The Brainy Bunch book - College by 12 family

[nature girl]

I haven't read the book, but it seems the parents are looking at education solely as a means to getting a job. What about the value of learning for learning's sake? Developing world views, reading good literature, appreciating beauty, real learning about the way the world works in ways that help develop wisdom? It's great if they really did nurture their children's interests, but with such an emphasis on acceleration, did their kids have a normal and well-rounded and fun childhood? There's so much more that should be developed in the pre-college years than academic skills.
 

[Jenny in Florida]

I haven't read the book, but it seems the parents are looking at education solely as a means to getting a job. What about the value of learning for learning's sake? Developing world views, reading good literature, appreciating beauty, real learning about the way the world works in ways that help develop wisdom? It's great if they really did nurture their children's interests, but with such an emphasis on acceleration, did their kids have a normal and well-rounded and fun childhood? There's so much more that should be developed in the pre-college years than academic skills.

 

 

As I have said, I'm not a big fan of the book or this family's approach to education, but I actually don't think these criticisms are valid. The Hardings do kind of a modified unschooling thing, with assigned math and writing, but mostly a lot of reading. The kids all mention that they liked homeschooling because it gave them so much free time, and the family is very close. 

 

As I recall, the Swann family was much more methodical. They used a packaged curriculum, schooled year round and did more than one lesson per day in order to push their kids through a certain body of material more quickly than usual. But the Hardings just skip stuff to move ahead. They just kind of start giving the kids high school- and college-level material early, one subject at a time, as soon as it looks like that child can handle it. And, because they customize to allow each child to emphasize his or her personal interests, the kids think it's fun.

 

And I have to say that, for really highly gifted kids (which the Hardings say repeatedly their kids are not), academic acceleration is fun. There's plenty of research showing that most kids who pursue radical acceleration and early college do really well by pretty much every measure. Since exceptionally and profoundly gifted kids tend to also be more emotionally and socially mature than their age peers, they are happiest and most comfortable with older people, anyway. (Sorry, I know that blows away a cherished stereotype of genius kids as obnoxious and awkward. I kind of suspect it's one of those caricatures that developed to make other people feel better, you know, like how all pretty women have to be stupid in order to "balance things out?")

 

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10349.aspx

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/acceleration.htm

 

http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/funding_areas/10112_Final_Rpt_Bibliography.pdf

 

A few years ago, some researchers released a book about a study they had done that followed a cohort of young women who participated in early college programs for about a decade after graduation (including a few students from the program in which my daughter participated). I can't remember the name now, unfortunately, but their findings were really very positive. Even 10 years after graduation, the women were happy and thriving at least as well as (and in many cases better than) their typically aged peers.

 

With all of that said, again, it looks to me as though the Hardings are taking a different approach with different motivations in mind. Even so, I certainly don't get the impression that their children are being deprived of their childhoods or are missing out on any developmentally appropriate experiences.

[LucyStoner]

Here's the thing though. There is a big difference between what people like JennyinFL's family are doing and what it appears families like this one doing. A whole bunch of CLEPs and open admit pay to play college classes do not a college education make. It seems more piece of paper/what mom and dad tell you to do for this family. Legit early admit programs are highly competitive and have special cohorts and dorms for very young students to address some of the social issues.

 

My son is bright enough but is not, and won't be, socially savvy enough for live away early college. That said, he's also won't be well served by by high school level work under his mid to late teens. He will probably start at a local college, and live at home, when he is about 14. Grad school, should he choose that (which seems highly likely), will then be more of his college/on campus experience. One college here even has a cohort for kids with autism, which I hope more schools add that between now and the time he will start.

[SarahW]

So, hmmmm, I've expressed my thoughts on accelerating over high school in one of the Swan threads, but this made me think of something else.

 

With the recent discussion of Less is More I've been thinking about the efficiency of various curriculums. Texts designed for classroom use cover topics A - Z in varying degrees of depth, and at the lower levels could leave out G, P, and T as well (so to speak). They are designed to not presume pre-req knowledge, or what the student will study in the future, just to cover the "appropriate level" of that subject for one year.

 

For example, compare AAS to any of the classroom-based spelling programs. AAS goes from A - Z, with just a bit of review along the way. Classroom texts begin with covering short vowels and long vowels for a couple lessons, in every single grade. Now, some homeschooled students may shine with that sort of spiral for spelling. But it is basically quite inefficient to take such an approach if you and only you are the one deciding upon the yearly progression.

