A few observations about graduate school: 1. Competitive programs are really hard to get into. Acceptance rates of 10% are not uncommon. Duke's political science program admitted 6 students last year out of 300 applicants. I won my departments award for the best graduating major and was rejected by 75% of schools I applied ti. Something similar happened for the doctorate. 2. Everyone applying for graduate school is a strong candidate. (Well, not everyone, but a lot of them). Thus, very strong candidates are routinely rejected. 3. How strong is her application in terms of a) GRE scores b) Letters of recommendation? I'm not a huge fan of GRE scores, but I would say a 1200 is a mininum in my field (a social science) and 1300 is often a cut off for funding consideration. Lit probably only cares about the verbal, I would suspect that top programs average scores in the 700s. 4. How was her fit? That is, is what she is interested in studying a good match to departments. If she wants to study French literature and the French literature specialist is retiring, she might be rejected for this reason. Contacting possible professors is something I recommend unless its not done in a particular field. 5. How strong is her preparation? Does she have foreign languages? Having command of at least one is essential for most graduate programs (I believe even American literature usually requires one language), and two is not uncommon. A student with little language preparation will be at a big disadvantage and a risk to not finish. 6. How good is her statement of purpose? With a lot of canidates, this needs to clearly show why she is a good match for a department and how she is unique. 7. How strong is her department? Some schools are snobby, and want Harvard grads, or at least UCLA and Dartmouth grads. In sum, graduate school is very competative, and a combination of these factors can result in deinal of admission. I would reccomend applying to 10 programs.

I would second Animal Farm and the Manifesto. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is probably too hard for middle school, but would be a good "teacher read." The Verona papers are the Soviet archives a poster was refering to earlier. Also The Mitrokhin Archive has a lot of details leaked by a KGB defector. Neither of these would be accesable to middle school students. A chapter of Fitzroy Maclean's Eastern Approaches has a good account of Stalin's show trials. Maclean was a British diplomat posted to Moscow in the 30s. That might be a chapter worth copying and distributing.

I'm working on a doctorate in political science. I also have friends who work on the hill- studying politics and practicing politics are quite different. By politics do you mean academic politics, policy (think tank or govt carrer) or elected office? This advice is more on the academic politics/intl affairs or policy work side. 1. learn how to write (this is also vital for law school). Both technical proficiency and reserach skills are important. I think one mostly gains such skills by doing. Write a major research paper in high school. Write a lot of small papers. Refine, refine. 2. Learn a language in high school at least reasonably well. I.e., 3 or 4 years of the same modern language. 3. Learn mathematical skills. I wish I was better at math than I am. calculus would be useful, but statistics is most important. Someone who is good at writing and math will have a lot of opportunities. 4. I second debate and things like debate-peer court would be a good volunteer program if there's one in your area. 5. volunteer on a local campaign for state house or mayor. This is a good chance to see politics at its most basic level. Typical career path: a BA in politics or something related (history, economics, intl studies(a rigerous program, not a fluf one). A double major/minor in a modern language or area or math would be an asset. While in college: -Do an internship (or two) in DC or at 2nd best the state capital (if international things are of interest, an embassy overseas or with a NGO aboard is also good. -Either become fluent in a modern langauge or skill in an aylaticial skill(s). -excell academically. Aim for honors, at worst a 3.5 GPA For a policy/gov't carrer Work in the field for a year or two in something either 1) related to the field in some way or 2)interesting (e.g., teach english in Zambia) Work on a masters. Usually this is concurent with internships. Usually professional masters programs try to place their graudates in jobs in the field. For an academic carrer Doing a phd is a different beast, and less common than a masters. However, langauge, math, and analysis skills are all very important. If you could tell me more specifics re interests I could give more detailed advice about skills and places to consider.

Unless a grade seven student is extraordinarily gifted, I think they would have some trouble with the Republic. Not with reading it (nessearily, though reading the dialougs can be difficult) , but with grappling with the subtext. The Republic uses the question of what is justice to start an extended examination of how human society ought to be organized. Doing the text justice requires a lot of work, indeed, a lot of college freshman and sophomores in a class I TAed for were undone by Plato. The Last Days is more straightforward in approach, and thus could be more easily used by middle school or early high school students, and the issues discussed are no less important. Of course, if you have students with really good anylatically chops, you might read the Republic at 13. But else the last days is a better place to start.

