You know your child and situation better than anyone else, so if you feel like they should take the PSAT, then go for it. Personally, for my kids, I'm having them do SAT prep books and taking practice SAT tests, which are still a full test, but they don't count. I figure they will take the actual test for real at least a couple of times.

I went to James Stobaugh's sessions at the convention this summer and his advice was to skip the PSAT, unless you think your child may possibly score high enough to receive a National Merit Scholarship. Instead just prepare for the SAT by taking sample tests, etc. There are SAT prep books out there. He recommends having your child do a sample test every couple months.

Thank you so much for the advice! This gives me more to consider in preparing my ds for college. I'm a homeschooler of 3 and my student athlete is my oldest, so this is all new to me and I'm a bit intimidated. I'm trying to make it possible for my son to have as many college credits done ahead of time without taking away his elligibility for scholarships, and I don't want to put him through a rigorous workload if some of those classes won't even transfer to whatever college he attends. There are so many factors. Any other input is appreciated!

My son is a sophomore and plays baseball for the public high school in our district, which is a large school with a great baseball program. He has always played competitively and I expect that he will eventually be offered baseball scholarships. I would expect community colleges to want him and possibly more major universities. Right now, I want to plan ahead for college, but feel limited because I don't know for sure if he'll get baseball scholarship offers and if he does, what schools will be offering them to him. I've heard that we should pick a handful of schools that he's interested in and then find out about their admission policies. We could do that, but I feel like the chances that those will be the schools to offer a baseball scholarship would be slim. I'm also wondering about dual enrollment. If he takes community college classes now, will that disqualify him for a baseball scholarship in the future? Have any of you have to plan around a possibility of a sports scholarship? I feel like we're not going to be able to plan much for college options until the last minute when we'll know if and who offers a scholarship. Has anyone else had to plan for college while keeping a possible sports scholarship in mind? If so, I'm all ears!

Looks like this would be very helpful to many! I hope it happens! I know I would come here more often if it were easier to find posts on the questions I have!

Thanks to everyone who had some honest input. (I could do without all the posts about drinking and halloween, but anyway...) The hard thing for me is that there are many people out there who are way smarter than I am who have opposing views on things like this. As I read through the posts I realized that basically, there is just a lot that I don't know and it does spark my interest. The discussion about starlight and time got me wondering. I also think, like one poster said, that this sort of question is probably much better in a formal debate forum where there are rules to the dialogue. I'd love to hear people dedicated to this field debate on the topic of the earth's age. In retrospect, probably a better question for me to ask would be... why does Story of the World date the nomads at 7,000 years ago. Quite honestly, I would've expected the author to be one of those who thought the world was about 6,000 years old. History books are not written in such a way as to always explain how they date things (on either side of the debate), and so I wonder how Susan Wise Bauer dates the nomads at 7,000 years ago.

My boys just went through Mike Snavely's "Evolution or Creation" book, which teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Today we were looking at Story of the World (Ancient Times) and it says that the nomads were around about 7,000 years ago. I find both authors reasonably trust-worthy, and I'm not very well-read on the subject to know what the right answer is. Anyone have input?

I was planning on getting Rod and Staff English 8 for my 8th grader. He's been using Rod and Staff since 4th grade. I've LOVED Rod and Staff English, but looking through the grade 8 book, one can't help but notice how repetitive it is. I think repetitive is good with grammar, but it gets to a point where it's too much, and I think 8th grade may be that point. Can I just stop doing grammar/ English now? I AM planning on starting Write Shop, so that will keep my 8th grader sharp (I hope) and help him put all those English lessons to use. Do kids need to know grammar for placement tests (SAT, ACT)? Obviously, they will need to write well, but I mean... will they need to answer questions about demonstrative pronouns, prepostitional phrases, etc?

Thanks so much for the advice, everyone. I have to admit that I'm a bit worried about having my children prepared for college. I'm a fairly laid-back type of individual. I love teaching them and they are bright kids, however administrative type stuff is not my strong suit. So the thought of providing an impressive transcript is a bit daunting. You've been a big encouragement though and I plan on frequenting this board more often so I can keep learning and get the job done.

I have a 7th grader and am concerned that as he is nearing high school, I am preparing him well. It's hard for me sometimes to not have a direct comparison between him and his peers. If you can share with me what your 7th grader's schedule looks like that would be wonderful. Thanks!

