family of 10 starts college at age 12

[junepep]

Ahuh.

 

Ya'll feel the same about SWB selling her claims? Do you also discount the possible value of her insights or suggestions bc she sells materials based on it?

 

I don't care that they are selling their ebook, which is described as simply an on-going journal of what they have done so far, that they will add to as they bring up the rest of their children.

 

I don't care that they are offering, for a price, to tell other people how they can implement some of the same methodologies.

 

Obviously no one has to buy from them.

Obviously some people aren't going to think it's for them.

 

But I don't discount that it might be worth learning about just bc it's for sale or might not be for me.

 

I'm glad I did some research into how Joyce Swann did things bc I learned some valuable to me things.

 

For example, one of the things I had never really done the math on was the simple "acceleration" involved in just year round schooling and having a set plan. That blew my mind and there's nothing particuliarly hard or crazy or even above average smart about it.

 

Learning how people do things radically different doesn't mean I have to do it like they did or buy the farm to get one hay bale.

 

It might not be a big difference to you, but it is to me. SWB and her mother wrote the WTM with the idea that you could use it to generally homeschool your children in a classical-ish way. Their approach isn't trying to say that you can have the brightest, most accelerated children, it's saying that you CAN educate your children at home. I've found their materials very user friendly for a newbie homeschooler (myself) and in the end they just make my life easier.

 

There's a difference in my mind between selling materials that help new homeschooling parents ensure that they're not 'missing' something important and doing their children a disservice and selling materials that purport to send an 'average' child to college at age 12. One of those sets makes me wonder whether they've got a bridge to sell me on a charming countryside estate in Brooklyn as well. In the end, it's not the sale of materials as much as the claims made about those materials that is disturbing me, and perhaps some of the other posters here as well.

[Nan in Mass]

I'm confused. I thought 8 and GG and others and I (and you?) were talking about how being efficient can be good because it leaves more time to do other things, like lots of discussion and lots of bunny trails and lots of extras like traveling? We also were airing our worries about the possible down sides of that efficiency (or at least I was, when I was saying that our quest for efficiency led us to do cc classes instead of the AP classes). Don't we normally add the things one has to be careful not to do when we advocate something? I do, anyway. I, like some of the other people in this discussion, thought about whether to send my children to college early. Mine would have been a bit older than the college-by-12 family but still went through a similar thought process when deciding whether or not that was one of my academic goals. I decided it was not because they wanted to do other things (not college), but I was still left having to make room for those extra things. They took a lot of time and I had to find a way to give my children a good education efficiently. When people suggested things like combining French and history, I was SO grateful. We didn't check boxes. Well, we did, but they were good boxes, ones I wanted to check. My particular state doesn't require me to provide traditional classes in things like health, things which if we had done them would definately have been check-the-box in the worst sense of the word. What I am hearing is people sharing their experience and the experience of people they know with efficiency and acceleration, its advantages and disadvantages and where it might lead. But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean?

 

Nan

[Murphy101]

I can see that nan

 

But some posts don't at all come across that way.

 

They seem to rather blatantly give the impression that some who would be interested in how the Hardings managed this aren't really interested in giving a quality in depth education. Just a cheap and quick one to check the box.

 

Referencing the Hardings like snake oil sellers both implies smarmy characters and ignorant buyers. Not exactly conductive to a discussion about any actual pros/cons.

[Kathryn]

They begin taking high school level subjects at age 8, the ACT around age 10. They dual-enroll on a college campus at age 11 and 12. They do a very accelerated form of homeschooling, but they don't give specifics. One of the boys said after they learn how to read, they begin reading textbooks very early on (didn't say which ones). They seem to emphasize a very nurturing environment. "Kill 'em with love," the father said. The father said he is currently creating software to help families do this at http://kickstartercollegeby12.com/ though I don't see it on the website yet. The kids seem very well adjusted and confident. One of the daughters is the youngest doctor ever at 22. The family is very loving and supportive and they discover early on what the kids love and seem to guide their education based on each child's interest. 6 of their 10 kids have already graduated by age 12. They emphasize they do everything at their "own pace," but it is obviously accelerated. They don't say "why" they did this, but why not? They don't state reasons for why they try to graduate specifically by age 12.

 

From their website:

 

No she's not, not by a long shot. The youngest doctor ever was 17 when he got his MD* (from Mt. Sinai, after he got his undergraduate at NYU). This family is claiming that their daughter MAY be the youngest FEMALE doctor in the US. And she went for a DO, not an MD.

 

I've expressed my feelings about families like this before on the Swann threads. It's not something that I would ever consider doing as a general family rule. I have no desire to push my children out of the door before they're even teenagers. And I don't find anything at all amazing about sending pre-teens to a second-rate college. The actual youngest doctor I mentioned, yeah I think that's pretty amazing. If they were truly advanced, I would be happy to figure out options. But, I think of my children as individuals, not as products on an assembly line to get out of my factory as quickly as possible.

 

* link to article about him: http://fox13now.com/2013/02/14/u-of-u-doctor-is-youngest-ever-to-receive-m-d/

[*Michelle*]

This is what kills me. By numbers alone, the vast majority of college students are attending "second-rate" colleges. First-rate, top-tier colleges are few and their admissions are limited. In the USA, most people are not going to top-tier colleges. And, apparently, for most people that's just fine. Not every doctor is going to Harvard. Not every engineer is at MIT. Somehow, the country continues to function.

 

This family and others like it; their kids are apparently bright enough and motivated enough to excel at a second-rate college at an early age. That's fantastic for them. They may not be so gifted as to excel at a top-tier college at an early age. That's fine too. Maybe if they waited long enough, they could excel at an Ivy, but maybe they'd never get admitted or maybe they would get admitted but not be able to secure enough financial aid to attend.

 

This family found a way that works for them. Other families may be in their same situation with similar kids. Their experience may be helpful to those families.

 

If you have an very gifted child and/or if you have your sights set on top-tier colleges only, their method is not going to work for you. It doesn't mean it's not going to work or that it shouldn't be used by anyone else.

[Jane in NC]

I can see that nan

 

But some posts don't at all come across that way.

 

They seem to rather blatantly give the impression that some who would be interested in how the Hardings managed this aren't really interested in giving a quality in depth education. Just a cheap and quick one to check the box.

 

Referencing the Hardings like snake oil sellers both implies smarmy characters and ignorant buyers. Not exactly conductive to a discussion about any actual pros/cons.