You'll be fine-tour guides etc are not necessary. I had no problem as a 20 year old, some of it solo. One of the joys of traveling with just a couple of people is the freedom to respond to whatever you encounter. See something interesting--go for it. Paris and Rome are just as safe as any U.S. big city-more safe than many. The public transportation is safe (and in Paris impressive). Just use normal "big-city" sense. In France I've found people were a lot more helpful if I asked them in (very bad) French if they spoke English: Bonjour madame/monsieur, parle vous Anglais? Italians will be helpful but may not speak so much English. The Vatican and major tourist sights will have English. Travel is about the experience, and it sounds like you're ready to make the most of it.

The Thief-- Megan Whalen Turner. Exciting fantasy trilogy. Book 1 won a newberry The Indian in the Cupboard series- Banks. Magic cupboard which brings plastic figures to life. A fair bit of swearing might be an issue.

To the extent that you address multiple interpretations of events, divide the class into sides and have some members argue for different possible understandings. I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but one question is minority rights. For example: a yes or no debate on the question: "Canada's policy toward minorities is fair to both the minority and the majority" or, to be more controversial: Yes or No: "The historical relationship between English and French speaking Canadians justifies Quebecois separatism." These sorts of activities will encourage critical thinking, particularly because students know they will be expected to support their "side" of the debate. This format can work with alot of different issues. Another possibility is to look at how well a text deals with an issue. But this will require more reading. If you go this route, WILL KYMLICKA's work will be of interest (for you, its beyond most ninth graders) http://post.queensu.ca/~kymlicka/biog.html

Daniel Yegrin's The Commanding Hights is a good theoretical overview of important thinkers and ideas. There's also a movie series and resources at PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/ Yergin also has a history of Oil, The Prize. However, at 700 pages it would only be for the most ambitious of high school students. A short primer on international political economy might also be of use.

While I respect what Michal Ferris' group has done to help homeschoolers, I wouldn't let his constitutional theory anywhere near the spine of a law course. The blurb on the cover talks about judicial tyranny and original intent; his work is slanted toward a very controversial theory of judicial theory that he uses. Far superior in my mind would be Rehnquist's book the court. Its a good overview, from a conservative perspective, but not doctrinaire. http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-William-H-Rehnquist/dp/0375708618 If you're interested in originalism I would read an essay by Bork, who is far more respected as a scholar than Ferris. A second problem with using Ferris' book is that it would only teach 1/3 of American gov't. Typically one should cover the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. This would also be a problem with Rehnquist's book.

NM

The titles here are quite good. I would chip in a few short stories: "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" Ursula K. Le Guin Utopia made possible by the suffering of others and the consequences of this "Unaccompanied Sonata" Orson Scott Card Creativity, suffering, creativity managed by the state Walter Van Tilburg Clark has an interesting post holost short story-- I can't remember the name.

bump for more information- what age level/reading level?

For History and Govt David Stewart's The Summer of 1787 is a very readable account of the American founding. Its a bit more than 200 large type pages and could be read by a high school student in a few days. Zinn should never be presented as "the truth" but neither should any textbook. I think that selected chapters of Zinn, alongside a more traditional textbook, would do a good job of illustrating how much gray exists in history. Its too bad Johnson is too dry For short, easy to understand introductions, I highly reccomend the Oxford Very Short Introduction series. These might suppliment a textbook for a particular topic:Religion in America: A Very Short Introduction;American Political Parties and Elections: A Very Short Introduction; The American Presidency. They are also inexpensive: you can often get them for $5 at half.com For self reading (not to subject a 9th grader too) Storing What the Anti-Federalists Were For A very good account of the many leading Americans who opposed the ratification of the Constitution and why. This will help you get a sense of the climate of the time. Jeff Tulis' The Rhetorical President is also something to be familier with. Its not as dense as a lot of other academic books, and its worth reading (at least skimming) because its focus on what the change in presidential rhetoric means for how American has chance will be very different from most of what you'll read. I can reccomend specific texts for particular time periods of interest but most will likely be too dry for a 9th grader.

1. Voting privacy is important, but I can see as an instructor why I would want to use this as a topic--university students often haven't thought about politics and the assignment would compel students to do so. I would think that a request for a different assignment would be reasonable. 2. Re the Nineteenth amendment: Woman's suffrage was actually secured with Tennessee's vote to ratify in 1920. The story of Harry Burn's deciding vote for ratification is an interesting one.