 

Math and a few other subjects, such as science and foreign language, are different in that one must go from A - Z, and the amount of review needed can vary. (Though even here I see people who do a beginning Latin program, then another Latin program from A, then another...it seems like a recipe for frustration and burnout).

 

It seems that what this family is doing is eschewing the "on grade-level yearly progression of topic x" to a "mastery-only all the time for everything" approach. Yes? Okay, I do find that interesting. I do worry about mental readiness for abstract concepts, I mean, I've taught my kid that a noun can be an idea, but he only kinda understands it (so I see why many yearly curriculums leave that topic for 5th or 6th grade) but eventually it'll click, and that may be long before or after any particular date on the calendar when he "should" get it. So I bring it up, then just leave that ball in his court, so to speak.

 

The WTM 3x4 cycle seems to hint at this method, though this family seems to radicalize it and leave the rhetoric stage for a college classroom. I'm not sure about that part of it, but the philosophy of it interests me.

[maize]

Here's the thing though. There is a big difference between what people like JennyinFL's family are doing and what it appears families like this one doing. A whole bunch of CLEPs and open admit pay to play college classes do not a college education make. It seems more piece of paper/what mom and dad tell you to do for this family. Legit early admit programs are highly competitive and have special cohorts and dorms for very young students to address some of the social issues.

 

My son is bright enough but is not, and won't be, socially savvy enough for live away early college. That said, he's also won't be well served by by high school level work under his mid to late teens. He will probably start at a local college, and live at home, when he is about 14. Grad school, should he choose that (which seems highly likely), will then be more of his college/on campus experience. One college here even has a cohort for kids with autism, which I hope more schools add that between now and the time he will start.

 

But this family is not doing a bunch of CLEP or open admit college. The kids take classes on campus at reputable schools, not top tier but not bottom either. The kids have degrees in progress or completed from Auburn University, Cal State Hayward, Tuskegee University, California College of the Arts, Huntingdon College, Troy University, and Faulkner University. Not elite institutions but reputable schools, the kids are getting degrees that can lead to graduate school and employment. The kids mostly follow a path similar to what you are envisioning for your son--attending a local school why living at home for an undergraduate degree. They just start taking classes a couple of years earlier.

 

Yes it is unusual that all of their kids are following an early college path, and there are probably not many families that would choose the same. I personally know families follow, as a family, an unusual and intense path--music families who travel the country performing, sports families where all the kids are on travel teams and that is just the family's life. I don't see this as being very different, only the family path is early college; it's something they are all in together, and it works for them. 

 

The fact that they recommend a similar path to others also doesn't bother me, people who are intensely involved and passionate about something often promote it. I can read their book and think they have chosen an unusual and interesting path that works for them without also feeling that I need to emulate them. My family and I are working out our own unique educational path and figuring things out as we go along.

 

Is there an opportunity cost for their kids? Of course there is. There is always an opportunity cost, not matter what choices we make. They have decided that the benefits outweigh the costs for their family. Another family may do the analysis and come out with a different answer. 

[maize]

Here's a brief introduction to the kids:

 

http://www.thebrainybunchbook.com/meet-the-harding-family/

[LucyStoner]

Coaching your children to eek out passable scores for not difficult to gain entrance colleges is not the same as meeting the needs of children, who without much, if any, test prep, get high test scores and whose educational needs vastly diverge from their same age peers. My son is heading towards early college because that is the level he is at, not because I pushed him. One of the only things keeping him from doing college classes even earlier is he wants to preserve his spelling bee eligibility, lol.

 

I don't have an issue with this family but I'm also not really impressed either. I don't think pouring my kids into the same mold is something I would find beneficial. My sons are very different and I have a hard time thinking that this is what all 12 of these kids would have wanted if not put on a path towards it.

[stripe]

I started reading this book and it all seemed so familiar to me -- I'm sure I remember talking about Huntingdon College on here once. 

(ETA: Found it http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/474390-family-of-10-starts-college-at-age-12/ )

 

I didn't realize it was going to be so religious and include stuff about being "quiverful" and child training a la the Perls.

[maize]

Coaching your children to eek out passable scores for not difficult to gain entrance colleges is not the same as meeting the needs of children, who without much, if any, test prep, get high test scores and whose educational needs vastly diverge from their same age peers. My son is heading towards early college because that is the level he is at, not because I pushed him. One of the only things keeping him from doing college classes even earlier is he wants to preserve his spelling bee eligibility, lol.

