Graduating college at 18 with a "co-chosen" major

[nixpix5]

I need to discuss the ideas in the book "Unapologetic Homeschoolers: University Graduates by Nineteen." In a nutshell, the authors have sent six children to universities, and the children have then opted for graduate work in fields like emergency medicine, math, and engineering. All of their undergraduate degrees started at age 14, and those were required to meet two criteria: 1. The child must be able to support himself with only that undergraduate degree (hence, a degree in history would have been forbidden, according to the authors), and 2. The chosen undergraduate degree must not hinder their ability to move forward in post-graduate work.

 

There is truly SO MUCH to unpack in this book. I just started it yesterday, and I am still trying to wrap my head around it all. It's like the antithesis of what I've been doing, not to mention what is the standard advice in many homeschooling circles now (relax, have fun, let the children study their own interests, etc.).

 

The thing is, I was ready to dismiss it all as ludicrous until I read the accounts written by the children themselves at the end of the book. They all rave about the advantages these methods provided them. But . . . are they secretly all in counseling trying to understand their parents' motivations???

 

I'd love to discuss.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Unapologetic-Homeschoolers-University-Graduates-Nineteen-ebook/dp/B00T44V3RW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516992306&sr=8-1&keywords=unapologetic+homeschoolers

Ok, just spent the last chunk of evening reading half of the book haha. I love these parents actually! I found nothing overbearing or controlling at all about them. In fact, especially in the early years, they had a pretty Charlotte Mason approach to their homeschool.

 

To give a brief rundown of how they schooled...

They schooled year round and usually the kids were done by around lunch time to noon. They mostly read to and had the kids read good books. Not lit guides, no workbooks, tests or formal boxed curriculum. For writing they would have them practice a couple sentences a day at first and slowly increased until they were 12 at which point they took a writing class. They worked closely with them on concise language, style and so forth. As elementary kids they had them do narrations (they called it a synopsis but generally checking comprehension in a natural way when the child was sharing what they read).

 

They also would make up stories as a family and record them for fun. I thought that was cute. It sounded like everyone enjoyed it.

 

They subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and started off reading human interest articles st breakfast. Teaching the kids how to think about what they read and how to agree or disagree with someone. It became a normal part of their homeschool to read and discuss the news.

 

They did field trips to museums, galleries etc and focused on looking at exhibits keeping a brisk pace so kids wouldn't get bored but still maintain interest.

 

For grammar they used Easy Grammar and taught diagramming.

 

All the kids played the violin via Suzuki method and a couple took up piano of their own accord. They played until their workloads increased in college.

 

They didn't really play sports unless they wanted to. They would take swimming or tennis if desired.

 

They did bible study as a family and kids learned to read and recite scripture in a relaxed way. No pressure was put on kids to read the bible. It wasn't assigned or checked up on. They wanted their faith to be their own but they went to church and did an evening bible study as a family once per week.

 

Math was the one area they were quite serious about. They used a combination of Miquon and Saxon. They did math year round. No extra worksheets or tests. They felt the textbooks were sufficient. No calculators until teen years so they could learn how to see if their computation was off without relying on a calculator and being more focused on entering the equation.

 

They learned keyboarding around 10 and typed most of their papers at that point. No emphasis put on cursive but he did mention that was a weak point for his son on the GRE.

 

They didn't focus heavily on foreign language. They did what was required.

 

They didn't require busy work or topics that could be learned easily through reading. They focused on the cores and the kids read alot of good books.

 

At 14 when they went to college the parents viewed it as high school. They saw the state controlling what a child learned from 14-18 in high school and viewed this similarly. The kids were ready for college and had proven that so they saw this as no different than going off to high school. They sat down with each child and discussed their strengths and interests. They picked a major that would be employable if for some reason the child didn't go onto grad school BUT they were viewing bachelor's as high school and grad school as going off to college. Therfore, it had to be a major that in no way limited their grad school desires. For example, having an engineering degree you can get into pretty much any grad program to include psychology so it didn't limit their choices. All it did was provide them a usable degree if they so chose.

 

Post bachelor's they all were around 18yo and we're free to choose whatever grad program they wanted which would truly dictate their actual career and future.

 

Kids all chose to go to graduate school or professional school (they didn't have to) and they all seem grateful and well adjusted.

 

Sorry for any typos. I was going fast and now heading back to finish it :)

Edited January 27, 2018 by nixpix5

[kitten18]

When I asked OP what school the kids in the book family went to, it sounded like the answer was Mesa Community College (Arizona) at 14.

 

If we had a similar community college in our area, with rules that would allow easy dual enrollment, I think a lot of kids could probably manage that. Whether a lot should or not, I don't know. But it is a moot point since in our area, and I assume this is true for many homeschoolers, there is not a similar nearby option.

 

I don't think they are talking about extremely gifted kids in the book. But they also probably are not talking about ones with LD's or other issues. It sounds like they have a fairly homogeneous group of kids who were well-suited to the plan they chose. The educational environment likely played a part, but so too very likely did other factors like genetics.

Here is what the OP wrote from the book:

 

“The oldest went on to medical school, next oldest completed a master's degree in bioengineering at Johns Hopkins University at age 19, and now is in his fifth year of a PhD program at MIT. Third and fourth children, medical school. Fifth is in a PhD program in electrical engineering at MIT. Sixth is studying chemical engineering and plans to study medicine.â€

 

I don’t know if they’re highly gifted but they’re certainly far, far above average.

[Tsuga]

When I asked OP what school the kids in the book family went to, it sounded like the answer was Mesa Community College (Arizona) at 14.

 

If we had a similar community college in our area, with rules that would allow easy dual enrollment,  I think a lot of kids could probably manage that.  ...

 

Navigating even community college requires a lot of support even for kids with average organizational skills. Lots of kids in our area do dual enrollment at 16. However, it's a very self-selecting group of highly motivated, more-organized-than-usual, kids.

 

Particularly for boys, I'm having a really hard time imagining a fourteen year old boy who could or rather... would... navigate the entire registration and planning and study planning function alone. That in itself would put him in the top 1% of boys his age in terms of executive functioning.

 

That's what I meant in terms of support. Not necessarily academic support.

[shawthorne44]

These books remind me a lot of the Tiger Mom book.  To some extent, I think they are right in any NT kid could be ready for college by 14, IF they put in the work beforehand.  But, the parents have to push and they have to insist on a lot of work, and little or no play.  I read one by a woman my age-ish (born '70).  She was homeschooled and started the BYU correspondence college at 13?  If I remember right, they did about 6 hours of seat work a day and did Calvert.   They did two grades every year.  

