WDYT about these thoughts on being "well rounded?"

[I.Dup.]

http://homeschooling.penelopetrunk.com/2012/05/31/the-argument-against-raising-well-rounded-kids/?utm_source=sidebar

[justamouse]

I love Penelope, but with this I disagree. Remember, she's coming at this from a very secular standpoint. I think it graces the whole purpose and intellect of a person, to God's glory, that they have a liberal arts education. Things like philosophy and ethics will only make a person better, make them a better citizen, human, ______<---insert career choice here.

[8filltheheart]

I think the argument is simply false on its face. First, life requires all types of knowledge and experience, not just what makes one employable. I view my kids as far more than future employees. They are future husband/wives, mothers/ fathers, home-owners, voters, citizens, consumers, providers.......I cannot imagine cornering them into a single-focused box.

 

Second, one can also begin a focus in high school and still be well-educated. My kids all start to shift toward future academic goals during high school, but it does not mean that other subjects are neglected, but perhaps less intense. I want my kids to have a broad range to knowledge. I would rather develop "rounded" characters than "flat" ones.......flat characters are 1 dimensional. ;) of course if you like societies where everyone is simply a cog, single dimension education starting at young ages is the ultimate conclusion.

[regentrude]

I disagree. I do not see childhood as a time to specialize, but as a time to learn about the world and to explore all kinds of things, so the child can discover what he is excited about, what he is good at, what he likes to pursue further. To me, this inevitably requires a certain amount of what the author disparagingly calls "dabbling". I have no idea if my child may become a gifted pianist if I don't give her a chance to try the piano - but there is nothing gained by forcing a child which clearly has, after several years, not developed a spark, to continue instead of exploring other interests. Some students may early on discover that they have a singular gift, and yes, I would nurture this unique talent. Other children may not find their niche until much later - or, gasp, never find that they are singularly talented in one area only. There are, in fact, people who are good at a number of things, and coincidences in life decide which area they will make to their special one.

 

As for academics, I completely and utterly disagree that children should specialize before college. For a math interested student, high school may be the only time where he can study history in depth; for a student interested in an English major, high school must provide the basic science education; for a student who will learn a trade, high school must provide the academic foundation.

I am striving to raise well rounded children. I am aiming to give them a broad knowledge base that enables them to major in any field in college. I want to nurture their creative side and their bodies, so I encourage both to pursue a creative interest and a sport, but without the goal of specializing in either. To me, these areas are part of human development.

 

I am sad to read what the author writes about figure skating. She wished somebody had stopped her early on, because her body type would not allow her to be really good at it. For my child, the deciding factor would be: does she have FUN skating? Does it enrich her life at this very moment? I am not discouraging my daughter from singing in choir just because she may not have the voice to become a classically trained opera singer - and I am very glad nobody discouraged me in this way. I let her enjoy cooking and baking to her heart's content- even though she will not become a professional chef.

 

I have found great joy in being a well-rounded person. I could have chosen among a dozen different majors which all interested me; circumstances at that time made me choose physics, and I am happy with that. But I am also an amateur singer, rock climber, hiker, poet, love to learn about history and am generally excited about the world and eager to try and learn new things. I am raising my children to give them the same gift.

[PeterPan]

I wish her parents had made her a bit more well-rounded and taught her to WRITE. ;) Seriously, I hate it when people make blogs but can't write. She's ok, but she could use a little work.

 

Everybody thinks they have "it" (the formula for how to do things, whatever those things are) nailed. I mean is there a single one of us who would stand up and say "Yeah, I'm an idiot. I'm plowing forward, but I have no philosophical basis for anything I do and chose everything randomly." Yeah right.

 

Yes interesting people do something well, and yes there's alternative track to the AP rat race. However, not done in the context of excellence, doing less turns into, well, doing less. People have to sort that out for themselves.

 

If I tried to make *my* dd well-rounded, the only well-rounded she would be is in her WAISTLINE (from sitting around doing someone else's prescribed list of what kids ought to do). Kids aren't all meant for the same things. I actually agree with the blogger that it's not what I chose to do, trying 20 different sports, etc. But I know people who do that and it WORKS for them. It's part of an effort toward broad exposure that they funnel toward later. It's not like they never focus it down. Nobody (well, few) could AFFORD to do "everything." So the people I know who are more broad early on funnel by high school.