I am a homeschool mom of three children, the oldest being a 7th grader. I would like to homeschool them through high school. What challenges does this pose for getting into major colleges? Do they all accept a transcript made by mom? What do community colleges require? I'm thinking of having them enter a community college early and then transfer to a larger college after they've earned some credits, however I really know little of the specifics. If anyone has been through this and can tell me how I can prepare for this, I'm all ears!

I just have to say that I am so tired of politicians in leadership who blatantly step all over the constitution. The tenth ammendment clearly states, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.†They've already stepped over these bouncaries with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs. (By the way, I think Democrats were in office when all of these were formed and they've all been disasterous economically.) There should be no debate in the first place as to whether the president can choose to forgo the Constitution. I think that when there is an issue to be dealt with, it always should be done in such a way as to be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Below is an article from msnbc this morning. Why is Obama saying that the bill needs to be passed urgently if it doesn't even get coverage for the uninsured until 2013. This bill has massive consequences, shouldn't we give people some time to at least read and process it? Seems like the big rush on passing it is manipulative to me. Medicare took one year; reform to take decade Even if bill is signed this fall, uninsured won't get coverage until 2013 updated 2 hours, 22 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law on July 30, 1965, and 11 months later seniors were receiving coverage. But if President Barack Obama gets to sign a health care overhaul this fall, the uninsured won't be covered until 2013 — after the next presidential election. In fact, a timeline of the 1,000-page health care bill crafted by House Democrats shows it would take the better part of a decade — from 2010-2018 — to get all the components of the far-reaching proposal up and running. The moving parts include a national insurance marketplace overseen by a brand new federal bureaucracy — the Health Choices Administration.

For those in this thread who are pro-choice. Can you tell me at what week after conception you think the woman no longer should have the choice to have an abortion and why? Or if you think it is fine as long as she is still pregnant?

One note to those debating whether to do a church youth group or not. I don't think this is a black and white issue, but rather and issue of conscious. If you do not have a clear conscious about it, then I wouldn't get my child involved in it. There are different parts of the body of Christ. We don't need all our children in the same group situation. God may be preparing your child to be a certain part of the body and another child for another job. Your child may be an arm and another may be a leg. I think parents need to look at their own child's strengths and weaknesses, their desires and gifts, and then make a decision based on what will best prepare their child to be used in God's kingdom. I would also talk to your child about it. If they are preteens or teens, then they should start to gain more repsonsibility and have more input in these sorts of decisions. If you aren't crazy about the youth group, you can always form something else that may minister to other youth as well.

Voddie Bacham spoke about this at one of his speeches this weekend at the Arizona Homeschool Convention. I was really surprised at the hard line he took on this. At his church they do not have any youth groups and he thinks it is not biblical. Instead, at their church, they try to support and encourage parents to be the ones who are discipling their own children. I agree with him that parents should be the primary spiritual leaders of their children. No doubt about that! However, I do not think it is wrong to have youth groups. My children attend our church's Wednesday night church group. It is split up into boys and girls and by age... 1st and 2nd grade girls are together and so on. The curriculum that they have is so solid and it is a good time for my kids to see other examples of godly leaders, as well as spending time with their friends from church. Now our church also has a Jr. High / Sr. High group that we have chosen not to use. Everyone is together in that group and I see it as being reflective of a typical teen atmosphere, of which we aren't all that crazy. For us, we want a more quiet, reflective atmosphere especially for our preteen (turns 13 this winter). So instead of using the teen group at church, we and a few friends will host a Bible study for our kids, basically our own small youth group in a home. We still want to make it exciting and do some trips, have good food and such, but they will have more responsibility and accountability with Bible study and their actions.

I think the real issue on abortion is pretty simple. If you can tell me when an unborn baby is considered a life, then you can tell me when abortion is okay. I haven't met anyone yet who can tell me, "I know without a doubt that an unborn baby becomes it's own life when they are x number of weeks from conception. Unless you are completely sure about this fact, you should not give the mother the choice to potentially kill another human being. Psaslm 139 says: 13For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. That is enough for me to be Pro-Life!

If you look back in the posts you will see a post from someone whose child's braces were paid for by their country's universal health care coverage. It's an example of the bigger picture. Things being paid for by the wealthy that could be paid for by the individual getting the services. I know there are people with more pressing issues that are very expensive. I understand that if they are unable to pay for their healthcare, then they should receive assistance. That is not in question. The question really is how much does the government need to intervene. With universal healthcare they would be doing way way more than is necessary. There are other options.