 

[8filltheheart]

. They worked closely with them on concise language, style and so forth. As elementary kids they had them do narrations (they called it a synopsis but generally checking comprehension in a natural way when the child was sharing what they read).....

 

 

Math was the one area they were quite serious about. They used a combination of Miquon and Saxon. They did math year round. No extra worksheets or tests. They felt the textbooks were sufficient. No calculators until teen years so they could learn how to see if their computation was off without relying on a calculator and being more focused on entering the equation. ......

 

At 14 when they went to college the parents viewed it as high school. )

These 3 pts alone speak volumes. They gloss over very real issues that families who have btdt see immediately. Attending college and attending college don't necessarily mean the same thing. A student can enter a CC at 14 and take high school equivalent level courses, but that isn't the same as being accepted to and attending college taking college level equivalent courses.

 

A 14 yr old who wants to major in engineering or physics, for example, and graduate in 4 yrs would need to have taken math through precal by age 13 bc the first math freshman yr in those majors is cal. If a student isn't ready for cal, they won't graduate in 4 yrs.

 

Equally, a 14 yr old attending a 4 yr university needs to writing analytical essays easily bc they can face multiple assigned and due within a matter of days. (Most average kids' writing will transition dramatically during high school.)

 

But the biggest issues that are glossed over are acceptances, where they are attending, and costs. In order to be accepted to almost any 4 yr university, a student needs test scores (and no, not all 13 yr olds are going to score high enough on the SAT or ACT for admissions to a non-CC) and a high school transcript (that means 4 yrs of high school math including 1 yr beyond alg 2, 3 sciences, 4 Englishes, etc). That alone translates to needing 5th grade being high school English and 6th for high school science.

 

If all these kids are doing is attending their local CC and taking high school equivalent level courses, I am not sure why they is even a goal?? It is just changing the location of high school.

 

Fwiw, if you don't live in a state with free CC and low tuition for your local 4 yr university, that approach could also cost you more money in the long run. Test scores, transcripts, PSAT (HAS to be taken jr yr of high school), LOR, application essays, community involvement, activities, etc......all normal teenage stuff....that is where scholarships are found. It would have cost us more $$ to have our kids live at home and attend the local 4 yr college than graduate high school and attend away on scholarships.

 

And honestly, it will cost more $$ to have them take high school equivalent courses at the CC (and probably taught at a lower academic challenge level) than can be done at home. (Of course, then you can't brag and write a book about how unusual it is that your 14 yr old is taking high school level courses in high school......it sound so much cooler to say they are enrolled in college. ;) )

 

ETA: But the real truth is......you lost me when you said they schooled yr round. :)

Edited January 27, 2018 by 8FillTheHeart

[Pawz4me]

These books remind me a lot of the Tiger Mom book.  To some extent, I think they are right in any NT kid could be ready for college by 14, IF they put in the work beforehand.  But, the parents have to push and they have to insist on a lot of work, and little or no play.  I read one by a woman my age-ish (born '70).  She was homeschooled and started the BYU correspondence college at 13?  If I remember right, they did about 6 hours of seat work a day and did Calvert.   They did two grades every year.  

 

 LOL!

 

DS19, who I posted about earlier (started CC at 14, will graduate university next year at 20 with a double major) is on the spectrum and has an "atypical learning disability" (often called NVLD). So definitely not NT. But to be fair I'll add that he's also highly to profoundly gifted in a few areas that typically relate to classroom success. We used Calvert (but not for math or Spanish), but I don't think he ever worked more than four hours a day total. And that would have been a really long day. A typical middle school day for him was two to three hours.

 

I sure wasn't totally lax, but a pushy Tiger Mom? That's funny. We're about as relaxed and laid back as you can get.

 

Now, do I think any kid could be ready for college by 14? No, of course not. We all mature in different ways--mentally, emotionally, socially--it's an entire package. I'm not saying a kid has to be 100% ready in all those areas before starting college level work, but . . . the mix has got to be right. And it won't be for all kids. It wouldn't have been for me at 14, even though academically I could have handled most of the work rather easily. (But not math--the math part of my brain didn't mature until much later. ;))

 

Generalizations rarely work, and kids being ready for college level work (or not) early isn't an exception.

[fralala]

And dh's Filipino family are all very bitter about that.  Especially now that they see that the grandkids are allowed to follow their passion and they weren't. 

 

I would agree that sometimes, the kind of family culture that promotes obedience is one in which outsiders have a hard time catching a glimpse of the bitterness that lurks beneath. Until we marry into it. (It's kind of like how, once I decided to homeschool, I stopped being privy to my friends' complaints about the local public schools.)

 

Now, if you actually live in poverty in a country in which there is such competition for the very few lucrative jobs that exist, this kind of attitude makes more sense.

[....]

I would agree that sometimes, the kind of family culture that promotes obedience is one in which outsiders have a hard time catching a glimpse of the bitterness that lurks beneath. Until we marry into it. 

 

Yep.   :glare:   And not just bitterness.  Lifelong anxiety and dysfunction.  And I can't post any more than that, because last time I offended a gazillion people.  So suffering the damage in silence...   :leaving:     

[kiana]

It's funny, because I've been thinking recently that I wish I'd have delayed grad school; I'd have chosen differently. And I went at 25 -- although I was pretty immature in certain important areas.

[teachermom2834]

My kids have graduated with enough de credit to graduate in three years from undergrad and that is without overloading in high school or college. Just the way our homeschooling worked out. I found myself telling them to take the whole four years in college if they wanted (they have four year scholarships and are going places that are not crushing us financially). One thinks he wants to go to law school. He would be just barely 21 when he starts. I think taking an extra year to prepare, gain maturity, and add some life experience, while getting a double major or doing an internship with that fourth year would benefit him greatly. So, I find myself against rushing through just to rush. As bright as my kids are, I still see biological maturity as a factor.

 

Leave it to these kind of threads to make me feel like a lenient, indulgent parent. My children would be amused to find that out about me.

[mom2bee]

I haven't read the book but would like to, now that I know it exists. Too bad it doesn't seem to exist outside the Kindle platform (I don't have a kindle)

 

I just want to point out that there are plenty of 18+ year old freshmen who start college and finish college with a major that was "co-chosen" or just plain "chosen". So I don't think it's really a rare thing in college. Not every family has the same view of college. I think that it is ok for parents who are paying for the tuition "co-choosing" their young adults major doesn't strike me as wrong or bad in any way.

 

Personally I"m not sure that I'd ever go that way with my own kids/students but I'm always so happy when I see other families doing this sort of thing. Its cool to see the options available to home schoolers and it's cool to see home schoolers thriving in a variety of different ways.