 

And as for a reality check on all the theory, I'll say that while I ENCOURAGE dd to do something and do it well, reality is that she's not quite there maturity-wise. She does quite a few things reasonably well. I'm happy someone else's kid is ready to specialize and become excellent at something earlier. And to cite my own case, I would say the things I was encouraged to specialize in weren't even my GIFTS. If you go broader (rather than having parent-driven specialization earlier), you have a chance for that to funnel down naturally.

[Anne in CA]

My FIL attended Davidson, where he majored in physics, but Davidson required the classics of all students and he studied them. He maintains that his study of the classics enriched his life more than anything else he could have done. I have to think that if someone in college befitted so much from not specializing in physics, but branching out beyond his interests, how dangerous is it to keep kids from exploring different things.

 

That aside, mastering something is good for the ego, no one could argue that. My youngest loved to act. She takes classes, works on her singing and piano as well, and is really getting credit as a valuable performer. A critic just saw a play she is in and gave her a fabulous review. She might never have gotten that great review if she had been playing soccer or basketball in the evenings instead of working on her voice. However, my dd is still well rounded as a performer, with piano, voice, and acting.

[Wheres Toto]

I disagree with the article. Some kids will find their passion and their talent at a young age but many will not. Some will not have a passion, and some may have a passion that changes as they get older.

 

I agree that I picked/supported activities for my kids based on what they enjoy and have fun doing, not necessarily on what they were good at. They aren't always the same thing.

 

My oldest found her passion - dance - at a young age. But it's not her career goal, so if we had let her concentrate on dance to the exclusion of education, it would not have served her well (and she has danced with girls who did).

 

My passion was always science and animals, and I wanted to be a vet from a young age. Instead my "career" ended up being as an executive assistant - helped out by the one typing class I took in high school. In hindsight, I probably would not have made a good vet anyway.

 

My younger two don't have a passion, unless you count Minecraft and computer games, or Pokemon. I'm certainly not going to encourage a singular focus on that to the exclusion of other areas of education.

 

Limiting our kids to one concentrated activity or field of study can greatly limit them when they are older. What if there thing is football and they are injured? Or engineering but they end up being really bad at math? What if they change their mind?

[justamouse]

I haven't read the book, but it's been mentioned on the boards, Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Though I've not read the book I'm willing to bet this idea of childhood specialization falls somewhere in there. I don't see it as much different.

 

I think the argument could be made that people like Steve Jobs and Woz had their 10k hours in and specialized, but I would disagree with that, too, because Steve had written multiple times how his rabbit trails influenced his work with apple and made it what it is.

[justamouse]

I wish her parents had made her a bit more well-rounded and taught her to WRITE. ;) Seriously, I hate it when people make blogs but can't write. She's ok, but she could use a little work.

 

 

 

 

She's actually had quite a history in writing. Has a few books out, made a few million and now is a career coach and helps startups.

 

She has Aspergers, and despite it, has made quite an incredible life for herself.

[I.Dup.]

 

 

She's actually had quite a history in writing. Has a few books out, made a few million and now is a career coach and helps startups.

 

 

 

Yes, I was thinking if her writing stands out as horrid then there is no hope for me! lol

[Farrar]

In the end, I think some of this depends greatly on the kid. Some kids are driven to focus on things and become experts. And some are not at all. If she had charge of my 8 yos I wonder what in the world she would try to make them specialize in. I have yet to throw anything at them that they don't like at least a little. Whenever they start to follow something to the point of specialization, they back off because they'd rather learn new things. Anything that you might push them to specialize in could easily be something they couldn't care less about a year from now. They've been this way their whole lives. Unless they change soon, which seems unlikely, then if we followed her advice, then I could easily end up with young adults who spent a whole childhood studying something decided on a whim which they no longer care for and don't want to continue to pursue. But another child might be completely different. I've certainly met kids at age 8 or 9 who love animals and know they want to be a vet. Or who love building and know they want to be engineers. And then they eventually do.

 

I think kids should be encouraged to find things that they feel passionate about and to specialize to some extent, especially in high school, when I think there should be flexible goals about heading toward college or an apprenticeship or something, but I think it has to be a balance. However, it can't be at the expense of getting some of that well-roundedness. You need that to fall back on.