 

Hold on--I am questioning the Harding formula that is being marketed in an ebook, namely that you too can send your non-prodigy child to college at age 12 by following in our footsteps.

 

My son is not a prodigy. He is a bright guy with a deep felt passion for archaeology and history. I have injected some of our experiences into this conversation in part to contribute a bit of knowledge gained from our lives.

 

Over the years I have been called draconian for wanting a semi-classical education for my child. Sure, I could have graduated him early, checking off the boxes. But I wanted my son to be able to attend an interesting college that suits his intellectual needs, not one that is satisfactory because of its geographic position. I wanted him to qualify for merit aid so that we would not have to shoulder the financial burden of this interesting college.

 

Through the years I have been told that all colleges are the same, that all employers want is a piece of paper so it doesn't matter if students learn anything or if the course is checked off their transcript. The new song is that college itself may not matter anymore. I don't believe this because it does not mirror my life experience. Thus the choices we made in our home school.

 

If you are happy graduating your children at age 12, that's great. Apparently you are the customer for the Harding ebook. I just don't want to see this as the new normal in the homeschool community because I believe it denies most children the opportunity to develop intellectually at a reasonable pace, to follow rabbit trails while finding the time to learn important life skills.

 

Martha, I believe we all have the best interests of our children at heart. It is just that many of us have a hard time imagining this formula for the average child. Apparently our lack of imagination stands in the way...not the skills or maturity of the average child.

[junepep]

That article is very cool Kathryn.

 

For better or worse, my opinion about the Harding family changed when their children being unremarkable/normal became a product claim rather than a self-effacement. Going to college (even a bad one) at age 12 is an accomplishment. One that I genuinely believe that most 12 year olds are developmentally incapable of achieving regardless of any advantage given to them by their parents. To claim otherwise does in fact diminish the Harding's claims about their future product and send up warning signs for me. I think that using their claims as a basis to discuss efficiencies in education are going to keep returning to a debate about the Hardings themselves. However, I would really love to read a discussion about the benefits of efficiency and acceleration. That would be an amazing thread.

[Murphy101]

But here's the deal -

 

We have no idea what their formula is. (Unless someone else has bought the ebook and can share what they gleaned?) Is there a formula? Idk.

 

I don't have a concept that intellectual maturity is so clearly delineated in our lives.

 

This family sounds very close, not kicking them out of the factory ASAP attitude at all.

 

I don't get why learning something at any age would mean sacrificing rabbit trails either. If anything, I tend to think learning IS the rabbit trail.

[Embassy]

Sigh

 

It's really rather insulting to equat efficiency with box ticking. The implication being that efficiency isn't compatible with quality. Which I think is not an accurate equation or conclusion.

 

Anymore than taking twice or thrice as long automatically means they learned more or in more depth. In fact, it usually doesn't.

 

Taking longer doesn't mean that someone has learned more or in more depth, but learning things deeply takes more time. Having a plan in motion that states when a child will have a box ticked does limit depth. I cannot understand how a child can learn high school topics in depth and be finished at age 12, gifted or not.

[Murphy101]

Do you really believe that?

 

And if so, do you feel the same about ticking the box at 18?

 

I don't think having a plan is the same as just ticking the box. It can be. But really ANY education can be boiled down to a box list to check off. WTM could be. CM could be. Isn't it HOW one accomplishes it that makes the difference?

[Murphy101]

For me, it's the HOW that I'm most interested in learning about.

 

I doubt I'll have any kid graduate at 12 simply bc I lack the resources to make it happen even if they were a genius. (Ever notice how rare a poor genius is? :/ )

 

But I might learn some new insights into things.

 

Isn't that the goal of learning about any education model? Frankly I have zero desire to share many culture mind sets about children or about education, but I still study them with interest bc they may have some aspects that I do find worthy of exploring and or using.

[8filltheheart]

Hold on--I am questioning the Harding formula that is being marketed in an ebook, namely that you too can send your non-prodigy child to college at age 12 by following in our footsteps.

 

(snip)

 

If you are happy graduating your children at age 12, that's great. Apparently you are the customer for the Harding ebook. I just don't want to see this as the new normal in the homeschool community because I believe it denies most children the opportunity to develop intellectually at a reasonable pace, to follow rabbit trails while finding the time to learn important life skills.

 

(snip)

 

It is just that many of us have a hard time imagining this formula for the average child.

 

These pts are the crux of the issue for me. The issue is full blown high school graduate attending college full-time by age 12. That means keeping up with college input and required output. It means dealing with adult issues b/c college is intended for adults.

 

By **my** definition of high school graduation (just academically and not my personal view of what constitutes education......I am attempting to delineate a concept that I do not in reality delineate) and college attendance means that the student has completed all high school equivalent material (that would mean alg, geo, alg 2, pre-cal by age 12. It would also mean full blown research/essay writing by 9 in order to have enough writing experience to be able to be fully independent by 12 (based on my experience teaching my kids to write and for them to be college-level writers in MLA format and ease/comfort with searching online databases and not simply googling info, etc, it takes at least 2 yrs to be on a solid college level), etc.

 

I have kids that have managed those things by the end of 8th grade. I have never had one that managed those things by the end of 5th or 6th---my rising 6th grade will be 12 in Nov. It is laughable to consider attending college in the fall.

 

I know how to teach my kids. I know how to teach academically accelerated kids. I do NOT believe that avg children are capable of achieving that level of academics by age 12.

[momto2Cs]

JMHO...

 

I homeschool in part so I can spend that time with my kids, not shuttle them off to college by 12. I homeschool so we can have time for good books, and even better discussions, and time to both approach subjects in ways that work for them, and have time to follow rabbit trails, not so I can accelerate them through life. There is plenty of time for them to be adults, to decide what they want. I realize this family says they would pull their kids out if there was any sign of unhappiness, but truthfully, I worry that even if one of their kids was unhappy, they would keep quiet about it because, after all, everyone else in the family made it through college at an insanely young age. Would you want to be the kid in that family that upset the status quo?

 

I'm all for them homeschooling in whatever manner works FOR THEM, but to publish something that apparently says this is what we should be doing bothers me.