[Pawz4me]

I haven't read the book but would like to, now that I know it exists. Too bad it doesn't seem to exist outside the Kindle platform (I don't have a kindle)

 

You can get the Kindle app for a smart phone or computer.

[wapiti]

One thinks he wants to go to law school. He would be just barely 21 when he starts. I think taking an extra year to prepare, gain maturity, and add some life experience, while getting a double major or doing an internship with that fourth year would benefit him greatly.

 

FWIW, another option might be to graduate and work for a couple of years before applying - that would also have significant value.  Either way, yes, additional life experience is beneficial if he goes that route, both for admission and for getting a job.

[shawthorne44]

I hadn't finished my post before I went to bed yesterday.  I am even surprised it posted.  I guess if one sits there for long enough, it will auto-post, or maybe my DH did it. 

 

But, the book I mentioned with a family of NT kids that did two grades a year.   So, graduating high school around 12, and college around 16.   I just remembered something else.   That was 360+ days of school per year.   She listed the few days that they didn't do school, like Christmas.  For this family, early college didn't seem like a goal, but it was more school is your job and you need to take it seriously.   So, if the school year is 180 days, and they spent 360 days a year on school, then it isn't surprising that they'd do two grades a year.  For the author, college started when she was 13-ish, just because that was the next step in her education, since she certainly wasn't ready to leave home.  There were a bunch of kids, 10-ish, and they were very poor for several years of her childhood.    School and family were what they had.   

 

There was that other book by the dad that came out a few years ago.   If I remember right, the dad did his work and the kids were expected to work in the same room for the same amount of time.   They graduated high school early, and started/finished college early.  

 

Many people look at their own pre-teens and think 'my kid isn't ready for college', these other kids must be brilliant.  But, I don't think that is it.   You take an ordinary kid, work the kid twice as hard from the beginning and they can progress twice as fast.  But, is that a good thing?    Personally, I don't think it is a bad thing.    It can be within the realm of normal parenting, like tiger parenting is within the normal parent range.    It just isn't something I want for my child.  Like yesterday, DD had co-op from 9 am - noon, then 6 kids from two families came over to play with DD.   At one point, I look out to see the 6 other kids in the trampoline playing dodge ball and I see DD walking up the stairs to her tree house carrying some things.  I keep watch because she seems happy but it is odd she isn't playing with the rest.   Then I see her tossing the small, soft balls she'd gathered at the kids in the trampoline.   She'd come up with an inventive way to play dodge ball.   I wouldn't trade that for more school work.  

 

One thing people forget is that people have started college much earlier than they do now.  For example, I'm reading Chernow's 'Hamilton'.   There is conflicting evidence on his age.   Chernow's theory is that Hamilton shaved two years off his age because his real age, which I think was 17, was embarrassingly old.  Monroe had started at 16, and because he was older than normal they started him as a sophomore.  

[8filltheheart]

I don't agree that just doing school yr round means that it is easy to get through 2 grades per yr and graduate early. It really depends on what is being studied and the individuals involved. No, not all kids, regardless if yr round schooling, are going to be ready for high school level math and science in middle school. It does take a certain level of mental maturity. I cannot see all middle schoolers handling chemistry, physics, and bio any more than all "7th" graders ready for alg 1, assuming alg 1 and geo in that 360 days, and alg 2 and pre-cal in the "8th" grade 360 days.

 

There is more to progression through content than just opening the next book.

[wapiti]

You take an ordinary kid, work the kid twice as hard from the beginning and they can progress twice as fast. 

 

In math and English, such that the ordinary kid completes true high-school-level during middle school?  Ordinary kid ends up completing precalc in 8th grade?  Brit lit in, say, 7th grade?  A gifted kid, sure, maybe.  Ordinary?  No.

 

ETA, 8FillTheHeart makes a good point about the sciences - I forgot about those.  I see what my dd is doing in physics (AP Physics 1, which I understand to basically be honors physics) and there is no. way. her math-gifted younger brother could have been doing that in middle school; even now in 9th I imagine it would really stretch him to his limits (not the math, but the science concepts), and as for his twin brother, well, just no, not yet - two more years will make a world of difference in what they can get out of that course when they see it, probably in 11th, certainly no earlier than 10th.

 

Even toward the upper end of the continuum of ability, in the gifted range, as acceleration increases, capacity to handle depth is going to decrease.  I imagine a downward sloping curve, with depth on one axis and acceleration on the other...

Edited January 27, 2018 by wapiti

[Laura Corin]

I really don't think that an average kid can work twice as hard and get to university twice as fast. An undeveloped brain will not understand algebra no matter how hard the child tries. An undeveloped brain will struggle with complex philosophical issues.

 

Many home educators have stopped banging their heads over getting a child to understand a topic only to return to it a year later and find that comprehension is easily achieved.

[SanDiegoMom]

I'm not defending the authors' stance, but here is what they say on this topic:

 

"We had a back-and-forth conversation with each child about her or his undergraduate major and possible graduate studies. We steered the children toward degrees that suited their strengths and interests and that also would likely lead to successful employment. As we worked with them, we specifically identified and steered them away from fields where, in our experience, it was more difficult to find employment. For example, Ben initially wanted to study math and become a mathematics professor. We told him that an undergraduate degree in mathematics was likely not a wise idea because, if for some reason he could not continue on to graduate school, his career options might be limited. In Lydia's case, she had an interest in history and, in particular, the study of governance and war. Despite her affinity for historical studies, we were prepared to forbid her from majoring in history because we had personally known several people with history degrees who were not able to find employment that paid well. Fortunately, the issue never arose because she was more interested in math and science."

I stopped reading the rest after this quote- how awful. My husband was pushed into math and science by his teachers in high school and he liked it and was good at it. Majored in Engineering at USNA and hated it, but his advisors wouldn't let him change. He is now teaching Military Historyand warfighting as a military faculty and is knee deep in a public policy phd and is SO HAPPY. He absolutely loves what he is doing.

 

My dd has college friends whose parents are forcing them into STEM. They are varying degrees of miserable.

[nixpix5]

I don't agree that just doing school yr round means that it is easy to get through 2 grades per yr and graduate early. It really depends on what is being studied and the individuals involved. No, not all kids, regardless if yr round schooling, are going to be ready for high school level math and science in middle school. It does take a certain level of mental maturity. I cannot see all middle schoolers handling chemistry, physics, and bio any more than all "7th" graders ready for alg 1, assuming alg 1 and geo in that 360 days, and alg 2 and pre-cal in the "8th" grade 360 days.