 

I don't have an issue with this family but I'm also not really impressed either. I don't think pouring my kids into the same mold is something I would find beneficial. My sons are very different and I have a hard time thinking that this is what all 12 of these kids would have wanted if not put on a path towards it.

 

 

I agree it is not the same.

 

Having all the kids on the same path...I dunno. To some extent all children have paths laid out for them by their circumstances and families. I'm sure not all of the millions of children passing through the public school system in graded levels would choose that path for themselves. At least the parents of this family do seem to put a lot of effort into supporting their children's individual interests.

 

I don't know that I find them exceptionally impressive but I do think their path is interesting and they have invested more than average into their children.

[maize]

 

 

I didn't realize it was going to be so religious and include stuff about being "quiverful" and child training a la the Perls.

 

I must have just skimmed over those parts.

[idnib]

The people I know IRL who are advocates of early college do not have accelerated kids. They have a general belief that today's children are infantilized   and capable of doing more that we give them credit for. It's a general philosophy, not something specific to meeting academic needs.

[maize]

I faced harder academic challenges in both middle school and high school than I ever did in college (partly due to multiple moves and school in a foreign language, then coming from a non-IB school into the final two years of a rigorous IB program). I had some challenging classes in college, but never so many at once. I think I could have handled two or three college classes at a time just fine in middle school and more in high school.

 

Doesn't mean I would have learned more or been happier or more successful in life. I do wonder though seeing the level of challenge being offered at local schools if many kids are not working far below their real potential.

[stripe]

I must have just skimmed over those parts.

I haven't finished it. There were plenty of religious references I saw at first glance, and Bible quotes throughout, but the first part of the book I looked at was recommended resources. They recommend quiverful stuff and Perls, and then I saw at least two other discussions of having a large family/not using birth control/wanting more kids/quiverful/NFP vs quiverful in the section I read. Wasn't expecting that. I suspect there's more in there than that.

[maize]

I haven't finished it. There were plenty of religious references I saw at first glance, and Bible quotes throughout, but the first part of the book I looked at was recommended resources. They recommend quiverful stuff and Perls, and then I saw at least two other discussions of having a large family/not using birth control/wanting more kids/quiverful/NFP vs quiverful in the section I read. Wasn't expecting that. I suspect there's more in there than that.

Interesting. I remember there being religious references, but I do tend to just skim over whatever is not of interest to me. They are clearly not of the "eschew college education and keep your daughters at home" persuasion.

[stripe]

They are clearly not of the "eschew college education and keep your daughters at home" persuasion.

No, definitely not; one daughter is in the Navy.

[birchbark]

Birchbark,

 

I'm curious about experiences the kids had outside of academics.  Did they play instruments or sports? Were they involved in volunteer work or jobs?  Did the family travel or have shared experiences outside of academics? And did they have any kids that chafed at the academic pushing?

 

Lisa

 

The Harding's take on extracurriculars is interesting. They stated that they do not allow their children to pursue extracurricular activities that are not at the collegiate level. So no homeschool choirs or children's theater. They feel it is important that others see their kids as college students. The girls were quite active in college soccer. Their son was in band and choir. I'm assuming he took lessons before he got to college though.

 

They did say that they were involved as a family in some service-oriented projects and that they regularly carved out time to spend together. I really don't remember much talk of jobs for the kids before they got their degrees. It sounds like they put all their time and energy toward education. At one point the mom related how she had her son increase the number of courses he was taking because she felt he had "way too much free time." He was 13 at the time.

 

I can't remember anything about the kids chafing. They really focus each child's education on what their interests and dreams are. Plus I think early college is just part of the family culture and they don't know anything BUT acceleration. But who knows, maybe they just didn't put it in the book. :)

 

It sure would be interesting to interview the different family members in about 15 years. 

[Catwoman]

I just checked the "look inside this book" feature on Amazon, and this family recommends the Pearls' books in their Resources section, as follows. Their brief comments about the books follow the titles:

 

-----------------------------

 

"To Train Up a Child" -- a bit legalistic.

 

"Created to be His Help Meet" -- every engaged or married woman should read this book

 

------------------------------

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

 

I will absolutely NOT be purchasing that book. EVER.

 

Oh, and they also recommend the Josh Harris book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" as being "great for every young person to read." :ack2:

 

After reading part of their recommended resources list, I have a very strong feeling that the Taylors and I wouldn't agree on very much.