 

We homeschool so we can follow our own path. Yes, I do streamline some subjects, but that is so we have plenty of time to spend on what interests them, here, homeschooling. And no, that's not to say we won't use the local cc in another few years - I could easily see my ds taking some science and math classes in another few years, when he is maybe 15 and more socially ready for attending school with older students. In the meantime, I am not in a huge hurry to graduate them, and get them out of the house into the adult world. Childhood is short enough already, why shorten it more, even if it does save money?

They seem to rather blatantly give the impression that some who would be interested in how the Hardings managed this aren't really interested in giving a quality in depth education. Just a cheap and quick one to check the box.

 

Without seeing what their 12 year old high school graduates have actually accomplished, it is impossible to completely accurately judge. But, it is very difficult for me to imagine that typical 12 year old kids could come anywhere close to the breadth of education that a motivated homeschooler could give their average kid by age 18, a la TWTM. Have their 12 year olds finished calculus? Four years of in depth language study? Studied a modern and a classical language? Are they reading Virgil in Latin? Have they studied calculus-based physics? Read good chunks of the Western Canon? Done several hands-on lab sciences?

[8filltheheart]

If you have an very gifted child and/or if you have your sights set on top-tier colleges only, their method is not going to work for you. It doesn't mean it's not going to work or that it shouldn't be used by anyone else.

 

 

What literally astounds me......I mean totally flabbergasted/befuddled......is how this conversation is even worthy of discussion w/o the bolded. If the avg 12 yr old is ready for university level courses, our colleges should be closed as places of higher ed. Jeepers.....unless you all are only around 11 yr old Einsteins and have no idea of what is normal level of achievement for 5th graders or what is normal for college readiness, I cannot fathom how this is even a reasonable discussion.

 

The intellectual abilities between the avg "by 12 yr old" and avg 18 yr old is HUGE.

[Embassy]

Do you really believe that?

 

And if so, do you feel the same about ticking the box at 18?

 

I don't think having a plan is the same as just ticking the box. It can be. But really ANY education can be boiled down to a box list to check off. WTM could be. CM could be. Isn't it HOW one accomplishes it that makes the difference?

 

No, I don't feel the same about ticking the box at 18. It is possible for many kids to study high school topics in depth by age 18.

[Nan in Mass]

I really miss hybrid mode. Sigh. As usual with the longer threads, this would be a much better discussion if it were organized into sub-threads.

 

Threads like this make me feel so rich. I have the time, the energy, and the resources to keep my children relatively private, to suppliment their education with travel and tutors and community college classes, to send them to one of the more interesting colleges, to give them (and even some of their friends) a hand well into their twenties. If I had ten children, ten children that somehow the world became curious about, I too might be tempted to offer to come satisfy some of that curiosity for $10,000 plus plane fare and hope the high price would discourage any but the rich. I hope I wouldn't be willing to promise untrue things and profit from other parents' insecurities, but if I thought I had some good ideas, helpful ideas, I might be willing to share them. I might even charge $20. I hope I would do it in such a way that it didn't sound as though I were implying that all it takes is $20 and your child could also go to college at 12.

 

The idea of doing part of college instead of high school via community college or one of the easier 4-year colleges has been around since I have been homeschooling. I can see both advantages and disadvantages. We decided it wasn't something we wanted to do and as my children grew into adults, I was happy that we didn't go that route. In the case of my children, their academic education seems to have been broad enough, deep enough, and smorgasborg like enough that they simply took from it what they needed at any particular age. A better way of thinking about their educations isn't by degrees but simply by years. Having them graduate with a bachelor's degree at 18 would probably have resulted in about the same education as having them graduate with a high school degree at 18 because of the quality of that degree. The one with the bachelor's degree would have a narrower body of knowledge but not necessarily less knowledge. For my technically oriented children, waiting until they have more self-discipline, more academic skills, more math, more experience with how things work, and more experience with the world makes it possible for them to do a harder degree at a better college. I seriously doubt even my most academicly able youngest would be able to manage a full load of senior year engineering classes at 18. Far better that he wait. And if he is waiting, then he might as well wait rather than spending money on an inferior in-between degree. We could have accelerated him more and he could have gotten more of the beginning classes out of the way earlier, but that just would have meant that he would have been missing those years of French and The Iliad, both of which he was also interested in. Most of this I have said before, but one good thing about this discussion is that it has made me see that for us, it makes sense to think of education in years rather than in mile-stones or even a checklist (and even do-the-next-thing as I am, I have a million checklists). (If I'd had a pg child who could have done both, it would have been different.)

 

Nan

[justasque]

I was surprised to see that the college mentioned, Huntingdon College, had rather abysmal SAT scores.

Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile

• SAT Critical Reading: 428 / 500
  
• SAT Math: 408 / 513
  

I have to wonder about the rigor of the courses the kids took. Perhaps they could do the work at 12 because the courses were essentially high school courses.

 

As a comparison, here's Harvard's scores (obviously the high end of the spectrum):

• SAT Critical Reading: 700 / 800
  
• SAT Math: 710 / 790
  

And here is a more reasonable comparison, Penn State:

• SAT Critical Reading: 530 / 630
  
• SAT Math: 560 / 670
  

Penn State's 25th percentile scores are higher than Huntingdon's 75% scores.

I am guessing that the courses at Huntingdon are at the level that most of us would consider "high school" rather than at the college level.

I suppose there is some advantage to taking classes called "college" rather than taking the same courses called "high school", in that you will get a different piece of paper in the end. But given the choice, from an educational perspective, I'd rather have my kids take courses with peers who are working at the same level. The teacher can provide significantly more challenging material and cover more ground (depth & breadth). The peers can create an academic environment that challenges my student to work harder/deeper, and to be more articulate about the material.

I was surprised to see that the college mentioned, Huntingdon College, had rather abysmal SAT scores.

Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile

• SAT Critical Reading: 428 / 500

• SAT Math: 408 / 513

 

 

 

What's amazing to me about these third tier private colleges is that they aren't cheap, either. Huntingdon's tuition is $22,500 per year! Compare this with their big state U, University of Alabama, whose SATs scores are closer to Penn State's, but whose in-state tuition is $9,200.

 

I have to wonder about the rigor of the courses the kids took. Perhaps they could do the work at 12 because the courses were essentially high school courses.

 

I am guessing that the courses at Huntingdon are at the level that most of us would consider "high school" rather than at the college level.

I suppose there is some advantage to taking classes called "college" rather than taking the same courses called "high school", in that you will get a different piece of paper in the end. But given the choice, from an educational perspective, I'd rather have my kids take courses with peers who are working at the same level. The teacher can provide significantly more challenging material and cover more ground (depth & breadth). The peers can create an academic environment that challenges my student to work harder/deeper, and to be more articulate about the material.