 

There is more to progression through content than just opening the next book.

Yes. I think the unspoken piece here is grandad has a PhD in physics I believe, could be wrong but it was mathy. Dad and mom BOTH were engineers...so a couple things popped up for me when I read that. One is that the children would have been bathed in mathematics from birth. My 5 kids can speak agnosium about brain science and my olders breezed through college level sciences at 13 yo because we loved it and taught it in the environment like one does reading. It didn't seem scary or hard to them. I think that nature nurture piece is huge. They all have a genetic donation from people who are mathy and they had it in their environment as a love and passion from birth.

[....]

I really don't think that an average kid can work twice as hard and get to university twice as fast. An undeveloped brain will not understand algebra no matter how hard the child tries. An undeveloped brain will struggle with complex philosophical issues.

 

Exactly!

[Pen]

Here is what the OP wrote from the book:

 

“The oldest went on to medical school, next oldest completed a master's degree in bioengineering at Johns Hopkins University at age 19, and now is in his fifth year of a PhD program at MIT. Third and fourth children, medical school. Fifth is in a PhD program in electrical engineering at MIT. Sixth is studying chemical engineering and plans to study medicine.â€

 

I don’t know if they’re highly gifted but they’re certainly far, far above average.

 

 

Okay. w/ that info, I'd agree.  

 

I still do think that the CC level coursework start might be something where I know quite a few above average, but not highly gifted kids who could handle that...if their parents were taking care of enrollment etc., if there were a CC right nearby, if it allowed this, and if the kids were not doing theater and sports and other things that high school students typically do.

 

I think there are certain degrees of aptitude and ability that cannot be achieved simply by working more on an area, but there is also a degree to which one can amplify one area simply by putting a lot of work into it, rather than into other areas.  I've seen that sometimes with a kid whose main focus is athletics, but then a sidelining injury means that all the time and focus that went to athletics goes into something else like academics and there ends up being much more rapid progress and seeming ability in the academic area than had been apparent when the kid was mainly involved in athletics.

 

Some countries have different systems than we do, so that the final attainment of, say, a medical degree, may come at a younger age than is typical in USA, due to either or both of a more targeted high school level education, and / or a compressing of the university level training, so that, for example, I know someone who went to uni in Europe and got a medical degree in 5 years at university, rather than as 4 years undergraduate plus 4 years medical school.  It worked out well for her, so now her son is doing the same thing.  I guess they could write a book about it.

[EliseMcKenna]

You all have made great points. Lots to think about. Although, just for the record, I wasn't considering this path for my children. Heck, we don't even start formal schooling until age 7, so we're waaaaay behind the early-college curve already. I will say that what this book made me consider, however, is that my expectations might be too low for my kids. I think I err too far on the side of "keeping the peace," when really, they are plenty bright enough to take on more challenging work. 

 

Anyway, I also found it very interesting that this is the father's bio on his Amazon page:  :huh:

 

"After working in electronics for about twenty years, Lawrence quit his job and attended Arizona State University (ASU) law school to become an attorney. He now works as a solo practitioner in intellectual property law and specializes in patent prosecution and infringement opinions."

[Laura Corin]

 

 

Some countries have different systems than we do, so that the final attainment of, say, a medical degree, may come at a younger age than is typical in USA, due to either or both of a more targeted high school level education, and / or a compressing of the university level training, so that, for example, I know someone who went to uni in Europe and got a medical degree in 5 years at university, rather than as 4 years undergraduate plus 4 years medical school.  It worked out well for her, so now her son is doing the same thing.  I guess they could write a book about it.

 

Medicine is an undergraduate degree in the UK.  You can't do it early though - as far as I know they have strict rules about no one under 18 beginning it.

 

In general you need top grades to get into Medicine (as well as a proven track record of volunteering/interest in the field).  I've never heard anyone say that medicine was more intellectually challenging each year than many other degrees; it just requires a lot of hard work and dedication.  So perhaps there are historical reasons for the US having it as a postgraduate degree.

[Tsuga]

One thing people forget is that people have started college much earlier than they do now.  For example, I'm reading Chernow's 'Hamilton'.   There is conflicting evidence on his age.   Chernow's theory is that Hamilton shaved two years off his age because his real age, which I think was 17, was embarrassingly old.  Monroe had started at 16, and because he was older than normal they started him as a sophomore.  

 

This is a bit misleading though. Many people in the past made huge scientific discoveries in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Today, that age is pushed back because of the volume of expertise required to achieve novel discoveries, not to mention, mastery of background subjects.

 

For a college-bound high schooler, they are taking subjects like calculus in high school. When Monroe and Hamilton were studying, everything from calculus, if studied in college, to advanced history, was taught at college, not high school. So I don't think it's reasonable to compare the current early-college prodigy to the average person in the past.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30173543?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT7050/HistoryWeggener.html

 

In addition, there was significantly less science:

 

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/primdocs/upl/upl1/upl1_1851_52.pdf#page=29

 

(This is a trip, a university catalogue from the mid-1800s... I could get my kids through Greek, Latin and Ovid if they didn't need to have American language and literature at all.)

 

In other words, the kids are still taking algebra at the age of 12 - 13 in this scenario, and still graduating at 18 with just calculus or integral calculus, if they are college bound. It's basically paid high school.

 

More importantly, 16 is so different from a potentially young 14! I mean you really see the lights go on around that age for most kids. I get it, there are truly profoundly and highly gifted kids, but again we are talking about a book on how to do it for all kids, or at least, most kids.

 

I know that early college is a reasonably scalable option for 16 year olds because in many states we have dual enrollment options which start your junior year, 15 or 16, and have you graduating with a transfer degree at 17-18.

 

I still think pushing it back a couple years around that age is more similar to pushing up kindergarten subjects to the age of three. Yes, you can do it. I can force a bright three year old through the arithmetic and train them like a tiny little monkey to do it, but why? (And I say this as someone who self-taught to read at three.) What is the point? What does it get you?

 

Everything in life comes with trade-offs. Yes, you can teach a three-year-old to read and you can teach a 14-year-old integral calculus and linear algebra, if they are clever enough. And then you can shoehorn them into a high-paying career.

 

But then what? Yay, an extra five years of work when you're young, so you can retire five years early, maybe 10? At 55? Woo freaking hoo.

 

Take it from me folks, living free in your 20s and traveling the world can't be beat. Run up the steps of the Louvre past all the people who are finally getting to travel at 60? Never have to think through whether there's going to be a major medical facility when you take off to travel on a last-minute, no-kids, no-responsibilities vacation?