[Hannah]

How does medical training in the USA work? 

 

In South Africa there are 8 medical schools linked to public universities and teaching hospitals.  They fall under a governing body called the Schools of Medicine of South Africa which ensures that accreditation standards are maintained.

Medicine is a 6 year undergraduate degree (MB ChB) similar I think to the UK system.  Most students start straight out of school at around age 18.  They start treating patients in teaching hospitals in third year.  About 1400 doctors graduate each year to serve a population of 52 million people (too few, but that's a different thread).

 

To get into med school you need exceptional grades for the school leaver's exams (with a recognized exam boards - usually one of the three large ones), good results in the university's health science entry test and a resume that includes leadership roles, etc. 

 

The youngest doctor in South Africa,  Sandile Kubheka, graduated from the university of KwaZulu Natal this year. Before he can register with the medical council to practice as a doctor, he must still complete two years of internship at a state hospital and a year of compulsory community service.

[stripe]

How does medical training in the USA work?

...

Medicine is a 6 year undergraduate degree (MB ChB) similar I think to the UK system. Most students start straight out of school at around age 18.

No, it's way longer in the US

 

As I understand it

4 years bachelor (any major as long as includes premed coursework)

4 years Medical school for MD

Multiyear (most 3-4 years) Residency in speciality area

Some then become fellows (seems to be two years) -- I've dealt with fellows with my kids in specialists' offices

[maize]

No, it's way longer in the US

 

As I understand it

4 years bachelor (any major as long as includes premed coursework)

4 years Medical school for MD

Multiyear (most 3-4 years) Residency in speciality area

Some then become fellows (seems to be two years) -- I've dealt with fellows with my kids in specialists' offices

Additionally there are medical schools which award a DO (Doctor if Osteopathy) degree rather than an MD. The path is the same--4 years undergrad, four years medical school, several years residency, and the doctors with a DO degree are licensed to practice medicine just as those with an MD. There are some differences in the training and at least some DO schools are a little less competitive than MD schools, but it is not an easy path either way. The Harding daughter is a DO.

[8filltheheart]

Every family has to decide what is important to them. Knowing as parents why you take certain positions and being able to articulate those reasons to your children becomes beyond important when you are dealing with adult issues with your older children/young adult children.

 

The approach presented by this family would never be accepted by my dh and me. It is bc our parenting and educational philosophies run counter to theirs. Doesn't make us right and them wrong, but we are firmly convicted in our beliefs and if our children came forward arguing theirs, we would be able to sit down and have an adult conversation explaining why we would not allow them to pursue that path.

 

Ultimately, those are the only answers that matter. Lots of parents are thrilled to pieces about paths they help their children forge that leave me with a complete "no thank you" reaction. I am glad my kids reside in my home under my parental care and that those decisions are left with us as parents to decide.

[Hannah]

No, it's way longer in the US

 

As I understand it

4 years bachelor (any major as long as includes premed coursework)

4 years Medical school for MD

Multiyear (most 3-4 years) Residency in speciality area

Some then become fellows (seems to be two years) -- I've dealt with fellows with my kids in specialists' offices

 

 

Here doctors graduate with their MBChB degree, but still have to complete 2 years of internship (where the doctors rotate through different specialist areas - I think the UK calls it rotation years) and one year community service before registration with the medical council as a general practitioner  (So 9 years before they can start working independently). 

 

Residency for a specialization (this would be the same as a fellow I think) can start only after the doctor has been registered with the council as a GP for a minimum of a year. Students register for a MMed degree and write exams as well as completing their residency.  This normally takes a minimum of four years.  So, to become a specialist physician takes a minimum of 14 years.

[maize]

Here doctors graduate with their MBChB degree, but still have to complete 2 years of internship (where the doctors rotate through different specialist areas - I think the UK calls it rotation years) and one year community service before registration with the medical council as a general practitioner (So 9 years before they can start working independently).

 

Residency for a specialization (this would be the same as a fellow I think) can start only after the doctor has been registered with the council as a GP for a minimum of a year. Students register for a MMed degree and write exams as well as completing their residency. This normally takes a minimum of four years. So, to become a specialist physician takes a minimum of 14 years.

A residency is required even for general practice doctors, this would be equivalent to your internship I think. But it comes after eight years of school, so a little longer. Two years might be all that is required for general practice, but it might be three. I am not sure.