 

And in general, I don't homeschool to make my kids more marketable as future employees. Eventually they will have to figure out how to be employed and at some point we'll have goals that will lead to that down the line. However, I see education, especially in the pre-high school years, as apart from that. We learn for the sake of learning and growing and figuring out. Let the learning for the sake of someone's bottom line come later.

[elegantlion]

I think it's about balance and we probably have a different perspective of well-rounded than the general homeschooling population. My son has quietly been pursuing interests since age 8. That exploration has lead him down diverse paths and now his academic interests span multiple categories. Those rabbit trails are important. If I had told him the passion he had at 8 was it, he'd be lamenting the fact we can't afford piloting lessons so he could fly military jets.

 

I do think we need to pay attention to our children's vocalizations of passions. I had one at 14 that I'd still like to do. I discounted it because no adult took me seriously. I still regret believing the adults. So, ds and I talk a lot, but the educational philosophy of our school is mine. *I'm* the one with years of experience as an adult (and a slew of mistakes to prove it). I'm the one that has a idea of what it takes to operate in the real world (I worked full time from age 17 to 30). Even though we homeschool from a mostly secular position, I still believe in the power of learning the good, the beautiful, and the true (although I might define them a bit differently). Being good at something doesn't mean that is the defining point of your life. Knowing how to be diverse and flexible has served me better in multiple jobs, rather than be a specialist.

 

Maybe I'm missing her definition of well-rounded, but in homeschooling there really is room for passions and "well-roundedness". It doesn't have to be either/or, imo.

[linders]

Although Penelope makes some valid points - I believe pursuing a true passion should be encouraged at whatever age - she too easily discounts well-rounded. I was the student a previous poster mentioned. I loved history, and took extra in high school, even though I intended to (and did) major in science/engineering in college. With that early background, I continued to take extra courses in history, and post-college I used my income as an engineer to travel to wonderful sites where I could soak in the history.

 

Today, my poor DC get to suffer for it - we do lots of history.

[Cosmos]

I do think we need to pay attention to our children's vocalizations of passions. I had one at 14 that I'd still like to do. I discounted it because no adult took me seriously. I still regret believing the adults.

 

What was it and what would you have liked the adults in your life to do?

[Dmmetler]

I was one of those passionate from an early age kids-I was focused on music by about age 12 or so. And most things I did were related to that goal.

 

My DD at age 8 plans to win the national spelling bee, go to the University of Florida where she can study zoology focusing on reptiles, "hard math", and languages and cheer for the Gators, and then become an exotic vet and spend her life traveling around the country studying and helping endangered species, while visiting all these cool geographic and historic sites, playing pianos and organs, and learning-especially ancient history and math. Oh, and going to space would be nice, too.

 

I figure she's a renaissance kid ;). Would she be better at almost anything she did if she were focused? You betcha! And sme of the thing she spends the most time on, like dance and tumbling, she's not particularly talented in. But, overall, she's a happy, busy kid-and in another decade, maybe she'll trim her goals a bit. Or maybe she really will do it all. But I figure if age 8 isn't a time for imagining yourself an astronaut-herpetologist-cheerleader, when is?

 

 

[elegantlion]

 

What was it and what would you have liked the adults in your life to do?

 

I wanted to be an archaeologist, specifically an Egyptologist. This was pre-Internet days. There were some archaeological digs in our area, very local stuff. I would have loved to have gotten involved in that, but my parents wouldn't let me (lots of extenuating circumstances). In high school, I had an awesome history teacher, but it was a huge high school most teachers didn't get involved in kid's passions then. I met the guidance counselor once, to change a class my senior year. Other than that I wouldn't have recognized him in the hallway. My parents were of the mindset this would pass, was a childish whim, or that I'd start my path as an adult.

 

The only college that offered anything remotely like archaeology cost 5x what a regular university did, if I could have even gotten admitted. My dad threw a fit about filling out financial aid paperwork for my sister a few years earlier, so I knew he'd be no help. I didn't want to work full time and attend school, and by that time I'd pretty much decided those goals were what other people did, not something I could ever achieve anyway. So I gave up. About 5 years ago when the chaos of life slowed down, I realized how much I do regret not exploring that path. I could be very happy digging in the dirt with a paintbrush.