 

 

Totally agree with you about the value of the academic peers at college. In one of the articles, it claimed the kids didn't breeze through their undergraduate college, that they were in the tutoring centers every day getting help, so perhaps they other college students were more peer-like?

 

The one thing I really don't understand about the whole story is how these kids got into their graduate programs. They all went to these apparently not-very-rigorous local LACs, and perhaps did well. But, with degree inflation, those undergraduate degrees aren't worth much in the job market, so they all went to graduate or professional school. Was their young age a "hook" to get into grad school? For grad school admissions, is it better to be a huge fish in a small pond, or not? To get into medical school, say, is it better to be first in your class at this tiny school, or near the top (but not at it) at, say University of Alabama.

[8filltheheart]

What's amazing to me about these third tier private colleges is that they aren't cheap, either. Huntingdon's tuition is $22,500 per year! Compare this with their big state U, University of Alabama, whose SATs scores are closer to Penn State's, but whose in-state tuition is $9,200.

 

If a student has a 1330+ on the SAT, instate tuition is paid for all 4 yrs at UA.

 

I followed the 3rd link in the OP. (I hadn't bothered before now.) http://shop.littlemo...a.com/main.sc They charge $50 for a one hr phone call consultation and $10,000 (plus travel and expenses) for speaking engagements.

[Pen]

Whether or not one would want to do this, I think a key would be having a nearby and probably easy college. I had been picturing a child going off to an academically challenging college and having to learn to deal with dorm and campus life at the same time at age 12. I cannot see my son possibly doing such a thing, and as I had written before, even the smartest kid I ever knew who went to college at Cal Tech at 12 did not manage for reasons that had to do with social adjustment, not academics. If we did have a college where a limited course schedule could be taken nearby, I can see that my son might be ready for a first (carefully chosen) class by age 12--though not ready for the social aspects of college life, nor ready to manage a full course load. My dad graduated college at 19--not quite so young as these people, but a much higher echelon school. I think he has had mixed feelings about that in retrospect. When at 14 it was a possibility for me to go to college, my dad was against it based on his own experience.

[Barbara H]

Was their young age a "hook" to get into grad school?

 

 

Being younger is not a "hook" for college or for grad school. If anything the bar is set much higher for the younger student. They need to be better than the typical applicant to be successful. There are a lot of people who will presume if the student is younger that they have not had a good education (many posts on this thread voice that sentiment) so that's something the student has to overcome.

 

As this family of kids are successful with graduate and professional school ambitions, I find it reasonable to assume they have in fact had a good education. There are certainly students who go to college younger and do quite well. The only doubt for me comes with the claim of being "average" and the suggestion that this is a good path for families with typically developing kids.

[Arcadia]

I followed the 3rd link in the OP. (I hadn't bothered before now.) http://shop.littlemo...a.com/main.sc They charge $50 for a one hr phone call consultation and $10,000 (plus travel and expenses) for speaking engagements.

 

I just looked at the link too. It somehow gives me a bad taste, like those mom/dad managers of child stars.

[Arcadia]

My dad graduated college at 19--not quite so young as these people, but a much higher echelon school. I think he has had mixed feelings about that in retrospect. When at 14 it was a possibility for me to go to college, my dad was against it based on his own experience.

 

I think for me as a parent, the worry is that I deprive my children of part of their childhood. If I had needed them for financial reasons to join the workforce earlier, I might have push for early college. But with no financial need, I rather they take a normal path and have lots of time for silly stuff that they might not want to do past a certain age. I did lots of fun stuff with ex-schoolmates like climbing over the locked school gate because the school security did not check before locking. Attending girl guides campfires, building the campfires, wooden bridges with spars, and participating in events at Boy Scouts jamboree. It is one thing to be able to cope with the academic workload, it is another to have to be socially matured at twelve and having peers much older. Like a young teenager that attended my alma mater said everyone was gossiping about boy girl relationships and he felt left out. He also felt left out when his classmates went to the bars for social hours.

 

ETA:

I have nothing against PG children going very early to specialty colleges that are for them. They would be with their own peers.

[Mommy22alyns]

They want $10,000 for a speaking engagement?!???!! :ohmy:

[Pen]

They want $10,000 for a speaking engagement?!???!! :ohmy:

 

 

 

Sounds like a lucrative family business!

[Nan in Mass]

Snipping a bit from my last post:

 

If I had ten children, ten children that somehow the world became curious about, I too might be tempted to offer to come satisfy some of that curiosity for $10,000 plus plane fare and hope the high price would discourage any but the rich. I hope I wouldn't be willing to promise untrue things and profit from other parents' insecurities, but if I thought I had some good ideas, helpful ideas, I might be willing to share them. I might even charge $20. I hope I would do it in such a way that it didn't sound as though I were implying that all it takes is $20 and your child could also go to college at 12.

 

[Jane in NC]

Snipping a bit from my last post:

 

If I had ten children, ten children that somehow the world became curious about, I too might be tempted to offer to come satisfy some of that curiosity for $10,000 plus plane fare and hope the high price would discourage any but the rich. I hope I wouldn't be willing to promise untrue things and profit from other parents' insecurities, but if I thought I had some good ideas, helpful ideas, I might be willing to share them. I might even charge $20. I hope I would do it in such a way that it didn't sound as though I were implying that all it takes is $20 and your child could also go to college at 12.

 

 

This morning I was thinking that you and "8" could do a dog and pony show that would have great appeal to the TWMers. I fear though that all you might get out of it though would be a night in someone's spare room on a rollaway or futon, a free meal and undying love.

 

I guess you can't fund your kids' college educations on that!

[elegantlion]

Here's what I find irritating. Suppose this plan works and works well for this family, obviously it did. Suppose they are all gifted, or that they simply are organized, tenacious, and know how to maximize their study time. Fine, sell your story, sell your plan, but to assume it can deduced to a formula is a bit arrogant (not quite right word...). Even WTM is a plan for approaching classical education, it's not a formula to follow. Not everyone approaches WTM the same way, yet they are still said to be following the WTM way.

