, the boy would get room and board and training in the whole business of wagon-making with the likelihood that at the end of the period, he would buy the business which employed about 50 men. His father preferred that the boy become a farmer like he was, but he let the boy decide, saying to his mother, "We can keep him here on the farm by law til he's twenty-one, but he won't do any good if he's wanting to go."
Such a system worked very well in the past because it efficiently transitioned young people from a state of dependence on their parents to independence and it's accompanying responsibilities. A possible problem with that system is that it offered young people few opportunities beyond what was available to their parents. However, even then adults had a lot of opportunity to improve their situations by working harder at their jobs and by educating themselves. Today, there are many more opportunities. The job market is global: if you're not getting paid what you're worth, it's easier than any other time in history to find someone who will pay you more. Educational opportunities abound: books are relatively cheap, there are lots of libraries where you can read for cheap or for free, the Internet has lots of educational resources, and there are many institutions offering formal education. In addition, the number of work hours needed to survive is smaller than ever. So the argument that young adults need to be restrained from working and confined to public schools for several years because they won't have an opportunity to educate themselves later is unconvincing.
To me, this idea, that everyone should have a valuable place is society, explains what's wrong with adolescence. We as a society do not allow adolescents (young adults) a valuable place in society; we should be encouraging them to do the most useful work they can do; instead we discourage them. Sure, there is encouragement for being a scholar and for excelling in sports, but only a few adults are gifted in those areas: those few who will later go on to be teachers, professors, writers, and professional sports players. The rest of them are forced to do work which they are not good at, which they don't value, and which society doesn't value. Is it any wonder they become bored and turn to other things?
A better system is described in an old book I recently re-read, "Farmer Boy" (http://www.amazon.com/Farmer-Little-House-Ingalls-Wilder/dp/...), not long ago which describes the life of a boy on a farm in New York in the 19th century. He was given as much work and responsibility on the farm as he could handle and he grew to the challenges. At school he learned to read and write and do arithmetic, and at home on the farm he learned to do useful work, negotiate, and spend wisely. When he was about ten or eleven, a wagon-maker offered to apprentice him. In return for several years of work, the boy would get room and board and training in the whole business of wagon-making with the likelihood that at the end of the period, he would buy the business which employed about 50 men. His father preferred that the boy become a farmer like he was, but he let the boy decide, saying to his mother, "We can keep him here on the farm by law til he's twenty-one, but he won't do any good if he's wanting to go."
Such a system worked very well in the past because it efficiently transitioned young people from a state of dependence on their parents to independence and it's accompanying responsibilities. A possible problem with that system is that it offered young people few opportunities beyond what was available to their parents. However, even then adults had a lot of opportunity to improve their situations by working harder at their jobs and by educating themselves. Today, there are many more opportunities. The job market is global: if you're not getting paid what you're worth, it's easier than any other time in history to find someone who will pay you more. Educational opportunities abound: books are relatively cheap, there are lots of libraries where you can read for cheap or for free, the Internet has lots of educational resources, and there are many institutions offering formal education. In addition, the number of work hours needed to survive is smaller than ever. So the argument that young adults need to be restrained from working and confined to public schools for several years because they won't have an opportunity to educate themselves later is unconvincing.
>Thus, if the best effort a man with an IQ of 80 can do is sweep the streets, then we should give him job as a streetsweeper and not replace him with a robot.
--
Assuming we _could_ replace them with a robot, this would seem to imply that the person is truly without use but that we are providina a made-up task in order to make this person feel 'useful'. They might as well be tieing and untieing knots on a piece of string, leading an existence depending on the generosity of others. I am not sure if there is a better definition for 'society would be better off without them', even if this is hidden from them. I am all for finding useful tasks a human of IQ 80 (whatever that means) can accomplish, but withholding progress and providing a fraudulent sense of accomplishment does not strike me as the most respectful approach one can take towards solving this problem.
Assuming we _could_ replace them with a robot, this would seem to imply that the person is truly without use but that we are providina a made-up task in order to make this person feel 'useful'. They might as well be tieing and untieing knots on a piece of string, leading an existence depending on the generosity of others. I am not sure if there is a better definition for 'society would be better off without them', even if this is hidden from them. I am all for finding useful tasks a human of IQ 80 (whatever that means) can accomplish, but withholding progress and providing a fraudulent sense of accomplishment does not strike me as the most respectful approach one can take towards solving this problem.