[maize]

Here you go. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_education_in_the_United_States

[stripe]

In India, students enter medical school out of high school

 

Indian students enter medical school right after high school. That means, for better or worse, we are a lot younger than our American counterparts. We get to become doctors sooner and start earning money earlier. On the other hand, studying medicine requires a certain degree of maturity, and some of us may be lacking in that regard when we first start out. Our training lasts 5.5 years, including 1 year of housemanship, known to US students as internship. We have the same courses as US medical schools, but we don't have electives; the entire curriculum is required.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747008

 

Many doctors from outside the US find it too frustrating to become certified doctors here 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for-foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[maize]

In Scottland students enter medical school straight out of high school as well (according to someone I know who studied there). They do have more focused high school preparation that covers some of what students in the US cover in undergraduate premed programs. I have been told they also specialize early in med school, so someone who wants to be an OBGYN for example enters that track early on and spends less time on general medicine or other specialties.

[idnib]

I just checked the "look inside this book" feature on Amazon, and this family recommends the Pearls' books in their Resources section, as follows. 

 

I really do try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but as soon as someone posts the Pearl book in their Resources section, I'm out. I don't even care what else they have to say. Anyone who endorses a book in which 6 month-old babies are hit with plumbing line if they crawl off a blanket is persona non grata. Can't help it, don't want to help it.

[Murphy101]

I just checked the "look inside this book" feature on Amazon, and this family recommends the Pearls' books in their Resources section, as follows. Their brief comments about the books follow the titles:

-----------------------------

"To Train Up a Child" -- a bit legalistic.

"Created to be His Help Meet" -- every engaged or married woman should read this book

------------------------------

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I will absolutely NOT be purchasing that book. EVER.

Oh, and they also recommend the Josh Harris book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" as being "great for every young person to read." :ack2:

After reading part of their recommended resources list, I have a very strong feeling that the Taylors and I wouldn't agree on very much.

Well crap on a cracker. That sucks and is disappointing to read they endorse that junk.

:(

[SJ.]

I admit that I wasn't able to finish the book after coming across this (pg 25):

 

"While I am convinced homeschooling is an exceptional avenue in educating one's child, it is equally dependent on a Christian faith and curriculum for lifetime success. Without the faith ingredient, your child may be as smart as they come but still be as unwise, foolish, and possibly evil as can be."

 

I did flip through the book and read a bit here and there.  My impression is that their goal is to get their children to college ASAP.  It sounded like much of their time was spent on test prep and that high school consisted of giving the children textbooks to read with the goal of completing them as quickly as possible.  I was not impressed with their high school transcript.

 

Dual enrollment may be in our future but their methods are not for our evil family.

[Murphy101]

I admit that I wasn't able to finish the book after coming across this (pg 25):

 

I did flip through the book and read a bit here and there. My impression is that their goal is to get their children to college ASAP. It sounded like much of their time was spent on test prep and that high school consisted of giving the children textbooks to read with the goal of completing them as quickly as possible. I was not impressed with their high school transcript.

 

Dual enrollment may be in our future but their methods are not for our evil family.

Hmmm.

 

I read that more in light of this perspective quote by Theodore Roosevelt:

 

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."

 

Whatever ones moral compass, be it Christian or otherwise, I think this a very true statement.

 

Obviously many Christians are going to lean towards viewing the Christian morals their guidepost.

 

I have not read the book or the excerpt, so I don't feel comfortable making a judgement call on it without context.

 

But the general perspective of education as Roosevelt commented? Yes, I whole-heartedly agree with that.

[Tammi K]

I don't get it. College at 12, why?? So you can join the workforce at 16??

 

That's exactly what DH and I were saying when we saw them the first time. It seems like there is such a rush to push them into the adult work world. I'm not sure I want  my kids to feel responsible for a full time career at 17 or 18.

 

I learned so much about myself in the four years I was away at college. I would hate for mu kids to have to worry about a full time job when they are still trying to sort out themselves. 

 

On the other hand, I imagine, with an early start and some smart financial decisions, they could be in a position to have a long and enjoyable retirement. 

 

 

[CrunchyGirl]

Having multiple graduate degrees and having spent time teaching at a university, I generally have an 'over my dead body' policy when it comes to early college for our kids. I truly don't understand the hurry. This is a regular topic of discussion between DH and I as LegoMan is already well ahead of what this family appears to be advocating to graduate a child by 12. It is one thing when college becomes the only reasonable option for a child--I honestly think that is my worst nightmare and I can only hope that if we are faced with that in the future we can handle it with the wisdom and grace Jenny and her family appear to have. But to desire that path, to arguably push that path, is odd to me. What is the point besides bragging rights? 