 

A formula that ends up with a child in college in 12 has little wiggle room for personality, diversions, learning challenges, or the like. It seems common sense to me that this is not the norm, that this should be left in the realm of the small minority who truly are ready for college at 12. Will people be less than aware of these nuances and try this formula with their children? Probably. We, as people, want to try and learn from successful people. If you believe they are a success, well that's the people who will try that. To market it as the "solution" - that's the vibe I get - seems very MLM.

 

I'm 46, I knew what I wanted to do at age 12. I got talked out of it because everyone believed it was just a foolish dream of youth. My ds is 15, he's known part of what he wants to do since 12, still defining how to do that. I take his interests very seriously. I've often wondered if there is a genetic trait to some of that maturing (pondering different discussion) So, maybe this family had a group of kids ready to focus on career early. Great, I still don't think it's a magic component of x + y= voila.

 

Rushing through academics - it is rushing to finish a full high school transcript by 12- is not for everyone. Another issue I see is that any process of education is subject to be watered down by the next group to us it. How tweakable is this process? Is the downside you end up with a bunch of burnt out former homeschoolers being put back into middle schools? I believe it's important that homeschooling leaders also anticipate the negative of their product/book/guidance before marketing it. Nothing is a magic pill, nothing works for all kids. If parents are not at a point to understand that, again, you end up with a group of homeschooling parents who are burnt out thinking they did it all wrong. My ds is the kind of kid that can't be pushed. This program would have damaged our relationship and his view of education. In the early days I would have been left feeling like it was my fault, because it obviously worked for these people, why not me? So, after reading these threads and the links I followed earlier, I'm left with a taste of we are just unenlightened peasants (overthinking on my part I'm sure) and if we had just done it their way my kid would be in college now.

 

Perhaps this is a good formula, perhaps it's tweakable enough to get most kids to college by 14. But it is a good idea? For some, yes. As a blanket statement, no.

[8filltheheart]

 

 

This morning I was thinking that you and "8" could do a dog and pony show that would have great appeal to the TWMers. I fear though that all you might get out of it though would be a night in someone's spare room on a rollaway or futon, a free meal and undying love.

 

I guess you can't fund your kids' college educations on that!

 

 

Lol!! I thought about adding something like "for a low fee, I'm available for speaking on how not to graduate your children early and not turn gray in the process ......(oh, wait, that is Loreal. ;) ). Guess I've got nothing!"

 

Seriously though, the ladies on the high school board are priceless. Their combined experience and wisdom has helped me so much over the yrs and all for free. Best counseling service available!

[Nan in Mass]

Just for fun...thinking about this some more in my usual backwards way...

 

How would I get a bright child to the point where they were ready to take community college classes at 12? I would focus on teaching basic academic skills when they were little and then help them learn how to apply those skills to a textbook that is hard enough that they actually needed those skills in order to learn the material. At the same time, I would teach them to use the 5-paragraph essay format and I would teach them some literary analysis skills. And I would do math for a half hour in the morning and a half hour or hour or two (depending on age) in the evening. I might very well choose to use Latin as a fun framework for learning a bunch of those academic skills (like grammar and vocabulary and spelling and writing and careful attention to detail and ...). I could do that in the morning (and a bit of time in the evening for the math and Latin excersize) and leave them free to do whatever they wanted in the afternoon. Forget about content. I would leave that to the child's curiosity and for when he got to college. This would not be giving the child an education in the usual sense of the word (the aim would be to give the child the skills to teach themselves using those academic/textbook skills) but neither would it rob the child of the his childhood by forcing him to do academics all the time. The result would sort of be half unschooling. You'd have to have a pretty good grip on your children to be able to pull it off because the education would be pretty dull. You would have to have a lot of faith that this was the right way to go because it would be pretty disconcerting to keep running across basic content type things that your child had never heard of. Your child would have to be bright enough to be able to do the analyzing and synthesizing and summarizing necessary at an early age, but you are aiming for lower level community college classes, not beginning calc at MIT or English 101 at Amherst College or General Chemistry at Princeton (not that I know anything about those classes lol, just presuming they start at a higher level than Comp 101, College Algebra, and Intro Chemistry at our community college). I'm not sure how you would develop vocabulary without requiring quite a lot of reading, so I guess you'd have to add in a reading period, perhaps in the afternoon. Hmm... Some of this is starting to sound familiar... GRIN... Add in content and you get something that sounds remarkably like TWTM... I'm not saying this would be a good idea, mind you. But I guess I can sort of see how it could be done in the right family. LOL Mine was not the right family. TWTM was right for my family. It showed me how NOT to send my 12yo to college. Instead, it showed me how to add richness and breadth to the pre-12yo education and then how NOT to have to send my child to the community college for high school. We opted to do community college for some classes starting in 10th grade, but it sure was nice knowing that it was optional.

 

Nan

[stripe]

If I had ten children, ten children that somehow the world became curious about, I too might be tempted to offer to come satisfy some of that curiosity for $10,000 plus plane fare and hope the high price would discourage any but the rich. I hope I wouldn't be willing to promise untrue things and profit from other parents' insecurities, but if I thought I had some good ideas, helpful ideas, I might be willing to share them. I might even charge $20. I hope I would do it in such a way that it didn't sound as though I were implying that all it takes is $20 and your child could also go to college at 12.

 

1- The rich wouldn't invite her. I am sorry, but I don't think even she presents her ebook as being very polished. After one person reviewed it (she asked that person to) and called it a journal, she started calling her ebook a journal. I mean, we can watch TED talks for free. I am not sure who she thinks has $10,000 to drop.

2 - She charges $50 for an hour of consulting, and her ebook is similarly moderately priced. So $10,000+ expenses is a giant leap up. I don't think it's worth it. It's not clear to me that going to a local, completely noncompetitive college is a shocking accomplishment, given all I've read about, say, college students not being able to identify a noun and verb in a sentence. In other words, a semi sold junior high school level education is a substitute for a bad high school education. Okay. But I want more for my kids.

3 - A good part of her message is about her faith. Not everyone is going to want a religious speech.

 

Eta I wonder how her method compares to just using materials aimed at the Amish that assume one finishes in 8th grade, ready to start work. Clearly they are not into scholarship per se, but they are into early preparation.

[8filltheheart]

.

 

Eta I wonder how her method compares to just using materials aimed at the Amish that assume one finishes in 8th grade, ready to start work. Clearly they are not into scholarship per se, but they are into early preparation.

 

The American School approach would be easy to accomplish at a young age. http://www.americanschoolofcorr.com/

 

I wouldn't call it college prep, but there have been threads about it on the accelerated board so this approach definitely appeals to some.