I might be teaching American Gov't next year, so I've been investigating various options. I would recommend the Oxford very short introduction series.L. Sandy Maisel has a book called American Political Parties and Elections. While I would be assigning it to college freshman, there is no reason at all that a high school student couldn't read and understand it, as its designed to be a concise (150 pages) and clear introduction. I would supplement it with addtl readings for college students, but it would work as a stand alone for high schoolers learning the basics about elections in the American political environment. Charles O Jones has a volume in the series The American Presidency which is also quite good about how the office of the Pres. works. The best thing about this series is that the books are something like $10 new. On the Congress, Cushman's An Introduction to the US Congress is a through introduction, though not quite as accessible as the Oxford books. I haven't found anything on the court that's quite convinced me, yet. On current events I would highly recommend reading the Economist which is free on the website. The Lexington column's take on American politics is quite unique. While the paper has some quite technical articles on economics, its opinion pieces and politics articles are accessible to high school readers--I wish I had read it in high school.

From the perspective of someone who was a student not _that_ long ago, I would say that the schedule posted by the op seems excessive. I think Jr. year looked something like this. Ap English- class 1hr 3x week + homework AP History- 1 hour 5x week Chemistryco-op 2hr 1X week + homework Math (pre calc) 1hour 5xweek Spanish. I think conversation group 1x week 2hrs and 2-3 hrs homework. Music ensemble 2xweek SAT prep With this load, I sometimes had to do evening and weekend homework (i.e., paper due), but this was by no means routine. I had time to play varsity sports at PS, volunteer 1xweek, read for pleasure, and spend time with my friends. I know I was busy, but certainly not in a regimented, no free time way. One thing to consider, though, is that I taught myself to speed read, and could probably do 50pages/hour in high school, certainly of a novel. This might have given me a few extra hours. My schedule, however, seems typical for my peers at the time. A larger point may be what that aim of high school is. In my view, the most important skill is 'learning how to learn.' Beyond mastering basic skills (esp. Math and foreign languages), successful college students can articulate their thoughts will verbally and on paper, and understand how to assimilate information- this is the main argument of this book, this evidence is important, this evidence is not. Learning how to study is far more important than which subjects are studied. Home schooling provides some unique opportunities to achieve this, and I would encourage parents not to fall into a trap which requires boxes to be checked. I know many home schoolers who had time to pursue interests and have some free time with friends who have been very successful at both school and life.

Really, the best time to study a language is preK-K through elementary school. If you learn a language at this age you have a chance to speak and perform at a native speaker level. If you start in high school , it is almost impossible to achieve this level of fluency-- I speak a couple of romance languages well, but no one is ever going to mistake me for a native speaker or writer. Many of my European friends started English studies at 5 and did it until university. They speak about as well as I do. However, if studying in high school is the only option, by all means do a 9-12 program. Two years of high school Spanish is usually only enough to say "Hi, my name Samuel, want food." It does vary. Four years might be enough for a good foundation.

Having taken both CLEP and AP tests back in the day, I would say that while finances might be a reason for rejecting CLEP credits, the low rigor of the CLEP tests are another. For example, I passed the score CLEP recommends for a test that is supposedly equivilent to general bio. Not nonmajor bio, but gen bio. My university set a much higher score, which I just missed, and thus too the nonmajor class which was more rigorous than the CLEP. Were I on a committee which made decisions about transfer credit at a selective school, I would not accept CLEP tests. This doesn't mean that they're bad-I received something like 20 credits from CLEP tests. However, I learned quite a lot from studying for AP tests which I received 4s and 5s from. The CLEP tests require nowhere near the amount of mastery. I remember very little about biology. For me both AP tests and CC college classes are much more impressive than CLEPs. Also, if you graduate with an AA, you become a transfer student in most cases. This can be good or bad- check with schools about scholarships. It does mean that most (but not all)schools won't care at all about your homeschool.

I second the Princess Bride and the Westing Game. Madeleine L Engle for fantasy/adventure. Some are better than others. The wind in the door trilogy is good. Robin Hobb writes pretty complex fantasy. I would grade it at pg-13. If you're anti magic these are a no go. Alistair MacLean wrote thrillers which are for the most part pretty clean. Certainly not great literature. The Last Frontier/ The Secret Ways is the probably the best. Harry Turtledove, the master of alternate universes, has a series which looks at alternate universes from the premise that travel between universes is possible. The Crosstime Traffic series is set for ya's, so theres no or minimal swearing etc. You can tell taht Turtledove is not a Christian if that would be an issue. Turtledove in general is a good writer.