 

Not to mention, having a beer with a professor and talking about physics late into the night. Not to be underestimated.

 

Again, I know this is a lot of text so let me repeat the fact that I am 100% in favor of supporting a highly motivated kid in those rare cases. That is not the thesis or subject of the book in question, however.

[EliseMcKenna]

Take it from me folks, living free in your 20s and traveling the world can't be beat. Run up the steps of the Louvre past all the people who are finally getting to travel at 60? Never have to think through whether there's going to be a major medical facility when you take off to travel on a last-minute, no-kids, no-responsibilities vacation?

 

Not to mention, having a beer with a professor and talking about physics late into the night. Not to be underestimated.

 

 

And yet . . . as someone who did the things you described, except I didn't make it to the Louvre until my 30's, I do sometimes feel behind now. I had my first child at age 38. My husband and I often talk about how we can "catch up" for retirement. We live comfortably, but we're also in an expensive part of the country, and our retirement funds need to reflect that. My husband supports us, but he didn't graduate with an undergrad business degree until he turned 30. 

 

There are drawbacks to both ways of doing things. I'm not going to push my daughters to marry and start a family, but I will also be able to advise them of the pitfalls of waiting longer than average . . . I've been very, very lucky with my fertility. My sister hasn't been. Maybe early college/careers in high-paying fields DO make sense for women who think they may want a family someday? 

[wapiti]

There are drawbacks to both ways of doing things. I'm not going to push my daughters to marry and start a family, but I will also be able to advise them of the pitfalls of waiting longer than average . . . I've been very, very lucky with my fertility. My sister hasn't been. Maybe early college/careers in high-paying fields DO make sense for women who think they may want a family someday? 

 

There are multiple ways of doing things.  Not early doesn't have to mean late.  Not late doesn't have to mean early.  The usual time for things is a middle ground and is common for a reason.

Edited January 28, 2018 by wapiti

[8filltheheart]

You all have made great points. Lots to think about. Although, just for the record, I wasn't considering this path for my children. Heck, we don't even start formal schooling until age 7, so we're waaaaay behind the early-college curve already. I will say that what this book made me consider, however, is that my expectations might be too low for my kids.

We are VERY low key during the primary grades. We are also very interest led.....all the way through to high school graduation.

 

But, I do have certain minimums that I really hope my kids are able to achieve. My experience with my kids is that you can't make kids into who they aren't. (if only!!) My kids who struggle, struggle. There isn't any magic wand or potion I can give them that will turn them into their siblings who breeze through things and make mastering topics look so easy. I have kids who drag me along as they are racing by. But, for some of them, it is just "one foot in front of the other" progression. It can be painful and slow. It can take a ton of effort. But, no, simply having expectations and seeing what their siblings have achieved is not going to translate into their being able to do the same thing.

Edited January 27, 2018 by 8FillTheHeart

[kiana]

Adding to Tsuga's post above -- Just today, I was looking for other information and found a note that for Yale, in 1720 Geometry was a senior-level class -- in 1743, sophomore -- in 1825, third term freshmen -- in 1835, part of the entrance requirements. 

[Pen]

Adding to Tsuga's post above -- Just today, I was looking for other information and found a note that for Yale, in 1720 Geometry was a senior-level class -- in 1743, sophomore -- in 1825, third term freshmen -- in 1835, part of the entrance requirements. 

 

 

Interesting.

 

And around my area the CCs still offer math at what I'd consider high school level.  Or maybe even less than that if Basic College Math is included, but I think it is considered remedial and not a math credit.  Still, algebra at what seems to be high school algebra 1 level seems to be part of the CC math offering.

 

I didn't look to see if Mesa CC is more advanced.

[kiana]

Interesting.

 

And around my area the CCs still offer math at what I'd consider high school level.  Or maybe even less than that if Basic College Math is included, but I think it is considered remedial and not a math credit.  Still, algebra at what seems to be high school algebra 1 level seems to be part of the CC math offering.

 

I didn't look to see if Mesa CC is more advanced.

 

Look at the course numbers, too. 0xx is usually developmental, 1xx usually counts, at least at the CC (though if a CC has a class numbered 1xx for intermediate algebra, it usually won't transfer to a 4-year). 

[Dmmetler]

My DD is 13 and is in her 3rd semester of part-time college courses (not remediation, and in fact, she would not have been accepted had she not quite definitively placed into college courses). She is planning to get an AA in psychology, not because she wants to get her bachelor’s in psych, but because she finds the subject fascinating and feels that it will be a help in her eventual goals. She’s not moving lock step through a program, because she has/will have 5 1/2 years to complete a program that can be completed in 2. She went back and forth on getting the AA af all and decided it because most of the classes that she needs to tick high school boxes for eventual college applications down the road fit into the AA anyway, either as general studies or electives. She will have far more credits in many areas than the AA requires, but that’s Ok.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that it’s college. Not high school, not middle school. It takes a certain level of executive functioning to handle that setting. (My 19 yr old bonus kid was in panic because she hadn’t read the syllabus and missed turning in an assignment. My 12, and now 13 yr old, has not had that happen because she is good at managing that kind of stuff on her own, and that’s just one example). The difficulty of courses is often not what determines success or failure for a 18-19 yr old, and that’s even more the case for a 12-14 yr old.

 

Basically, she needed to go to school for social and emotional reasons, and the college offered much more flexibility and freedom to her to fulfill her needs and goals. I don’t care if anything transfers. In fact, I’d be pretty happy if nothing does, which is why I’ve encouraged her to do the psych AA if she wants to do it and to take lots of fun extra classes, rather than pushing towards her biology degree ASAP (especially since she wants EECB, and the school she is currently attending is mostly pushing out nurses, radiologists, and future pharmacists and doctors).

 

Theee is no one size fits all. I never expected we’d be on this route until we were.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Dmmetler2

[Dmmetler]

Look at the course numbers, too. 0xx is usually developmental, 1xx usually counts, at least at the CC (though if a CC has a class numbered 1xx for intermediate algebra, it usually won't transfer to a 4-year).

Courses at CC are also often labeled “not intended for transferâ€, too. Usually those are courses that are specific to 2 year paths. For example, there is a 2000 level A&P intended for transfer, and another that is not-the one that is not is designed for students who are in programs that terminate at the AA, like Physical therapy assistant, Paramedic, or LPN. The other one is for students who will be taking more biology in their junior and senior years and for whom this fits into a sequence designed to transfer seamlessly to a state U.

[Jackie]

Theee is no one size fits all. I never expected we’d be on this route until we were.