[Nan in Mass]

1- The rich wouldn't invite her. I am sorry, but I don't think even she presents her ebook as being very polished. After one person reviewed it (she asked that person to) and called it a journal, she started calling her ebook a journal. I mean, we can watch TED talks for free. I am not sure who she thinks has $10,000 to drop.

2 - She charges $50 for an hour of consulting, and her ebook is similarly moderately priced. So $10,000+ expenses is a giant leap up. I don't think it's worth it. It's not clear to me that going to a local, completely noncompetitive college is a shocking accomplishment, given all I've read about, say, college students not being able to identify a noun and verb in a sentence. In other words, a semi sold junior high school level education is a substitute for a bad high school education. Okay. But I want more for my kids.

3 - A good part of her message is about her faith. Not everyone is going to want a religious speech.

 

Eta I wonder how her method compares to just using materials aimed at the Amish that assume one finishes in 8th grade, ready to start work. Clearly they are not into scholarship per se, but they are into early preparation.

 

The rich I know have their children in prep school. They would be completely uninterested in an educational method whose outcome involved community college except as a last resort. They would be highly doubtful whether this was a good path into an elite college. They aren't looking for "efficient". They are looking for "best" with all the bells and whistles in tact But it would just take ONE silly rich person and she'd have enough money to pay for one of her children's community college classes. All for typing a sentence on her website. I still think I might be tempted to offer this just in case that one existed.

 

I agree that that sort of college is not what I want as an outcome of my child's education. I was trying for something altogether different. I am happy that colleges come in all shapes and sizes but that doesn't mean I think the education they offer is all the same. But I don't have ten children. Who knows how I would feel if I had ten children?

 

I, too, am not interested in a religious speech. I have my own sources for those. : )

 

I did have a fast look at her website. The yellow sceme screams not much to sell but selling it anyway, to me at least. Perhaps she feel that what she has to offer is in line with the other cheap yellow websites I've seen and she's done it on purpose? That is what I would do, if I were capitalizing on people's curiosity. I would advertise that what I was selling wasn't much. My fast glance made me feel that she was at least TRYING to be honest about what she was offering? It was just a fast look, though. At least we know that it is more of a log and less of a carefully written and edited how-to manual.

 

Amish, Robinson, American School... These all offer an accelerated education. We have people here who can tell you what they did. Ellie used community college for high school and Jenny in Florida's 12yo went to college, really WENT. That is why I keep saying that I think it can be done and that I could probably even tell you how to do it. Somewhere in the fast glance I had at her material I think I might have seen a reference to Calvert? It seems to me that if you started Calvert a bit early and did it year round, you probably would finish the 8th grade book at about 12, at which point I wouldn't be at all surprised if you couldn't pass the community college placement exams and be in college as a 12yo. You wouldn't be ready to start with general chemistry, general biology, comp 1, and calc1, but you could probably do drawing, speech, and Spanish 1 first semester, and comp 1, Spanish 2, and how-to-use-your-computer. Then you could start adding in intro science classes. You wouldn't have an associate's degree in 2 years but you might by the time you were 16. At that point, you transfer to an easy local college and finish with a bachelor's degree by 18 or 19. Then if you were particularly good at academics, you might be able to manage a graduate program. Or you would rest on your laurels, having received what was probably the equivalent of a good high school education plus a piece of paper saying you had a bachelor's degree. Or perhaps a bit more.

 

Nan

[Murphy101]

Ahh. Nan illustrates some of what I am thinking. Tho I'm confused about what Nan thinks is "content".

 

When reading about people like the Hardings, and they aren't new, just a minority, I am looking to see what these obviously successfully educated people have in common. (Make all the claims you want about how their colleges are inferior, the kids are successful. Several in rather tough careers. And as previously noted, graduate school usually isn't a cake walk either.)

 

What I'm finding is they have a lot in common with Ben Franklin type education without the crappy family life.

 

They do seem to have this unique combination of solid educational core mixed with almost total unschooling. It's a very common theme. Usually it's phrased similar to this, "math and reading and some small amount but quality writing is required for a short time daily. Once done, they are free to do as they like with little to no direction from teacher/parents."

 

Many of the students who had this growing up insist they didn't advance bc they were super smart. Almost all of them say they were only mandated to do what they needed and nearly complete freedom to use it however they wanted.

[Nan in Mass]

Double post. Sorry.

[Murphy101]

10k ?! Lol. Yeahhhh. I wish her luck with that.

 

For $100 I'll tell ya'll how to get the laundry done in a large family. ("large family laundry chores" was my most common search hit to bring up my blog last year. which is weird bc I don't think I've ever written about laundry)

 

For free you can see what curriculum I use to turn out completely average kids. ;p

The rich I know have their children in prep school. They would be completely uninterested in an educational method whose outcome involved community college except as a last resort. They would be highly doubtful whether this was a good path into an elite college. They aren't looking for "efficient". They are looking for "best" with all the bells and whistles in tact But it would just take ONE silly rich person and she'd have enough money to pay for one of her children's community college classes. All for typing a sentence on her website.

 

My thought was the speaking fee was for more of a "motivational speaker" to some large group, maybe not even specifically a homeschooling group. And if she can get it, more power to her. Better she than former athletes, disgraced politicians, celebrities, etc. Course, I'd rather hear from the veteran gurus from the highschooling board, but that's just me...

[Sahamamama]

I watched the CNN interview, and here's what jumped out at me: Serennah, sixteen years old at the time, said, "I had a great childhood." She put her childhood in the past tense. How many 16 year olds are willing and able to do that? Her confident declaration stands out (to me) as the central, defining issue of how this family handled and is handling the education and raising of their children. They define "childhood" and "adulthood" radically differently than many people do these days in Western culture.

 

What is the decade between 12 and 22 for? What is the purpose of those years? Are those years part of childhood? Or are they the beginning of adulthood? The Harding family seems to have chosen to "allow" their children to grow up. The case could be made that mainstream American culture does not "allow" most young adults to grow up, when, in fact, many might be ready and willing to do so, if given half a chance.

 

I don't think it is a disservice, but that they could be missing a large part of the learning experience. I personally believe that the conversations and learning that takes place in a college classroom is great for developing a deeper level of thinking and approaches to life problems. I want my kids to go through those four years as young adults just to be able to be a part of that.