 

LegoMan likely could go to college at 12. He wouldn't likely go to a top school as there simply aren't enough hours in the day between now and then to give him all the experience, extracurriculars, advanced coursework, etc. to make him competitive with the top 18 year olds in the country. But in our home education isn't simply a means to a job. It's about raising accomplished, mature adults who are well read, exposed to a variety of ideas and topics, and capable of executive function before we turn them loose on the world. We are attempting to raise the next generation of doctors, lawyers, engineers, and ultimately leaders (obviously they may end up having a different idea for their path and that's fine too--we are determined to at least preserve as many options for them as possible).

 

As a practical matter I view LegoMan's accelerated pace as an incredible opportunity. We will have time for the advanced STEM coursework he seems to be headed for while also allowing us the chance to give him a rich liberal arts education (as he won't likely get that in a heavy STEM university program). Why not use every year available to go wider and deeper, to allow them exposure to more ideas and opportunities before life gets very serious? Why the rush? 

[dauphin]

I know I've heard them refer to the "college carrot" in that college is the place where you can go deeper in/develop your passions. The kids are encouraged to find their passions and that fuels their motivation to get through the other materials/subjects/whatever. The DD that is a doctor knew she wanted to be one well before she graduated ("high school"). Same with the one with the musical gifting too, I think.

[CrunchyGirl]

I know I've heard them refer to the "college carrot" in that college is the place where you can go deeper in/develop your passions. The kids are encouraged to find their passions and that fuels their motivation to get through the other materials/subjects/whatever. The DD that is a doctor knew she wanted to be one well before she graduated ("high school"). Same with the one with the musical gifting too, I think.

 

It seems odd to be done with your broader education though by 12. Particularly when most children aren't capable of the full reasoning ability that is useful in the higher grades. Specialization is fun but it doesn't generally make for very well rounded people. 

[shinyhappypeople]

Their approach isn't my cup of tea, but.

 

But.

 

At least they're educating their children.

 

At least they're engaged with their kids.

 

At least they're helping them gain marketable skills with accredited degrees in an area the young person is passionate about.

 

I don't see anything worth the disdain expressed by some.

 

It's a different path.  It's not right for me or my kids, but it's not an inherently awful way to do things. In fact, I see it as an awesome idea for a motivated and bright (not necessarily gifted) child who wants to get a head start at a less competitive college and have some of the time-advantages (more time for travel, more time for grad school, etc.) that highly gifted students in competitive EC programs enjoy.

 

I'm glad they're telling their story.  It's exactly the kind of ideas that will fit some families like a glove.  More power to them.

[shinyhappypeople]

It seems odd to be done with your broader education though by 12. Particularly when most children aren't capable of the full reasoning ability that is useful in the higher grades. Specialization is fun but it doesn't generally make for very well rounded people. 

There is a HUGE difference between being done with compulsory schooling and being done with education.  The latter has no expiration date. 

[stripe]

I really do try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but as soon as someone posts the Pearl book in their Resources section, I'm out. I don't even care what else they have to say. Anyone who endorses a book in which 6 month-old babies are hit with plumbing line if they crawl off a blanket is persona non grata. Can't help it, don't want to help it.

Yes, this is what I read; I flipped to the resources early on in my "read."

 

The Pearls stuff wasn't something I saw a lot of in the part I read, but definitely having a giant family is a main topic that is repeated many times. 

[8filltheheart]

. In fact, I see it as an awesome idea for a motivated and bright (not necessarily gifted) child who wants to get a head start at a less competitive college and have some of the time-advantages (more time for travel, more time for grad school, etc.) that highly gifted students in competitive EC programs enjoy.

The bolded is where I have questions. I have a large family of kids who are individuals with individual abilities, maturity, and interests. What one might do does not even begin to suggest that another might do or even possess the desire to try. Nothing is a one size fits all approach with our kids.

[Korrale]

Birchbark,

 

I'm curious about experiences the kids had outside of academics.  Did they play instruments or sports? Were they involved in volunteer work or jobs?  Did the family travel or have shared experiences outside of academics? And did they have any kids that chafed at the academic pushing?