This, really. I don’t like the books and stories that are “all our kids go to college at X age because that is what we do, and you can/should do it, too!†I believe that, in the ideal world, kids should be allowed and encouraged to find both mental challenge and a peer group, and that for the vast majority of people this means choosing a college carefully for best fit and having the right social environment, including age-mates.

 

The exceptions are exceptions.

 

Dmmetler, I’ve followed your journey with your daughter through these boards for years now. She’s amazing, and an example of why college should be an open and available option for the kids who find that it’s the best fit for them at an early age.

[LMD]

I haven't read all the replies but I wanted to quickly say, before I go make dinner, that we like a different but similar idea to the book-family. Instead of graduating high school with a useful degree, what about graduating with a useful trade?

My kids will likely complete an apprenticeship in an area of their interest while finishing high school. My oldest is very interested in cooking and specifically patisserie - dh happens to be a baker. He could easily take her through a baking apprenticeship during her last few years at home, while she still has plenty of time for high school level liberal arts.

Learning an instrument has the same idea, it's a skill that the kids can decide to monetize if they want to - same dd will likely play at her first wedding this year...

 

I guess we're focused on a different kind of practical.

 

That said, I value the pace and freedom that homeschooling affords us, rushing to college as a blueprint wouldn't suit us.

[kiana]

I like the apprenticeship idea a lot better.

 

One of the major issues I have with the college is that once college is completed, going back for another degree or to dramatically change fields is often expensive and not covered by financial aid. Another issue is that your GPA is kinda "locked in", so if you graduate at 18 with a 3.0, you may have tanked your chances of medical school/grad school if that's what you wanted. Those don't apply to apprenticeships. 

 

Because there isn't a defined scope/sequence/grade, if the kid doesn't learn as much as an 18 year old would have, they just aren't quite as good yet as opposed to having mediocre grades. 

 

I also think a lot more 14 year olds are ready to learn things like carpentry, baking, and other fields that would be open to a younger person (clearly they're not going to be working on their CDL) than are ready to work at a collegiate level. 

 

Lastly, a trade is a very useful thing to have while you're in college or if you decide to take a gap year. 

[LMD]

Yep kiana, exactly.

 

I was discussing this with our builder the other day - his 14 year old son has been working with him on site, lovely, capable kid - he (builder) LOVED the idea of his son coming on as apprentice whilst completing school at home.

I'm on a mission to convert all our tradies into homeschoolers mwahahahahahaha (imagine me reclining in my black leather high backed throne!)

[Carrie12345]

My 14 and 15yos have some college credits under their belts, so I'm not entirely opposed to that. The 15yo got her first 3 the summer between 8th and 9th grades. My daughters aren't geniuses.  Their credits are entirely interest driven.  I think they can, and might, earn an associates on the early side, which may be nice, but I wouldn't call it an actual goal in our house.  It's an option.

 

I think most kids come out of most non-abusive, stable homes being mostly satisfied with their experience.  I can easily say I mostly loved the way I was raised and still want different things for my own family.  So those kids' reviews don't really sway me.

 

It's important TO ME that my kids have real childhoods. I want them to have the freedom to mess up.  I want them to dream about all of their options and to explore as many as they can.  My 14 and 15yos (and my 19yo, for that matter) do believe they know what they want to do for the rest of their lives, and we're fully supporting them on those paths, but we're always trying to make sure they know they can switch tracks at any time and we'll be equally supportive.  It isn't just that I don't think they could handle an official college course load, which I don't think they could.  I don't want them to.

 

My highly gifted 19yo did start college at 16.  He's still working on his associates.  Granted, there are additional issues at play, but accelerating academics in an institutional dynamic involves a lot more than "just" accelerating academics.  The whole child is involved.  And most 14, 15, 16, and 17yos are whole children, not just academics.

 

 

 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I ordered the book, it sounds interesting and also counter-cultural to most homeschool stuff, so it'll be interesting.  

[Tanaqui]

Six children in one family going to college early *could* be the result of their amazing family culture and educational methods... but you'd think all those STEM majors would at least float the possibility of genetics.

 

(And history majors become lawyers and, eventually, lawmakers. Since when is this a bad career choice?)

[Xahm]

My kids are still way too young to know what the future holds for us, but our state is currently very open to letting highschoolers, including homeschoolers, start college early on the state's dime. My husband and I have talked about under what circumstances that would be beneficial. I like that starting early could give young people time to double major in two very different fields, perhaps one that is a passion and one that is more practical. I like that starting early could give someone, especially a young woman, a little bit of "cushion" when making decisions about graduate degrees and starting families. 

[maize]

I've thought about early college as a possibility. It is common and encouraged for LDS young adults to take 1.5-2 years off from school to serve a mission, which puts them academically behind their age peers in college. Combine that with a tendency to marry and start a family early and things get tough, especially for women.

 

I knew a fellow in my own mission cohort who had his BS in molecular biology before leaving for a mission at age 19; he later completed a PhD and is now a professor.

 

Not something everyone could or should do but it worked out for him.

Edited January 28, 2018 by maize

[Dmmetler]

I haven't read all the replies but I wanted to quickly say, before I go make dinner, that we like a different but similar idea to the book-family. Instead of graduating high school with a useful degree, what about graduating with a useful trade?

My kids will likely complete an apprenticeship in an area of their interest while finishing high school. My oldest is very interested in cooking and specifically patisserie - dh happens to be a baker. He could easily take her through a baking apprenticeship during her last few years at home, while she still has plenty of time for high school level liberal arts.

Learning an instrument has the same idea, it's a skill that the kids can decide to monetize if they want to - same dd will likely play at her first wedding this year...

 

I guess we're focused on a different kind of practical.

 

That said, I value the pace and freedom that homeschooling affords us, rushing to college as a blueprint wouldn't suit us.

I think that’s a great idea. The only caveat that I can see is that I know many of the more practical majors at the CC-the vo-tech ones that lead to jobs directly-are the ones that have age limits. That may make it less accessible to teens who don’t have a family member or close friend who has the skllls to teach.

 

As a professional musician, the idea that music is a practical path amuses me, because it so often comes up in the lists of college majors with a poor ROI :).

[Dmmetler]

My kids are still way too young to know what the future holds for us, but our state is currently very open to letting highschoolers, including homeschoolers, start college early on the state's dime. My husband and I have talked about under what circumstances that would be beneficial. I like that starting early could give young people time to double major in two very different fields, perhaps one that is a passion and one that is more practical. I like that starting early could give someone, especially a young woman, a little bit of "cushion" when making decisions about graduate degrees and starting families.