 

What if the Harding family does see the years between 12 and 22 as the years of being "young adults?"

 

I don't know, personally I can think of a lot of reasons "why not": Because most children have not developed enough for it to be possible to know what they really want to do and be at age 12, because most children at that age don't have the maturity to really *understand* great literature and history (they are just beginning the logical stage), because there is value in similarly aged peers and childhood pursuits, because I dont think your job is so important that it has to be started nearly a full decade early.

 

According to the interview, these children do seem ready to work and aim at their interests. I don't think that any of us are in a position to judge whether or not they have the maturity to "understand great literature and history" -- whatever that means -- but they seemed mature enough to interview well on CNN. Not sure I'd do as well, LOL. Also, they do engage in "childhood pursuits" when they are considered to be children (e.g., soccer). However, their definition of "childhood" seems to vary vastly from the mainstream view of when childhood is and when it ends.

 

The linked thread really discusses this article at length. But, this selection that wapiti posted just makes me go :confused: Why navigate to get your child the fastest education possible. Aren't we adults the vast majority of our life? Why rush to get there? There is no need to rush and graduate. There is a world to explore that can take an advanced student their childhood through adulthood to explore. No need to try to finish by 12. :blink: Why would I want that as a goal for my kids?? No way!

 

Again, perhaps the parents see their 11 or 12 year olds as young adults, capable of pursuing interests with passion, commitment, and discipline. IOW, they don't perceive this trajectory as "rushing" anything, but rather as not hindering the natural progression of learning and becoming a young adult.

 

I can understand going quicker, not for the sake of speed per se, but for the sake of not wasting time. Most of our current educational model is a waste of time that performs no higher function nor imparts any skills. I can understand why someone would want to skip that to get on with doing what they do want to do with their life. I don't think that means they don't value education. The exact opposite! I think when done well it can show a tremendous love of genuine learning and developing life interests.

 

Exactly!

 

At 12?? 12 yr olds do not know enough about who they are or the adult world or careers to skip ahead and "do what they want to do with their life." It is rare that a high school student starts high school with that clear of a vision. High school students graduate from high school attend college and change majors multiple times or even start undeclared.

 

You would have to preface this with "most twelve year olds," because apparently, some do know. FWIW, I know some adults in their 40s and 50s who don't know what they want to "be when they grow up." I also know some perfectly balanced, adjusted teens who do know, and they will pursue their goals with commitment, discipline, and a good work ethic.

 

Much as I generally dislike writers like Penelope Trunk, I did agree with this: Parents misunderstand childhood. It is not a time when your kids are emissaries to the world to show the world how great you are as a parent. Childhood is for exploration. There is no point in teaching kids to stick to rigidly linear paths because linear paths don't work in adult life. And there is no point in celebrating your child's prodigy in a way that will encourage people to ask, with an impressed voice, "How old are you?" Because this is not a long-term plan for someone who will be 20 and 30 and 40 and 50.

 

The Harding parents don't necessarily misunderstand childhood, they are simply free to define it for their own family members. Perhaps the rest of us misunderstand childhood, Penelope. :tongue_smilie:

[Sahamamama]

I agree with both the above quotes. I don't think the majority of kids know what they want to do at 12 and specializing at that age can end up very limiting for the future.

 

Plus, from the green quote above, it appears that this wasn't the kids idea, it was the parents. They did "extensive research to ensure" the kids could go to college by 12. Why? Just for the bragging rights?

 

How could being a doctor in the Navy by age 22 be "very limiting for the future?" :huh:

 

The students are doing the work, they seem excited to be doing it, and each is pursuing his or her own interests and passions. That doesn't sound like control freak parents to me.

[Jane in NC]

I watched the CNN interview, and here's what jumped out at me: Serennah, sixteen years old at the time, said, "I had a great childhood." She put her childhood in the past tense. How many 16 year olds are willing and able to do that? Her confident declaration stands out (to me) as the central, defining issue of how this family handled and is handling the education and raising of their children. They define "childhood" and "adulthood" radically differently than many people do these days in Western culture.

 

What is the decade between 12 and 22 for? What is the purpose of those years? Are those years part of childhood? Or are they the beginning of adulthood? The Harding family seems to have chosen to "allow" their children to grow up. The case could be made that mainstream American culture does not "allow" most young adults to grow up, when, in fact, many might be ready and willing to do so, if given half a chance.

 

<snip>

 

 

The Harding parents don't necessarily misunderstand childhood, they are simply free to define it for their own family members. Perhaps the rest of us misunderstand childhood, Penelope. :tongue_smilie:

What an interesting post, Sahamamama! I must confess though that I had to reread it to see if you were making a case for repealing child labor laws.

 

"What is the decade between 12 and 22 for?" you ask. For me, this was a decade of significant intellectual pursuit. I learned a great deal of Mathematics, some Latin and German, I read many Shakespearean plays and was introduced to several philosophers, I met many people who came from backgrounds different than my own, I spent ten weeks with a backpack traveling around Europe including then communist Poland, etc. I started babysitting at 12 so I guess I always had a job during those years too.

 

Of course, I am not a prodigy so I would not have been prepared to attend college at age 12. I did skip a year of high school though so I guess I was considered a bit ahead of the curve.

 

I was able to use public transportation on my own at age 12; I also biked throughout my city when weather permitted. Today's parents often seem unable to let their children test the waters on their own so I will agree that perhaps we do sometimes hold on to childhood a little too long. Nan's kids were roaming the planet at young ages. She entrusted them to find their way--I admire her for it.

 

Food for thought! Perhaps we should have a conversation on how we can help our teens with the transition from childhood to adulthood. I am not sure if I am ready to embrace a full plunge into adulthood, but perhaps you can tell us how you see this transition for your own kids.

[Sahamamama]

I'm 46, I knew what I wanted to do at age 12. I got talked out of it because everyone believed it was just a foolish dream of youth. My ds is 15, he's known part of what he wants to do since 12, still defining how to do that. I take his interests very seriously. I've often wondered if there is a genetic trait to some of that maturing. So, maybe this family had a group of kids ready to focus on career early. Great, I still don't think it's a magic component of x + y= voila.

 

 

I have oftened wondered this, too, Paula. Is it nature or nurture? Is there a genetic component to those people who seem to know what they want in life "early?" I remember being in high school and talking with friends about life goals. Rose P., impressively, knew exactly what she wanted to be -- a pharmacist. And that's what she did.