 

Lisa

  

I haven't read the book, but it seems the parents are looking at education solely as a means to getting a job. What about the value of learning for learning's sake? Developing world views, reading good literature, appreciating beauty, real learning about the way the world works in ways that help develop wisdom? It's great if they really did nurture their children's interests, but with such an emphasis on acceleration, did their kids have a normal and well-rounded and fun childhood? There's so much more that should be developed in the pre-college years than academic skills.

 

I do have a friend that knows the family personally. They go camping with them. I was told that the kids seem like happy ordinary kids and that the family is close.

[Aspasia]

I don't get it. College at 12, why?? So you can join the workforce at 16??

Yep. This was my question when these people first hit the scene. I just don't understand the appeal of basically shoving your kids out of the nest.

 

Exactly. Education doesn't have to end just because you have earned a degree. In fact, one of the things my kids have found appealing about starting early is that it gives them time to explore and try lots of things. Even now, a little more than three years after graduation, my daughter could go back to college, use the gen ed she completed for her first degree, earn a second degree in a different field and still finish around the same time most people are getting their first bachelor's. Or she could continue working  or just plain loafing around for another two years, then apply and attend grad school at a typical age.

That's the thing, though. How many 15-year-olds really know themselves well enough to choose a major? I regularly argue that most 20-year-olds shouldn't be choosing their life's work. Sure, there are those kids who know from the age of five what they want to do and it never varies. But they are a teeny tiny minority. It's not uncommon for kids to graduate at 22, start working, and then around 25 or 26, they discover something they really love...but they've already invested many years and thousands of dollars into pursuing what they thought they wanted when their prefrontal cortex wasn't even fully developed yet.

 

And I doubt your daughter could loaf around for two years and get into a decent grad program. Rather than spending a couple years post-college loafing, I'd prefer to let my kids "loaf" and play and explore as younger children doing age-appropriate school work.

[Jenny in Florida]

That's the thing, though. How many 15-year-olds really know themselves well enough to choose a major? I regularly argue that most 20-year-olds shouldn't be choosing their life's work. Sure, there are those kids who know from the age of five what they want to do and it never varies. But they are a teeny tiny minority. It's not uncommon for kids to graduate at 22, start working, and then around 25 or 26, they discover something they really love...but they've already invested many years and thousands of dollars into pursuing what they thought they wanted when their prefrontal cortex wasn't even fully developed yet.

 

Okay, but following that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, at what point is it "safe" to decide on a major and start actually working toward adulthood? How long should we prolong adolescence so as to avoid rushing adults into making these kinds of basic decisions? Should students delay college until 25? 30? Not select a career until 35 just to make sure they get it "right?"

 

From our perspective, academic acceleration and early college have provided our kids the amazing gift of time: time to get multiple degrees, try out a job or two, see if they can make a living as performers and, if necessary, drop back and punt and then go try something completely different, all before they are ready to settle down and start families (if they decide to do that).

 

I'll say again: Getting a bachelor's degree needn't be either the end of one's education or a life sentence. 

 

And I doubt your daughter could loaf around for two years and get into a decent grad program. Rather than spending a couple years post-college loafing, I'd prefer to let my kids "loaf" and play and explore as younger children doing age-appropriate school work.

 

And I'm thrilled that you've found what works for you and, more importantly, your kids. I just don't believe "age appropriate" is a one-size-fits-all thing. 

 

(As far as my daughter "loafing." I guess we'd have to define "loaf" and "decent." Her version of loafing is probably different from what you're imagining.)

[Korrale]

Most of the people I do know that have a masters degree have gotten in several years, or even a decade after they first received their bachelors. I don't think that there is a time frame in which one needs to continue post grad work.

I also think a degree is just a piece of paper. Real learning happens all life long.

[Jenny in Florida]

Most of the people I do know that have a masters degree have gotten in several years, or even a decade after they first received their bachelors. I don't think that there is a time frame in which one needs to continue post grad work.

I also think a degree is just a piece of paper. Real learning happens all life long.

 

Right, there's no expiration date on learning. 

[Allearia]

My issue with their approach is that they start out with the goal of their kids going to college at 12 and work everything towards that goal, instead of having a kid who is highly gifted and they decide they want to go to college at 12 (or younger) and the family decides that it seem like the right choice. I can't imagine starting out with that as a goal, starting test prep at 8, etc. I would imagine a kid for whom this is the right choice won't need to do test prep for four years.