 

Had the Internet been around I'm 90% sure my path would have been different. I loved/love researching things, but our little midwestern library had about 5 books on Egypt and archaeology. I probably checked them out 40 times each as a teen.

 

This story has been shared with ds many times. I remind him that he could have a career from what interests him now. I'm not pushing it, but we allow him room to explore online (with fewer limits than some parents). He's allowed to dabble without commitment, and with parental support.

 

I want him to know his interests have value to us as his parents. It's also great when you can use those as reasons to be more studious in a subject. He takes math more seriously this year because he has an interest in computer science and astrophysics, both require higher math.

 

*sigh* And so end the lament of the lion....

 

To the original topic, as classical educators (or those that understand classical) we can see the connections between subjects, maybe more so than other educators. You don't just read literature to read it. You read it to understand your world, your morality, to see beyond the boundaries of where you live. Math is a language of so many subjects. Writing well is not just about English grades. History can be approached in so many directions - it's not just a dry textbook full of facts that make history. We did a few years of Latin. If it was up to me we'd still be doing it. Ds negotiated to stick with Japanese and drop Latin. The few years we did were of value, however. It wasn't a waste.

 

Time and choices do get crunched at the high school level. I've noticed it this year.

[Farrar]

 

I figure she's a renaissance kid ;). Would she be better at almost anything she did if she were focused? You betcha! And sme of the thing she spends the most time on, like dance and tumbling, she's not particularly talented in. But, overall, she's a happy, busy kid-and in another decade, maybe she'll trim her goals a bit. Or maybe she really will do it all. But I figure if age 8 isn't a time for imagining yourself an astronaut-herpetologist-cheerleader, when is?

 

 

This is just like my kids. I call them my Renaissance boys too. :)

[ZeeMommy]

"Well rounded" - my definition has absolutely nothing to do with dabbling! Like Penelope Trunk, I want my munchkins to find what they are good at and excel in it. But there are certain other subjects and experiences that we will expose them to. They will get the 3 Rs, history and definitely logic - no exceptions. They will have to learn how to write so they can express their ideas clearly. They will have to learn how to cook basic things and to do their own laundry, to do basic car maintenance and yard work/gardening. Just because you are not good at something doesn't mean that you will never have to do it. Our goal is to give them a mental tool box and a foundation, and hopefully a lifelong love of learning. They get to build the rest, for the rest of their lives.

[DianeW88]

As far as extra curricular activities go, I think you need to give your child as many opportunities as you can to help them find their passion in life. When my kids were young, I enrolled them in a lot of things, art, piano, gymnastics, city league sports, swimming, dance, martial arts, etc., etc. How else are they supposed to find what they enjoy, what they excel at, and what they want to pursue if they don't have the opportunity to try a lot of activities. For my dd, her passion was ballet, she is exceptionally talented in it (which we never would have known had we not enrolled her in dance classes), and now it her career. She is a professional ballerina and a college student (paid for by a ballet scholarship), and I'm thrilled she has found something she loves to do and can earn a living doing it. My sons enjoy a lot of things. They both excel at martial arts, and last night my youngest received his junior black belt. My oldest is a double black belt and also teaches martial arts to help pay for his college tuition. Both my boys play sports and swim. All my kids play the piano. I think talents are meant to be pursued and developed, and how is that going to happen if kids just sit around the house every day and don't have the opportunity to "dabble" and learn what they enjoy? All of those things can add to the quality of one's life. Just playing Christmas carols around the piano with friends can bring just as much enjoyment as playing in Carnegie Hall, IMHO.

[RoundAbout]

I'm fine with specialization, but not in elementary school for most kids. The truth is that many "passions" require integrated knowledge. We usually think of things like music or sports, which can be specialized in early, but lets take something like my son's interest in robotics. We happen to have a friend who owns his own robotics company and it isn't a single skill set - obviously he spent years getting a STEM PhD but also needs knowledge of accounting and business, manual skills like soldering and welding, social skills, salesmanship, writing ability for journal articles, plus pure imagination (fueled by lots of things - literature, history, film, NASCAR, nature, or whatever...) I have no doubt that if I were to try and set my son up as a roboticist starting at age 6 I would probably fail miserably and miss some crucial ingredient.