Everyone, whether young or old, intelligent or not, should feel that they are contributing something of value
If the average person is not contributing at least the economic value they are consuming, your society is in a death spiral, and it doesn't matter how anyone "feels".
If the average person is not contributing at least the economic value they are consuming, your society is in a death spiral, and it doesn't matter how anyone "feels".
You're right about the economic value. I think that the best way to make someone feel valuable is to pay him for his services. A donation made out of pity does not evoke the same feeling of self-respect and usefulness in the recipient. It is also preferable that the payment should be made freely. I think affirmative action is debasing in this sense. If a black-old-female-gay-or-otherwise-disadvantaged person for instance suspects that the only reason he has his job is because the law required his employer to fill a quota, he won't feel as valuable as when he knows that his employer was under no coercion to hire him, but hired him simply because the employer thought him worth it.
So I think "feeling" captures the idea of economic value, and it captures the idea of an individual's happiness which is also important when discussing public policy.
Economic law always functions of course. Even under an affirmative-action quota system, a person is only hired if it makes economic sense as a whole to the employer. However, the employee may not feel as valuable.
With respect to topic, I think much of the angst felt by adolescents comes from them feeling not useful. Allowing them to be useful, i.e., to get a job and support themselves, would help them feel useful.
So I think "feeling" captures the idea of economic value, and it captures the idea of an individual's happiness which is also important when discussing public policy.
Economic law always functions of course. Even under an affirmative-action quota system, a person is only hired if it makes economic sense as a whole to the employer. However, the employee may not feel as valuable.
With respect to topic, I think much of the angst felt by adolescents comes from them feeling not useful. Allowing them to be useful, i.e., to get a job and support themselves, would help them feel useful.
But what does "having a valuable place in society" have to do with not contributing economic value? I don't quite understand you.
If someone's work is worth 100 units/time period but society spends 200 u/t to make them feel good about themselves, then that's a net loss. And this isn't just an academic point; a society that eats itself from inside like this can't last and will be replaced by something considerably less warm and fluffy.
You're assuming that by providing a "place in society" society is indeed trying to pull the wool over citizens' eyes. I think it's possible for a society to legitimately find good places for everybody to work without it being haberdashery. Just automate all of the pointless, frivolous tasks, and find more meaningful jobs for everybody.
The post I was replying to made the point that unskilled jobs should not be automated, but given to the "less able" to make them feel good about themselves.
I would love to live in a society in which teenagers and young adults spent more time apprenticing and less time in formal schools. But in the current economy, I wonder how practical it is. Even if the apprentice works for free, training the apprentice is a cost borne by the master. Masters have to risk seeing their apprentices go off and work for someone else (or, heck, work in a totally different field) and apprentices have to risk discovering that they were kept so busy with menial work that they didn't actually learn anything.
The Bell Curve is incredibly controversial. I recommend reading some criticism of the book. Here's a good start: http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html
That's a terrible start. I don't think that "William J. Matthews, Ph.D." got beyond the introduction. The statement that "Herrnstein and Murray's assessment of race and class differences...rest on 4 very questionable premises which they simply do not discuss much less defend [which are then listed]" is simply false. The book goes into massive detail on each. Matthews is not simply mistaken, he has flat-out lied.
Well, perhaps that review is a good introduction to the criticism of The Bell Curve after all.
Well, perhaps that review is a good introduction to the criticism of The Bell Curve after all.
In any case, you should google Bell Curve plus controversy. I'm not sure it's a book that is generally seen as "good science," so much as "popular and possibly misleading science."
we've traded focus & specialization for broad generalized learning in the hopes of producing 'well rounded' individuals (at least officially). While great in theory, in practice it fattens the coffers of our nation's largest (private) universities & secondary education systems.
i.e. apprenticeship v. general education
fact: public universities will increase tuition when the number of students graduating with degrees in <4 years increases.
i.e. apprenticeship v. general education
fact: public universities will increase tuition when the number of students graduating with degrees in <4 years increases.
Why stop there - let's remove individuality altogether. With a proper mix of drugs, children could absorb the lessons at school at a much faster rate, and could take the role they are destined for with near 100% accuracy. Unwanted and misleading desires could be done away with. Imagine the benefits for society if kids were 100% docile and controllable.</irony>
Yeah. Because school is ABSOLUTELY a good way to promote individuality and unique thinking. Because most teachers DON'T push for students to adapt to a single way of thinking because it makes them easy to manage. Because students DON'T judge students for individuality, creating a lopsided social ladder that lasts easily into college. </unnecessary tag>
But they are not good enough, they did not succeed in quelling adolescent behavior.