 

Then there's me, the undeclared major turned social work major turned seminary student turned teacher turned SAHM/Homeschooler. I'm 46, and definitely do not possess the early maturity/decisive career path gene. :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

My 15, 16, 18 years olds refer to their childhood in the past tense too. In my house, I think my teens refer to childhood in the past tense not because they think they are done growing but because they simply no longer view themselves as "little" or "childish", which is as I think most would expect of any teen? Maybe not.

[Sahamamama]

What an interesting post, Sahamamama! I must confess though that I had to reread it to see if you were making a case for repealing child labor laws.

 

Why so sarcastic?

 

Food for thought! Perhaps we should have a conversation on how we can help our teens with the transition from childhood to adulthood. I am not sure if I am ready to embrace a full plunge into adulthood, but perhaps you can tell us how you see this transition for your own kids.

 

 

My own children are 6, 6, and 8, so the transition is up the road for us, but you already know that, of course. Again, why so sarcastic? I didn't say that I agree with the Harding family's delineation of childhood vs. adulthood (I don't) -- simply that at issue is not only how they homeschooled their offspring, but also how they seem to view their 12 year olds as emerging adults (rather than as ongoing children). What do these parents do to produce young adults who are ready to self-identify as young adults at the age of 12? They must do something substantially different in the parenting, as well as the homeschooling, in order to have those confident young people who see themselves as ready and capable.

[stripe]

My nearly three year old began a sentence yesterday with "When I was little, I..."

 

;)

[Murphy101]

My nearly three year old began a sentence yesterday with "When I was little, I..."

 

;)

 

 

Ha! I've heard that one too.

 

I have also heard my 6'1" son say, "when I'm grown I'd like to...."

 

We had quite the laugh over it. Lol

[momto2Cs]

How could being a doctor in the Navy by age 22 be "very limiting for the future?" :huh:

 

The students are doing the work, they seem excited to be doing it, and each is pursuing his or her own interests and passions. That doesn't sound like control freak parents to me.

 

 

 

I see it as limiting only in the sense that if they change their mind about their chosen career at say 25, 30, 35, etc., they would have to pay a small fortune for a "new" education.

[Jane in NC]

My own children are 6, 6, and 8, so the transition is up the road for us, but you already know that, of course. Again, why so sarcastic? I didn't say that I agree with the Harding family's delineation of childhood vs. adulthood (I don't) -- simply that at issue is not only how they homeschooled their offspring, but also how they seem to view their 12 year olds as emerging adults (rather than as ongoing children). What do these parents do to produce young adults who are ready to self-identify as young adults at the age of 12? They must do something substantially different in the parenting, as well as the homeschooling, in order to have those confident young people who see themselves as ready and capable.

 

 

Forgive me. It was an observation, not intended to be sarcastic. I read within your post a case being made to see childhood ending at age 12. My mind made the jump--because my mind tends to work this way.

 

Further, your sig line does not contain the ages of your children. I honestly have a hard time keeping track of the ages of board member's kids unless they were part of the cohort doing things with my son.

 

I have never heard a twelve year old referred to as a "young adult" before.

 

Honestly, I viewed your post as one that could lead to further conversation. Apparently not.

[Sahamamama]

 

 

I see it as limiting only in the sense that if they change their mind about their chosen career at say 25, 30, 35, etc., they would have to pay a small fortune for a "new" education.

 

 

Or get the Navy to pay for it. :patriot:

 

Or write a book (or an e-journal?) about "How I Went to College by Age 12." Or charge a $10,000 speaking fee for a lecture entitled the same. :leaving:

 

;)

 

How is having a degree at a young age & then changing one's mind any more limiting than someone who puts off college until 25, 30, or 35 and then pays to attend? At least with the first degree in hand, there'd be the possibility of having a decent job in the first place, perhaps one that would pay for another degree? IDK, just don't see how the degree in and of itself would be a limit. It isn't like an edict that says, "You MUST pursue a career in X because your degree is in X." People get college degrees all the time and pursue other fields besides their college majors. People change careers, too, not simply because they had to choose a path at a too-young age.

[Sahamamama]

Forgive me. It was an observation, not intended to be sarcastic. I read within your post a case being made to see childhood ending at age 12. My mind made the jump--because my mind tends to work this way.

 

No, I never made the case for it. I'm of the opposite opinion, in fact. I think American culture tends to push children along far too fast when they are youngest (birth--around age 10), and then hold them frustratingly back when they are ready for more meaningful responsibility and a stronger work ethic (age 11 and up).

 

I do think that it's important to see that this family (Hardings) is not "only" educating their children according to the beat of a different drum. They are parenting from a fundamentally different perspective on the endurance of childhood and the emergence of the young adult. I could see it otherwise IF their children were profoundly gifted (because then acceleration would not really be acceleration, but just meeting the needs of the [still perceived as] child. But since they (and the children) all claim to be "average," then what other explanation could there be except that in their view childhood transitions into young adult life, and the preparation for the rest of adult life begins? IOW, their "acceleration" is not based on the precocity of their children, but on their view of the capabilities of "average" 11 or 12 year olds -- a view which is not the norm. ;)

 

I'm skewed a bit, though, I do admit this. I lived in Belize and Malawi, and have done work in other developing nations, as well as in the US. What I have seen of childhood overseas (and here) has impacted my perspective of what childhood is and ought to be, and when it "ends." In Belize, I counseled children as young as eight years old who were Heads of Households. In Malawi, many children were in charge of the family, the parents having succumbed to AIDS. Sadly, these children did have to take on much more responsibility than was healthy, even in those cultures. Their options for schooling were very limited, and the prospects for the girls was especially bleak.

 

Although my own children are still quite young, I have a hard time viewing 15, 16, 17 year olds as "children." When I see a sulky, sullen spoiled American teen, yeah, it bothers me, probably as a result of watching 8 and 9 year olds pick their next meal out of the trash. They were so young, yet in charge of younger siblings, in charge of the fields, in charge of the goats, in charge of the cooking fires, in charge of the laundry, in charge of anyone who was sick. Many young people all around the world are taking on adult-level responsibility every day, with no choice in the matter, and no one blinks an eye at it.

 

When people on these boards are incredulous that a healthy, bright, well-adjusted, well-loved American twelve year old living at home can "handle" four introductory courses at a "second-rate" local private college, I just want to say, "Hey, guess what else young people can and regularly do handle."