[Dmmetler]

I'm fine with specialization, but not in elementary school for most kids. The truth is that many "passions" require integrated knowledge. We usually think of things like music or sports, which can be specialized in early, but lets take something like my son's interest in robotics. We happen to have a friend who owns his own robotics company and it isn't a single skill set - obviously he spent years getting a STEM PhD but also needs knowledge of accounting and business, manual skills like soldering and welding, social skills, salesmanship, writing ability for journal articles, plus pure imagination (fueled by lots of things - literature, history, film, NASCAR, nature, or whatever...) I have no doubt that if I were to try and set my son up as a roboticist starting at age 6 I would probably fail miserably and miss some crucial ingredient.

 

 

Even music-In college I discovered musicology, which I love more than performance. If I hadn't already had a background in foreign languages, history, and writing-and, for my particular sub-area, math, I wouldn't have been able to move into the field which, for me, was a better fit than straight performance. I'm not a dancer, but having taken dance classes definitely helped in understanding music that was created for the purpose of dance. Physics comes in very handy in understanding instruments at different time periods and how to best replicate music authentically.

 

I suspect there really aren't many passions where having a wide range of experiences aren't beneficial. Which is one reason why I am thrilled at my DD's wide range of interests, even though it keeps me hopping. Because who knows-maybe we'll, in the future, meet a race of reptillian classical linguists with high interests in math and acrobatics, and DD will have prepared herself perfectly to relate to them!

[Mukmuk]

When we started homeschooling, I loved the idea of well roundedness and tried to teach according to the Charlotte Mason philosophy. We hit a wall! Ds has very strong ideas about what he likes, and the idea of fighting him everyday (I did that for awhile too) just saps my strength. He is tireless; I'm not. Perhaps too, he was motivated by his LDs, so it was/is a lot easier to just go with the flow.

 

So after a few years of homeschooling where I've completely reframed my thinking :tongue_smilie: , I've become very grateful that my son has passions he wants to pursue. That's not to say he's a genius at what he does, but he loves it enough to slog through his pet subjects. Now that he is older, I find it easier to introduce new subjects to him. Where he has an interest, we dive into them. I love it that with homeschooling, I am the architect and can move according to his interests. We're hitting an age where I need to think carefully about prepping for subsequent stages. With his interests, he needs college, and I'm sure we'll get there with the necessary requirements, but just not in the order that a b&m school would prescribe.

[Petrichor]

Why bother forcing the doers to think?

 

 

:eek:

[Mom2Es]

She has Aspergers, and despite it, has made quite an incredible life for herself.

 

As far as I can tell from reading her blog, her "Aspergers" appears to be self-diagnosed. I'm not sure about her son's. I actually think she displays characteristics of a different problem, but I'm not her doctor, so...

 

 

As far as the article, I think it depends on the child and what your educational purpose is. Adrienne Roston/Penelope Trunk is very fixated on career, earnings, and Myers-Briggs, so that's the direction she's going to take. She even wrote a whole detailed post about how to pick a mate based on your Myers-Briggs personality type, and it focused mostly on who in the marriage was going to be bringing in the money.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think Penelope Trunk complaining about people being dabblers is pretty hilarious. Isn't she a professional dabbler?

[kristinannie]

I think that our society is obsessed with specialization. I remember a Circe talk by John Hodges where he says that he is a music professor, but that the art history professors won't talk to the music professors even when they share a building. It seems to me that there is too much focus on specialization even in the PS. They do Chemistry with a chemistry teacher, English with an english teacher, etc. There is no overlap.

 

I personally want to raise up whole children who are fully formed. I want their lives to be integrated. I also believe that kids need to be exposed to a wide variety of activities and subjects to find out what their passion is. Of course, I think kids should be given ample time to follow a passion. This is one of the pluses of homeschooling. We have more time in the day for this! My son LOVES gymnastics. He spends a lot of time each day flipping around. He also loves coloring and art so he spends a lot of time doing this. But we still do math, science, literature, etc... I think we need more fully educated people in this world and fewer specialists, but that is just my opinion...