Yes, some people get rich by dishonest means. Most people I know who make more than $350,000 (the amount Obama has set) are not bad people. Also, REALLY do you think the people receiving the "free" healthcare are all going to be virtuous? It goes both ways.

I am not proposing that the healthcare system we have it fine. It seems like many people have that assumption. What I am proposing is that universal healthcare is not the honorable answer, and that universal healthcare is not the only option to solving the problems we face. Here is another option that we should consider: Today, Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) joined with several Republican Members of Congress including: Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26), Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) and Congressman Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) to introduce The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act which will reform America’s health care system making health care services more personal, more affordable and ensure that all Americans receive the care they need. Please watch Rep. Shadegg and read what the bill includes: IF YOU LIKE IT YOU CAN KEEP IT. Approximately 83% of Americans are satisfied with the health care they currently receive through their employer. Under this plan, Americans with employer-provided care can keep it without any change. Unlike other proposals, this bill will NOT tax your employer-sponsored plan to pay for a government takeover of health care. And, unlike the Democrats plan, it will not force you to give up the health care coverage you currently have if you choose to keep it! ALL AMERICANS GET CHOICE AND COVERAGE. The bill allows Americans who don’t have employer-sponsored care or those not satisfied with their employer-sponsored plan to buy their own plan on the same tax-advantaged basis their employer enjoys. Americans who pay income taxes get a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax bill up to $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. Americans who don’t pay income taxes get the same amount from the government to buy a policy of their choice; $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. PROVIDES POOLING MECHANISMS AND GROUP PLAN CHOICES FOR EVERYONE. This legislation creates expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms. Today, the only health insurance pool available to Americans is their employer’s pool. Americans not in an employer-sponsored pool buy in what is called the “individual market.†The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act dramatically expands the insurance pools Americans can select to join by allowing churches, alumni associations, trade associations and other civic groups to set up new insurance pools and offer affordable health care packages to their members. Instead of having only one group policy to choose from, under this bill, every American will be able to choose from a number of “group plans.†This will make health care more affordable and portable while not locking individuals into staying at a job simply to keep their health coverage. Families should not be forced to choose between leaving their employer and having health care. PRE-EXISTING AND CHRONIC CONDITIONS COVERED AT AFFORDABLE RATES. Our fragmented health care system makes it difficult for Americans with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses to find affordable coverage. No American should go bankrupt because they get sick. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act strengthens, expands and creates new avenues for affordable health care for the sickest Americans through high-risk pools and reinsurance mechanisms. The sick and those with chronic conditions will be able to buy coverage at competitive rates. CONTROLS COST AND PROVIDES COVERAGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP, NOT THE TOP (GOVT.) DOWN. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act takes a radically different approach in contrast to what has been discussed by President Obama as well as Democrats in both chambers. It gives people choice and places American families back in control of their plans and their health care. This legislation will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care while expanding access and portability.

I'm not saying all people in a system of universal healthcare don't work hard. I illustrated my point earlier. My son needs braces. I am starting to do afterschool childcare in August to pay for it because there is no other way we could afford it. If the government paid for it I would not have to work for it, even though I could if I really needed to do so. It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that. I think of my brother-in-law and how incredibly hard he worked at Union Pacific for over 20 years. They sacrificed so much, moving to different cities, he worked long hours, often away from home. He came from humble beginnings and had to really work his way up - very commendable. Why should he have to pay for someone else's healthcare now that he is wealthy? I think he earned his money and deserves to keep just as much as anyone else.

Numbers are important to an extent with these sorts of issues, HOWEVER all you have to do is turn on the news and watch the Democrats defend universal healthcare with numbers, and then watch Republicans defend their plan with numbers to see that numbers can be misleading. Let's just keep that in mind. Often times people will use numbers to prove a point, when in reality the number was affected by some other factor having little to do with the point they are making. What is harder to distort (than numbers) is logic. If healthcare is "free" or cheap to the whole population than more people will go to the doctor for more reasons. Again, logic would have it that longer wait times would follow. Also, someone is paying doctors and nurses for that "free" healthcare. Logic follows that taxes are raised. Another point of logic, if people can easily get free or cheap healthcare, they will no longer have to work as hard for it and therefore tax dollars are unnecessrily spent paying for those who could've paid for it themselves.