One thing that a college pointed out to DD was that as long as she was in high school, college classes didn’t “count†for advanced standing-she would still be a freshman, not a transfer for scholarship purposes. And if she has scholarship money, it could be used for a second major or even to start on a master’s, and that those scholarships often have fewer strings attached than graduate funding support. It’s so common now for students to do DE that it is rare to run into schools that make you transfer, even if you have an AA.

 

It was also pointed out (both at her current college and some of the schools she interviewed at) that she would be in a wonderful position to do a semester exchange, since she is going to have extra flexibility in her BS that most students won’t have.

 

One thing I find is funny when this comes up is that a lot of the parents who come close to questioning my sanity for letting my DD start college so young have kids who are doing pretty heavy academic loads. I really don’t see much difference between a kid taking a couple of college classes a semester and taking a few AP classes a year-except that the college classes have a lot less busywork and the grade is a combination of the work and the exams and transfers based on the agreement with the school (which can be looked up in advance),while AP credit is based just on the test score. DD has FAR more time, despite getting more college credits (and, honestly, high school credits) a year than her cheer teammates who are taking AP classes or are in IB programs.

 

And my guess is that most high school students on this path could academically manage college classes for credit, albeit not necessarily in their desired major, by age 14. They may not get a 4.0-but neither do most high school or college students.

 

Whether it’s a good choice depends on a lot of things-and not all on the side of the student.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I haven't read all the replies but I wanted to quickly say, before I go make dinner, that we like a different but similar idea to the book-family. Instead of graduating high school with a useful degree, what about graduating with a useful trade?

My kids will likely complete an apprenticeship in an area of their interest while finishing high school. My oldest is very interested in cooking and specifically patisserie - dh happens to be a baker. He could easily take her through a baking apprenticeship during her last few years at home, while she still has plenty of time for high school level liberal arts.

Learning an instrument has the same idea, it's a skill that the kids can decide to monetize if they want to - same dd will likely play at her first wedding this year...

 

I guess we're focused on a different kind of practical.

 

That said, I value the pace and freedom that homeschooling affords us, rushing to college as a blueprint wouldn't suit us.

 

I have the same reaction to this as to the scenario in the OP.  What does the young person want?  Not everyone is cut out for a trade.  Not everyone is cut out for college.  Or certain majors in college.  Or early enrollment.  Etc.

 

Now I do think that kids should be exposed to all sorts of skills in life just as I think that they should be exposed to all sorts of content (the liberal arts model of a well rounded person).  I think that exposure can spark kids' further interests and more serious study as they get older.  I also think that being somewhat self sufficient in hands on skills can be a boon to life no matter what career or job someone ends up going after.  But once a normally developing teen hits at least 14, I think that they should be more involved in the decisions  Not forced to decide the final one - I think that this is still a time of exploration.  But to be able to decide the trajectory of that exploration. 

[Pen]

Medicine is an undergraduate degree in the UK.  You can't do it early though - as far as I know they have strict rules about no one under 18 beginning it.

 

In general you need top grades to get into Medicine (as well as a proven track record of volunteering/interest in the field).  I've never heard anyone say that medicine was more intellectually challenging each year than many other degrees; it just requires a lot of hard work and dedication.  So perhaps there are historical reasons for the US having it as a postgraduate degree.

 

 

I used medicine because I knew for sure it was a degree that was typically different in USA and where what the family in the book seemed to be doing would graduate an MD at roughly the same age as some (many?) European universities would.  

 

But, I think, there is a more general difference where in many countries (UK, NZ, Australia, and some European countries among them), university students are not getting a general education the way they often are in the US, with an expectation that they will figure out what they want to do later.  By uni in a lot of places students are already specializing significantly whether that is in medicine or other studies.  The general education that often happens at university level in USA, seems to often happen at an A-levels stage in UK or some similar stage in other countries.  A friend of mine in Australia gave me a partial explanation that he thought that since the government was paying for uni level education there was a higher expectation for attainment.  But I'm not sure that holds true for other places.

 

I'm not sure if it is necessarily all a good thing, but my experience when I lived briefly in the UK was that uni students I met were more directed and mature by and large than USA uni level students seemed to be.

 

Another difference was that some of the other countries seemed to have better routes earlier for kids who did not want to eventually go to university, so they had decent technical education, comprehensive school, and other tracks available.  In USA it differs a lot from region to region, but giving an example from where I am, the high school diploma requires essentially all credits to be academic, after which the main feasible route for someone who wants to be something like a mechanic or heater repair technician is to go to community college.

 

And while I get that for some people a slow route through high school and college might mean getting to go to the Louvre and hang out as a young person, in the region where I am, something like that would be very rare. Only something that a kid from a wealthy family or one who won a chance to have study abroad would get, not typical.

[kiana]

As a professional musician, the idea that music is a practical path amuses me, because it so often comes up in the lists of college majors with a poor ROI :).

 

You know, though, as an apprenticeship for a high school student who really likes music, with the goal of being able to do "side jobs" while either going to college or pursuing another career, I think it's perfectly fine; it's the cost of a 4-year degree (and the opportunity cost) that really gives it a poor ROI. 

 

In other words, if I is low, R doesn't need to be very high either. (which just made me giggle for some reason)

[Dmmetler]

You know, though, as an apprenticeship for a high school student who really likes music, with the goal of being able to do "side jobs" while either going to college or pursuing another career, I think it's perfectly fine; it's the cost of a 4-year degree (and the opportunity cost) that really gives it a poor ROI. 

 

In other words, if I is low, R doesn't need to be very high either. (which just made me giggle for some reason)

 

It would be rare to be able to study to the level needed to get side jobs in music without a pretty high I. Especially if you're in an area with a music school with many, many pre-professional musicians with a similar I, and a large number of music graduates who have that I plus a college degree, who are having to do music as a side job because there aren't that many career-track positions available.  It's roughly the same as assuming investment in sports will be a reasonable side job. Yes, there are people who do it (when my DD did rec gymnastics and cheer, all of her coaches were doing it as a side job), but it's simply not something you can count on, and it's definitely not going to be as high paying as carpentry (and probably not as high paying as cake or cookie decorating/baking).

 

I've seen a lot of people assume that their child's years of piano lessons means they can teach piano without realizing just how many piano teachers there are teaching out of their living rooms for $20/ lesson who have graduate degrees in piano performance and pedagogy.

[luuknam]

 LOL!