 

It also depends on the opportunities available and whether the kid is happy with those opportunities. The program Jenny in FL's daughter went to is only for women, but if we had the financial means we might have consider a similar full time college program for my older ds. However, he has been very fortunate to have opportunities at our local (major) university. He is also perfectly happy playing Dungeons and Dragons and Minecraft with his friends and isn't feeling the same drive to go to college and all that entails. He has been taking college classes since he was 10, so being on campus and in classes with adults hasn't been an issue. I am very happy with what we are doing and hope he will wait until traditional age to go full time, but if things change we will revisit the option.

 

It sounds like the family and kids are happy, so I'm glad that is working for them. It is not something I would do, and I can't imagine going and writing a book about it being something every family and child can do. But it is completely different from kids who need and want that drastic acceleration and who are driven and motivated to seek that out themselves.

[kubiac]

Additionally there are medical schools which award a DO (Doctor if Osteopathy) degree rather than an MD. The path is the same--4 years undergrad, four years medical school, several years residency, and the doctors with a DO degree are licensed to practice medicine just as those with an MD. There are some differences in the training and at least some DO schools are a little less competitive than MD schools, but it is not an easy path either way. The Harding daughter is a DO.

 

The book states clearly that the daughter struggled with the MCAT and did not get into any of the traditional medical schools to which she applied, but the Osteopathy route opened up so she took that path and it seems to have worked for her.

[stripe]

Well, I've just read a big chunk of the book, and I have to say, I've found it both irritating and charming. They just seem like a nice family, and it is nice to see a Latino family. But the main motivator for all this early achievement is that most kid/teen activities are a waste of time, and let's get going. They want to be the biggest influence in their kids' lives, so it is very much about protecting them. (Although she does say the internet isn't evil, go ahead and have them use it for school, which was amusing.) They say their kids' test scores were solidly average, and the colleges their kids are attending are all "regular" regional schools, not like Harvard or something.

[SarahW]

I've found it both irritating and charming. 

 

You're kinder than I. I got the book from the library (thanks for the tip, pp!) and after reading it I decided that the best description would be naive.

 

Do they think education consists of accumulating pieces of paper? Of speeding through Saxon and Khan to pass tests?

 

Despite all the "education is important!" talk, I felt there was a bit of anti-intellectualism in there.

[momacacia]

The book states clearly that the daughter struggled with the MCAT and did not get into any of the traditional medical schools to which she applied, but the Osteopathy route opened up so she took that path and it seems to have worked for her.

 

Scary! :svengo:

 

My question is, who is actually going to go to a 17yo DO or MD for that matter? Has she done a residency? I can see going the OD route if it is a matter of medical philosophy, but "I couldn't pass the tests at 14, so went to a med school I could get into and out of asap." Of course, she could always sit through the MCAT and maybe pass later and do another degree if she wanted to. She would at least have this under her belt, I'm sure was part of their reasoning.

 

[Jenny in Florida]

Scary! :svengo:

 

My question is, who is actually going to go to a 17yo DO or MD for that matter? Has she done a residency? I can see going the OD route if it is a matter of medical philosophy, but "I couldn't pass the tests at 14, so went to a med school I could get into and out of asap." Of course, she could always sit through the MCAT and maybe pass later and do another degree if she wanted to. She would at least have this under her belt, I'm sure was part of their reasoning.

 

 

She is now 22 and is a resident at a Naval hospital.

 

Her eldest sister is 26 and is an engineer working on her Ph.D. in material science at Tuskegee. The next in line is 25. She is a working architect , married and completing a master's at Cooper Union. 

 

Not sure what's so scary about any of that.

[maize]

Scary! :svengo:

 

My question is, who is actually going to go to a 17yo DO or MD for that matter? Has she done a residency? I can see going the OD route if it is a matter of medical philosophy, but "I couldn't pass the tests at 14, so went to a med school I could get into and out of asap." Of course, she could always sit through the MCAT and maybe pass later and do another degree if she wanted to. She would at least have this under her belt, I'm sure was part of their reasoning.

 

One of the best doctors I know is a DO. Getting into medical school is not a matter of "passing" the MCAT, acceptance is incredibly competitive and someone with entirely decent MCAT scores may find themselves without an offer because their scores and background were not enough to make them stand out from the pack. I don't see a problem, if being a doctor is your goal, with going to whatever legitimate, respectable school will accept you regardless of whether it grants MD or DO degrees. I know that is what my friend did.