I don't think that the adolescent phase is one of individuality. Quite the opposite. And while I don't completely agree with this article, I do think that a system that treats adolescents like adults would be an improvement.
Not one that makes them work and leave school, mind you. Just one that respects them aging. A part of me feels that if we let teachers swear in front of students, let them act like people than act completely neutral, and start teaching them about how to solve their own problems, we'd find that a lot of the problems in modern society would just vanish.
Every instance in my life that I've felt like rebelling against a system was an instance in my life when I was treated like an adolescent per se. And that happened very rarely: I was lucky enough to have teachers that usually took the time to treat me like an adult. Whenever I see a student in college getting violently drunk and acting like an ass, I would place money on that person originating by acting against some authority figure. (Indeed, I have friends whose families let them drink, and none of those kids are alcoholic whatsoever. I wouldn't call it a formal study, but I think trends say that kids get into stuff like that when they associate that with being grown up.)
Not one that makes them work and leave school, mind you. Just one that respects them aging. A part of me feels that if we let teachers swear in front of students, let them act like people than act completely neutral, and start teaching them about how to solve their own problems, we'd find that a lot of the problems in modern society would just vanish.
Every instance in my life that I've felt like rebelling against a system was an instance in my life when I was treated like an adolescent per se. And that happened very rarely: I was lucky enough to have teachers that usually took the time to treat me like an adult. Whenever I see a student in college getting violently drunk and acting like an ass, I would place money on that person originating by acting against some authority figure. (Indeed, I have friends whose families let them drink, and none of those kids are alcoholic whatsoever. I wouldn't call it a formal study, but I think trends say that kids get into stuff like that when they associate that with being grown up.)
Adolescent behavior is a pretty trivial threat to the status quo. Most of the lashing out is justified by their acceptance of the idea that they'll have to be working stiffs later.
That seems backwards. Adolescence is more about fitting in and doing what other people are doing (including adopting the "I'm an individual" battlecry) than it is about individuality.
I agree with Newt Gingrich's assessment of the problem. However, I don't like this solution, particularly within the context of http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_col... (warning, very long article) and http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=203...
Gingrich is right in that the institution is a failure. However, his proposed solutions merely reinforces those institution. A big part of the problem comes from the shift in meaning of the words "teachers", "students", "homework", "responsibility", etc. As the author from the Wharton article says:
"Consider this one example from my recent experience. I attended a conference of school counselors, where the latest ideas in the realm of student counseling were being presented. I went to a session on the development of self-discipline and responsibility, wondering what these concepts mean to people embedded in traditional schooling. To me, self-discipline means the ability to pursue one's goals without outside coercion; responsibility means taking appropriate action on one's own initiative, without being goaded by others. To the people presenting the session, both concepts had to do solely with the child's ability to do his or her assigned class work. They explained that a guidance counselor's proper function was to get students to understand that responsible behavior meant doing their homework in a timely and effective manner, as prescribed, and self-discipline meant the determination to get that homework done. George Orwell was winking in the back of the room."
I just thought of an alternative solution, one that does not necessarily require a lot of political clout. The solution is something parents can implement directly without having to lobby for legislation. Simply, the parents has their kids pass their GED by the time they are 13. They may be required by different laws to also pass the different standardization tests, but depending on the circumstances, studying for the material in the GED should be enough. This can probably be done over the age normally reserved for middle school.
A 13-year-old with a high school diploma (via GED) has a lot more social clout within the adult world than a middle-school kid. He may not be legally able to vote, or drive, or smoke, or drink, and he'd get in trouble with underage-sex laws. However, he would not be considered a high-school dropout.
The options open up from there. The parents probably should choose an apprenticeship, whether that be something as humble as a janitor, or something more aspiring such as a researcher, a programmer, an entreprenuer, a soldier, a fireman, etc. A more traditional college track would still available.
Gingrich is right in that the institution is a failure. However, his proposed solutions merely reinforces those institution. A big part of the problem comes from the shift in meaning of the words "teachers", "students", "homework", "responsibility", etc. As the author from the Wharton article says:
"Consider this one example from my recent experience. I attended a conference of school counselors, where the latest ideas in the realm of student counseling were being presented. I went to a session on the development of self-discipline and responsibility, wondering what these concepts mean to people embedded in traditional schooling. To me, self-discipline means the ability to pursue one's goals without outside coercion; responsibility means taking appropriate action on one's own initiative, without being goaded by others. To the people presenting the session, both concepts had to do solely with the child's ability to do his or her assigned class work. They explained that a guidance counselor's proper function was to get students to understand that responsible behavior meant doing their homework in a timely and effective manner, as prescribed, and self-discipline meant the determination to get that homework done. George Orwell was winking in the back of the room."