 

DS19, who I posted about earlier (started CC at 14, will graduate university next year at 20 with a double major) is on the spectrum and has an "atypical learning disability" (often called NVLD). So definitely not NT. But to be fair I'll add that he's also highly to profoundly gifted in a few areas that typically relate to classroom success. We used Calvert (but not for math or Spanish), but I don't think he ever worked more than four hours a day total. And that would have been a really long day. A typical middle school day for him was two to three hours.

 

I sure wasn't totally lax, but a pushy Tiger Mom? That's funny. We're about as relaxed and laid back as you can get.

 

Now, do I think any kid could be ready for college by 14? No, of course not. We all mature in different ways--mentally, emotionally, socially--it's an entire package. I'm not saying a kid has to be 100% ready in all those areas before starting college level work, but . . . the mix has got to be right. And it won't be for all kids. It wouldn't have been for me at 14, even though academically I could have handled most of the work rather easily. (But not math--the math part of my brain didn't mature until much later. ;))

 

Generalizations rarely work, and kids being ready for college level work (or not) early isn't an exception.

 

I read her comment as "if you have an NT kid with roughly average intelligence, you'd probably be able to get the kid into college-level courses if you push them and have them do 6 hours of seat work year round starting at a young age", not as "all 14yos in college must have been tiger-parented". Now, I'm not going to make a guess as to what percentage of kids could be ready for college-level work at 14, other than a significantly larger percentage than currently are, though I do agree with iirc 8Fill that at some point brain maturation will be a limiting factor that you can't address by just spending more time on academics.

 

Medicine is an undergraduate degree in the UK.  You can't do it early though - as far as I know they have strict rules about no one under 18 beginning it.

 

In general you need top grades to get into Medicine (as well as a proven track record of volunteering/interest in the field).  I've never heard anyone say that medicine was more intellectually challenging each year than many other degrees; it just requires a lot of hard work and dedication.  So perhaps there are historical reasons for the US having it as a postgraduate degree.

 

 

In NL it used to be 6 years immediately following high school (now it's 3 years undergrad and 3 years grad, I think, so, basically same thing), and you could start early - when I was in high school I knew a guy iirc 2 years older than me who started at iirc 15yo? Extremely unusual though, and I think he might've set a record for the university he attended - not sure; I didn't know him that well. Last I knew of him he was about to graduate and contemplating what to do - I think he did apply to do a residency in pediatric medicine, but I think he was also contemplating maybe getting a second degree in (child) psychology before continuing on with medicine. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by luuknam

[Arcadia]

I have not read this book as it’s $3.99 for Kindle. However, it does remind me of The Brainy Bunch: The Harding Family's Method to College Ready by Age Twelve book. There are many who did send their kids to college early because their kids wanted early college, whether it is to U of Washington program, CSULA early entrance program, Bard College, or like Quark whose son (thread link http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/665657-shout-out-for-quarks-son/) ran out of courses to take for his math and is now a freshman at UCB. I just don’t see a need to write a book to tell others how to do it their way.

 

One thing I find is funny when this comes up is that a lot of the parents who come close to questioning my sanity for letting my DD start college so young have kids who are doing pretty heavy academic loads. I really don’t see much difference between a kid taking a couple of college classes a semester and taking a few AP classes a year-except that the college classes have a lot less busywork and the grade is a combination of the work and the exams and transfers based on the agreement with the school (which can be looked up in advance),while AP credit is based just on the test score. DD has FAR more time, despite getting more college credits (and, honestly, high school credits) a year than her cheer teammates who are taking AP classes or are in IB programs.

My DS13 opt for AP courses because he is not in a B&M so he could redo if the grades and AP exam scores are below expectations. He is also a much better test taker than a “consistent throughout the term†student so with our nearest good community college being on a quarter system, there is less leeway to bring up a bad DE grade and also would mean doing well for two quarters of a sequential subject e.g. math 1A & Math 1B, chem 1A & chem 1B.

 

We have family friends who aren’t doing well in AP classes as sophomore and juniors but there is extra credit so they can still salvage their grades. Many are also looking at private universities so the transfer agreements aren’t a consideration as much as the high school weighted GPA.

 

But, I think, there is a more general difference where in many countries (UK, NZ, Australia, and some European countries among them), university students are not getting a general education the way they often are in the US, with an expectation that they will figure out what they want to do later.  By uni in a lot of places students are already specializing significantly whether that is in medicine or other studies.  The general education that often happens at university level in USA, seems to often happen at an A-levels stage in UK or some similar stage in other countries.  

... 

Another difference was that some of the other countries seemed to have better routes earlier for kids who did not want to eventually go to university, so they had decent technical education, comprehensive school, and other tracks available.  In USA it differs a lot from region to region, but giving an example from where I am, the high school diploma requires essentially all credits to be academic, after which the main feasible route for someone who wants to be something like a mechanic or heater repair technician is to go to community college.

Singapore’s general education is done at 7th & 8th grade, specialization starts in 9th & 10th grade. Further specialization is in 11th and 12th grade. So my husband who was in the medicine track took math (between AP calculus BC & AB level) , Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I have no interest in medicine or biology so I choose the engineering track which typically takes Math (multivariable calculus level), physics (compulsory and about AP Physics C level) and chemistry/Computer Science/economics. So we apply direct to medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, architecture, accountancy, engineering, business administration and some others.

 

However the technical track is very well funded and established, similar to the German system. Trades is regarded as good for people who has that aptitude. It was more like if you can’t survive as an artisan, you better study hard because you need that associate degree. Tradesmen can easily make more than a college graduate and is less likely to be retrenched. Robots aren’t taking over the plumbing, electrical rewiring or hairdressing industry yet. My friend was able to be an apprentice hairdresser at 16 after finishing VoTech.

[Pen]

 

Singapore’s general education is done at 7th & 8th grade, specialization starts in 9th & 10th grade. Further specialization is in 11th and 12th grade. So my husband who was in the medicine track took math (between AP calculus BC & AB level) , Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I have no interest in medicine or biology so I choose the engineering track which typically takes Math (multivariable calculus level), physics (compulsory and about AP Physics C level) and chemistry/Computer Science/economics. So we apply direct to medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, architecture, accountancy, engineering, business administration and some others.

 

However the technical track is very well funded and established, similar to the German system. Trades is regarded as good for people who has that aptitude. It was more like if you can’t survive as an artisan, you better study hard because you need that associate degree. Tradesmen can easily make more than a college graduate and is less likely to be retrenched. Robots aren’t taking over the plumbing, electrical rewiring or hairdressing industry yet. My friend was able to be an apprentice hairdresser at 16 after finishing VoTech.

 

 

Having been through that system, did it seem good or bad to you?  To me it sounds better than what I see going on around me for a lot of kids.