-I would have learned a non western language, starting in elementary school, probably Chinese. Romance languages aren't that hard for me, and I learned my second completely in college, but I doubt I'm ever going to "pick up" something that difficult. -I would have made my self stick with calculus rather than throwing it in the dustbin. It would have made doing stats a lot easier That said, I learned how to write, how to read, and how to do research in my combination of homeschooling and classes at various places (though the last two were somewhat innate). I can't complain too much, given how many freshmen I knew who couldn't do any of these things.

-At some point in life, you need to learn how to make choices on your own. This is not something that one can do at home. -You also need to learn how to work out the challenges of life without a safety net. What if you forgot to buy food and are really hungry. What if you get locked out of your room. etc. -You also have to figure out how you understand the values that have been inculcated at home in other contexts. What matters to you outside the millue of home? What is my identity? People make mistakes, and some of these mistakes (drinking a lot at university) have consequences. However, college is a good place to make many mistakes-you won't be evicted, for example, if you fail to pay your housing on time like you might be in the real word, and there is help and community that is certainly not the case when on your own working. I can't imagine how moving to a strange city for work would have been had I not had college first as a way to figure out what living on my own was without the pressure of no community. I don't think there is anything wrong with living at home after high school; in fact, I moved back in with my parents for several months after I finished my degree to save money while working. However, I think spending time on your own is very important for young adults at some point in the 18-22 range. Not doing so can prevent one from developing the independent judgment that is a crucial mark of an adult. Parents, your children won't forget all the good you have taught them because they leave home. There are certainly circumstances when living at home is a good choice, but often in home school circles there is the idea that kids shouldn't go out in the world because they will lose their faith, or whatever values their parents hold to. Having spent 18 or so years teaching these values, you should give your children an opportunity to 'own' them. Samuel, who can still dimly remember his 19 year-old self.

A comment on foreign language. I would try to take the opportunity of traveling for your daughter to really master a language through speaking. I'm not sure where in particular you'll be, but it strikes me that between French Polynesia and Africa that French may be a better choice than Spanish. However, I would aggressively seek out opportunities for her to speak and listen to other languages. Curriculum can help with grammar, but it is frequent speaking which will allow a student to learn enough to communicate well. Spending three years traveling will give your child a unique life experience. Mastering a language (at least to a conversational level) will make that experience richer. Being able to speak to people from another culture in their own language is very rewarding. It will also be an asset for college--most high school students study years of a language, and can really speak very little. AP and SAT tests are given at standardized times. I would make arrangements with an American school in a more developed nation that would offer the tests, and plan to spend a couple of weeks there. These, more than anything else, will determine college placement at higher levels, particularly for a home school student with a non traditional education.

How many days are you coming for, are you driving, and what do you want to see? You could stay out in MD or VA and take the metro in. If you're looking for cheap(er) try near the Shady Grove metro. Avoid MD on the Prince George's country side (green, blue, and orange line in MD). I believe a lot of the hotels have metro shuttles. I ask what you want to see because some things require a car, but for lot of places using the metro to hop around would work well.

In some settings, Modern history means after the Romans, in others after 1648. I gather you're thinking more 20th century (contemporary history). One introductory text used as background is One World Divisible. Its huge, but one can easily read the chapters about topics of interest. This is a set text at some of the better colleges for background. http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Divisible-History-Century/dp/0393321088 Palmer et al's A history of the Modern World is also a good, readable choice. It starts after the middle ages, but one could profitably read about the last third. http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-World-PowerWeb/dp/0073255009/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206826639&sr=1-3

Just browsing the sites, the department at Pitt doesn't look that impressive for an R1, and indeed Pitts social science reputation is not stellar. The case can be made that the program at W & L is better--not being an economist, if I were looking in a politics dept on admitting someone who had done econ, I would by slightly more impressed with W & L at first glance. (did VUA get tossed? Their econ dept is pretty impressive--much more so than pitts.) In deciding I would ask about how many classes at Pitt are taught by grad students, where the schools have placed grads, and what kind of opportunities really exist for research. My impression of Pitt is that it lacks some of the advantages of big established school, particularly in terms of prestige. I'm curious why Pitt seems like a better dept? But ultimately it all depends on how well he does, particularly in terms of grad school. A strong performance at either school will put him in a good position. There are certainly other intangibles (location, friends, etc etc) which can make a huge difference in success, and if on balance your son will be happier there then he should go. However, he should carefully consider why Pitt will make him happier, if on balance the academics are a wash.