I really appreciate your point of view on this. While I understand what you're saying about wanting to help those in need, we must not think that our only option is universal healthcare. I just don't buy into the assumption that 1. the government is not helping people who need healthcare (they probably help too much in many cases) and 2. most of the people in that situation are truly in need (I think most, not all, are honestly unmotivated and prefer a hand-out), and 3. that government hand-outs would increase their quality of living overall and benefit the society as a whole.

I think what you mean to say is that healthcare should be free to the sick person at the point of need. I think what some people are missing is that healthcare is never free. Really what you are saying is that if someone really needs healthcare and can't afford it then someone else should be forced to pay it for them. What the government proposes is that the wealthy people should be forced to do this. I think that is wrong. There are other solutions to the problem. Here's the Republicans' ideas posed this week: Today, Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) joined with several Republican Members of Congress including: Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26), Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) and Congressman Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) to introduce The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act which will reform America’s health care system making health care services more personal, more affordable and ensure that all Americans receive the care they need. Please watch Rep. Shadegg and read what the bill includes: IF YOU LIKE IT YOU CAN KEEP IT. Approximately 83% of Americans are satisfied with the health care they currently receive through their employer. Under this plan, Americans with employer-provided care can keep it without any change. Unlike other proposals, this bill will NOT tax your employer-sponsored plan to pay for a government takeover of health care. And, unlike the Democrats plan, it will not force you to give up the health care coverage you currently have if you choose to keep it! ALL AMERICANS GET CHOICE AND COVERAGE. The bill allows Americans who don’t have employer-sponsored care or those not satisfied with their employer-sponsored plan to buy their own plan on the same tax-advantaged basis their employer enjoys. Americans who pay income taxes get a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax bill up to $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. Americans who don’t pay income taxes get the same amount from the government to buy a policy of their choice; $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. PROVIDES POOLING MECHANISMS AND GROUP PLAN CHOICES FOR EVERYONE. This legislation creates expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms. Today, the only health insurance pool available to Americans is their employer’s pool. Americans not in an employer-sponsored pool buy in what is called the “individual market.†The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act dramatically expands the insurance pools Americans can select to join by allowing churches, alumni associations, trade associations and other civic groups to set up new insurance pools and offer affordable health care packages to their members. Instead of having only one group policy to choose from, under this bill, every American will be able to choose from a number of “group plans.†This will make health care more affordable and portable while not locking individuals into staying at a job simply to keep their health coverage. Families should not be forced to choose between leaving their employer and having health care. PRE-EXISTING AND CHRONIC CONDITIONS COVERED AT AFFORDABLE RATES. Our fragmented health care system makes it difficult for Americans with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses to find affordable coverage. No American should go bankrupt because they get sick. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act strengthens, expands and creates new avenues for affordable health care for the sickest Americans through high-risk pools and reinsurance mechanisms. The sick and those with chronic conditions will be able to buy coverage at competitive rates. CONTROLS COST AND PROVIDES COVERAGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP, NOT THE TOP (GOVT.) DOWN. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act takes a radically different approach in contrast to what has been discussed by President Obama as well as Democrats in both chambers. It gives people choice and places American families back in control of their plans and their health care. This legislation will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care while expanding access and portability.

To those who pay more for their universal (or similar) healthcare and like it... If you like your system of universal healthcare and don't mind paying more, I get that. The system surely would work fine for some of the population. However, I think even if that is the case, each individual needs to look beyond their own personal experience. Just because some people like it, should it be imposed on everyone? Also, you have to face the question of... is it ethical to tax the wealthy at a very high rate and force them to pay for the healthcare of the poor? I think that should be an option that the wealthy have, not a mandate. In general, people are wealthy because they or their family have studied and/or worked very hard. "Necessity is the mother of invention." If poorer people don't need to find a way to make money and provide for themselves because it is given to them, then they will not be inventing ways of making a good living. I'm speaking of those ABLE to do so. One example.... My son just got braces two months ago. We could not afford it, flat out. In a few weeks I am going to start doing afterschool childcare for 4 kids in the neighborhood to pay for the braces. If the government would have just paid for my son's braces, I wouldn't have invented a way to pay for it on my own. I am sympathetic to those who truly need care and cannot provide it for themselves. We do have a system that the government has set up for those people (which is run poorly, by the way). However, to offer care to people who are honestly just lazy or worse and force the wealthy to pay for it; I feel that is wrong ethically.