I just thought of an alternative solution, one that does not necessarily require a lot of political clout. The solution is something parents can implement directly without having to lobby for legislation. Simply, the parents has their kids pass their GED by the time they are 13. They may be required by different laws to also pass the different standardization tests, but depending on the circumstances, studying for the material in the GED should be enough. This can probably be done over the age normally reserved for middle school.
A 13-year-old with a high school diploma (via GED) has a lot more social clout within the adult world than a middle-school kid. He may not be legally able to vote, or drive, or smoke, or drink, and he'd get in trouble with underage-sex laws. However, he would not be considered a high-school dropout.
The options open up from there. The parents probably should choose an apprenticeship, whether that be something as humble as a janitor, or something more aspiring such as a researcher, a programmer, an entreprenuer, a soldier, a fireman, etc. A more traditional college track would still available.
If the child has gone through all the effort of completing high school at 13, why - under your model - is the parent deciding what he/she should do after that? Shouldn't the child determine which area of study they would like to pursue?
If the 13-year-old already has his heart set on something, I'm not going to stop him. But I suspect, at least with the first generation, they're going to screw around ... just like the first two or three years of college. Chances are good that if the area of study isn't something he wants to work with, he'll figure it out fast and get on with working on something else.
I would think that screwing around for a few years is exactly what you would want a 13 year old to do.
Like you said, better finding your passions at 16 then at 22. Finding your passions though is an essential part of life and shouldn't be taken as "screwing around".
Like you said, better finding your passions at 16 then at 22. Finding your passions though is an essential part of life and shouldn't be taken as "screwing around".
I think I didn't write the apprenticeship part very well.
Choosing an apprenticeship for the 13-year-old is meant to give them a nudge. It doesn't matter if they pick it up or rebel against it. What matters is getting out of the home to see the world. Travelling around the world (without family) accomplishes the same thing.
Staying within the comfort of the home is screwing around ... even if it is "exploring" your passions. That's just extending childhood. So what I should have said is that after getting the GED (or equivalent) parents push them out of the nest, whether that results from choosing an apprenticeship for them, or having them travel around the country, or having them take college courses at college campus. That is what the old rites of passages (and the hero myths that go with it) accomplish: force the adolescent out of childhood, just as being born means going from the comfort of the womb to the bright, cold world. And of course, there are some who already know what they want and will already have plans in motion.
There is an obstacle with this idea is that many jurisdictions require you to be 16 to take it. Yet I remember hearing of college prodigies earning their degrees before that. It makes me think there is a way to hack it.
Choosing an apprenticeship for the 13-year-old is meant to give them a nudge. It doesn't matter if they pick it up or rebel against it. What matters is getting out of the home to see the world. Travelling around the world (without family) accomplishes the same thing.
Staying within the comfort of the home is screwing around ... even if it is "exploring" your passions. That's just extending childhood. So what I should have said is that after getting the GED (or equivalent) parents push them out of the nest, whether that results from choosing an apprenticeship for them, or having them travel around the country, or having them take college courses at college campus. That is what the old rites of passages (and the hero myths that go with it) accomplish: force the adolescent out of childhood, just as being born means going from the comfort of the womb to the bright, cold world. And of course, there are some who already know what they want and will already have plans in motion.
There is an obstacle with this idea is that many jurisdictions require you to be 16 to take it. Yet I remember hearing of college prodigies earning their degrees before that. It makes me think there is a way to hack it.
[deleted]
I think the problem comes from a certain form of parental neglect. I'm only 22 and have no children, but it seems to me like given our greater disposable incomes, a lot of parents think it is easier to raise kids by throwing money at their development rather than time.
You can't raise children on the macro-scale. You raise them at the micro-levels.
You can't raise children on the macro-scale. You raise them at the micro-levels.
It's all about responsibility. The guy/girl who has been working and starting companies is bound to be more responsible and accountable than their peers who are busy getting laid and partying. I totally agree that making adolescents more accountable would bring out the best in people and reduce social problems in that age group.