[kristinannie]

I think that our society is obsessed with specialization. I remember a Circe talk by John Hodges where he says that he is a music professor, but that the art history professors won't talk to the music professors even when they share a building. It seems to me that there is too much focus on specialization even in the PS. They do Chemistry with a chemistry teacher, English with an english teacher, etc. There is no overlap.

 

I personally want to raise up whole children who are fully formed. I want their lives to be integrated. I also believe that kids need to be exposed to a wide variety of activities and subjects to find out what their passion is. Of course, I think kids should be given ample time to follow a passion. This is one of the pluses of homeschooling. We have more time in the day for this! My son LOVES gymnastics. He spends a lot of time each day flipping around. He also loves coloring and art so he spends a lot of time doing this. But we still do math, science, literature, etc... I think we need more fully educated people in this world and fewer specialists, but that is just my opinion...

[Ecclecticmum]

Hmm...I skimmed through it.

 

I'm a big believer in being "well-rounded". I did find some of the points interesting, but on the whole, its not my style.

 

A child should be encouraged to do things that they are good at or make them happy yes, but I think they should also learn new things; focus on something they don't like, or aren't good at.

 

I read an article somewhere that I love. Imagine the child is excellent at mathematics. You greatly encourage this and nurture his talent, focusing more and more on the mathematical side of things. The child grows up, has a good job, but at the age of 25 is living the life of someone much, much older. Boring, predictable. We ask what about socialization. Well what about that child's socialization when he's 25?

 

Imagine a different point of view. You encourage and nurture his talent for Maths, yes, but also encourage him in other areas, art, music, camps, just "being a child" let him be silly, in fact, encourage it (to a point anyway lol). He's still got that love for Maths, still get the enrichments he wants, but he also learns to stick through things he doesn't like (perseverance) and maybe get that accomplishment from being able to play a certain song on the piano or copy Monet, even create his own original (maybe he finds something else he's passionate about, even if he's not as good at it as he is with maths, maybe its something that would make him happier in the long run). Let him take a year to backpack around the world before college. At 25 ,he may still have that job, but that job isn't his whole life, he "lives" life, is grateful for everyday, tries something new every-now and again, perhaps he found during his backpacking trip the job he originally wanted wasn't for him, he instead creates a company from the ground, or becomes a Painter in Iraly, gets a job in Stockbroking and becomes a millionaire etc.

 

Yes. All completely made up stories ROFL. But it gives a good view of what I'm trying to say. Being "well-rounded" these days isn't about the nabbing of a husband/wife, nor a showing of the persons class level. Its more about experiencing, perseverance, unpredictability, and seeing the world through new eyes. Its about creating curiosity and a love for life.

 

I hope I said that all right, its late and probably makes diddly-squat no sense to anyone but me :laugh:

 

P.S. Edited this to fix the spelling errors (my keyboard is breaking physics, which means it probably needs to be pulled apart and cleaned :p )

[Embassy]

I think you can do both. If a child shows consistent interest in one area then providing ways for them to continue to learn and develop in that area is a good thing. It may be a future career or a hobby. Either way, knowledge is good. I wouldn't neglect a well-rounded education for any one interest though. My 9 and 10 year old have already determined what they want to do in the future. Their interests for the past 3-5 years haven't changed. Things could change though so I want to continue to expose them to more knowledge. Meanwhile, I'm helping them explore their interest areas further.

[justamouse]

"Every student wants a good education; parents ad taxpayers pay the tuition and want colleges to give them one. But is it the only aim of education to teach how to be good scientists and businessmen? Have we forgotten the long tradition of "the best that has been though and said," in Arnold's phrase, that necessary corrective to the grossly materialistic view that has become, against the explicitly command of the Constitution, the established religion of the United States? The long tradition of Western civilization says that education is the acquisition of not only skill but a discipline, which in turn means not the exercise of the heart, soul, strength and mind in the service of our appetites, but the subjection of our appetites to the rule of intelligence. Perhaps the purpose of science, business, and knowledge itself is not the conquest of nature after all, but rather that through understanding nature we might come to the conquest of ourselves."

 

John Senior, The Death of Christian Culture, pg 17

[Chrysalis Academy]

I just finished reading "How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character" by Paul Tough. Fascinating book. There is a really interesting discussion of this specialization/well-rounded issue when he talks about young chess champions, and what it takes to become one. The book is definitely worth reading - I heard about it here, of course!