I wasn't aware entrepreneurs don't get laid. ;P
"... Polling and focus groups, including participation as a permanent member of an ongoing polling project ..."
So is this a Sub for these companies to target & market stuff? ~ http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/our_members
So is this a Sub for these companies to target & market stuff? ~ http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/our_members
I'll speak for myself and say that I spent my teenage years sure that I could do so much more. Some of my best years were wasted listening to other teenagers tell me teir bad drinking stories. Boooo
I think if going to school will be money-making profession, it will encourage corruption in the system of education.
So profit causes corruption?
It does if profit becomes a primary rather than a secondary motive. If you teach students "Learn to make things that people want," that would be fine. If you teach "Make money" and leave it at that, things would corrupt.
Similarly, anything that's left open to profit will corrupt. Look at the difference between Fox News and PBS. In some cases, not having to worry about money lets you be uncompromising in your delivery. I think schools would work the same way.
Similarly, anything that's left open to profit will corrupt. Look at the difference between Fox News and PBS. In some cases, not having to worry about money lets you be uncompromising in your delivery. I think schools would work the same way.
Let's End Politics Stories on Hacker News.
While I generally agree, this is the sort of political article that is worth discussing in this forum.
I think it's got to be all or nothing, and I would vastly prefer nothing.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
but in this case, replace 'hell' with 'serfdom.'
but in this case, replace 'hell' with 'serfdom.'
[deleted]
Given the author's political leanings, I couldn't help wondering if this was a veiled argument for bringing back child labor. :-)
Is Newt happy to lower the age of consent to 12?
So-called "adolescence" has three stages: middle and high school, college, and the "failure to launch" years between 22 and 28-35, when traditionally adult accomplishments and responsibilities (homeownership, responsibly having kids, career and financial independence) are essentially out of reach for all but the very wealthy.
The first two stages are an unnecessary waste for most people, since they end up going through a lot more schooling than is useful for them, and could be abolished. For the third stage, I really don't see an easy fix, because we're talking about an extremely deep social problem. Closing the high schools and the mediocre colleges is only going to dump people into the "failure to launch" period early and prolong it, possibly to an even later age than now.
The first two stages are an unnecessary waste for most people, since they end up going through a lot more schooling than is useful for them, and could be abolished. For the third stage, I really don't see an easy fix, because we're talking about an extremely deep social problem. Closing the high schools and the mediocre colleges is only going to dump people into the "failure to launch" period early and prolong it, possibly to an even later age than now.
pure claptrap. if newt was less career-minded like he is proposing, he could have taken a history class and looked at mortality rates in the eighteenth century to realize why benjamin franklin was working at 13.
oh and aren't these alvin-tofler-acolytes the ones telling us we will change careers three times? that flexibility requires intellectual flexibility...you aren't going to have that if you mainline people into one job at 13. so what is it newt?
and his "stats" on rising teen pregnancy, drug use, stds??? not only bogus but 100% wrong.
newt is just a gruff dick who never smoked a bowl in college, never got a drunk grope from a gorgeous girl way out of his league, never woke up on the front lawn of the dorm still half wasted...and he wants to make sure you never have fun too! college was the time of my life! i got a degree and learned a lot...but also had more FUN with booze and women than i did before or since? WHY IS THIS TO BE AVOIDED????
oh and aren't these alvin-tofler-acolytes the ones telling us we will change careers three times? that flexibility requires intellectual flexibility...you aren't going to have that if you mainline people into one job at 13. so what is it newt?
and his "stats" on rising teen pregnancy, drug use, stds??? not only bogus but 100% wrong.
newt is just a gruff dick who never smoked a bowl in college, never got a drunk grope from a gorgeous girl way out of his league, never woke up on the front lawn of the dorm still half wasted...and he wants to make sure you never have fun too! college was the time of my life! i got a degree and learned a lot...but also had more FUN with booze and women than i did before or since? WHY IS THIS TO BE AVOIDED????
Why should working people be forced to finance this?
Well Written... I find myself in complete agreement.
Necessity is the mother of all virtues. People responsabilise when there is a need for it, especially when there is no other choice. Should the economic crisis worsen and make our life tougher, you'll see a lot of young people do whatever it takes to support their family and take a more serious stance on life and politics.
Some people are afraid that young people cannot responsabilise because of their education. I would argue that the same people underestimate (1) the potential of the young people, wich fuels the problem, and (2) underestimate the greatest educator of all : necessity.