Question about Graduating REALLY Early

[KSinNS]

Really interesting discussion. 

 

Not sure about the accelerated child, but I've actually been a bit shocked by what my kids (non-gifted) can actually cope with. We're reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar now (very slowly), and I'm amazed at the themes and ideas the kids pull out and are grappling with. They don't sort them out the way adults do, but they do come to some interesting conclusions. Also, there's nothing funnier than seeing your 7 year old jump on his brother and scream "cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!" Of course, there are things they can't relate to; there are lots of things I can't relate to. That doesn't mean they aren't get a ton out of it. They have an interesting take on mythology, too. Anyway, they never cease to amaze me.

 

Edited for clarity

[lewelma]

My younger(11) boy is an empath.  He 'sees' so much more than he should.  Books for him are a safe way to explore what he already sees as a very unfair and disturbing world. He reads adult books because he *thinks* like an adult; he may not have the *experience* that EoO was referencing, but because he sees all underlying emotion and motives for every action of every human he interacts with, he has experience of a different kind.

 

My ds read The Giver at 7 and was quite capable of discussing euthanasia of babies.  At 11 his father is reading him Persian Fire by Holland, and he is comfortable discussing how boys were used for sex to keep the girls virgins and how the boys gained political alliances in the process. He can analyse how females are portrayed in books ranging from Ivanhoe to The Enchanted Forest Chronicles; and racism in Tarzan vs Huck Finn. I think that until you have met a child like my own, you would never realise how deeply some gifted kids think.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Bluegoat]

I do not know where there is discussion of a child doing university level literature courses? The OP asked about how high school literature is handled by kids who are graduating very early. The ages are rarely before twelve and generally students for whom that happens do not enter university until between thirteen and fourteen. Fourteen is high school aged. In many states 14 year olds participate in dual enrollment at universities.

 

Even for a student graduating at twelve, why is it that they are now ready for taking a literature course right away? Is there some reason that it is assumed that this is any different than an 18 year old student who graduates and then takes lower level (often not university level) math classes until they can handle the math, or takes the science pre-requisites, or knocks out English 101, 102, and a speech class first things because they are intimidated by literature courses? My father failed his college literature course 4 times because he just could not seem to understand Shakespeare or Homer and he was in his mid twenties. The man has been a successful architect for 45 years with three degrees.

 

Secondly, I think the idea that because a student can handle graduating high school with a districts requirements is then somehow be magically prepared for college is quite false. The OP asked about high school graduation. More than half the students who graduate most high schools are not prepared for all university level classes. There is a ridiculously steep learning curve for huge quantities of students regardless of age. Drop out rates are very high among the first two years. The phenomenon is so common that the term "gap year" exists.

 

Why does it become a situation where a student who graduates early somehow has a higher bar to meet than my father or any other random 18 year old? Why are they not held to the same standards?

 

Lastly, I do not think there is a single person here who believes that the life experiences of the students who enter a college literature class (regardless of their age) are all going to be anywhere near the same level. The life experiences I had entering college were vastly different being a homeless teen than that of the 40 year old housewife who sat next to me in my World Lit. class. I guarentee you that at 14 I understood far more about being used as a sexual object than my husband ever will. At least one in five girls under twelve understands more than I ever want to even think about. This is what makes the class so interesting. It is not that somehow at 18 you magically become viable and your experiences become valid.

 

My son has darker skin in a rural white town. He learned Spanish from members of the hispanic migrant workers and their children (and was often lumped in with the children by other white members of the community). He has stopped fishing with the neighbor he idolized because said neighbor went on a lengthy rant denegrating my son's racial herritage directly in front of him using words such as lazy, dirty, stupid, ingrate, and theiving along with quite a few racial slurs. The entire group of five males whom Ds was with not only agreed, but joined in. I guarentee you that Ds understands racism on a level my white skinned, upper class, 60 year old mother will never understand. That has nothing to do with his age. There are children in Baltimore who understand race in a way that I will never understand. These are not isolated instances. To say kids do not understand is an argument coming from the majority who thankfully has never had to explain such things to their child or teach them how to handle the emotions that come with it. To say that kids do not understand is coming from an adult who thankfulky has never had to be that child.

 

Most of your post seems to be something of a non-sequiter to me.  However -

 

Someone who graduates from high school on an academic track should be ready to tackle university level work. Since the question was not just about a child reading high school level work, but actually being graduated, their readiness for university work seems pertinent. 

 

Many kids aren't, which is usually a fault in their education and why many of us homeschool,  I suspect that is because we think such children should not be graduated on an academic track.

 

Gap years are not usually about academic readiness, and often aren't even about maturity, but they do point to one possible answer, and relate to something I said earlier - I wouldn't have a problem with graduating such a young student if she had filled the high school requirements, but the question is, what will you do with her then?  If the plan is to spend time doing gap year type stuff, there is no problem.  If you want to carry on in a university at 12 years old, it might be a different story.

 

I am not sure why you are so stuck on ideas like racism and classicism.  They are probably not the discussions that will cause problems.

 

I asked a friend of mine who teaches some literature courses about this question what he thought earlier this evening - it was actually in his mind as his department had recently had a visit from just such a candidate looking for a program.  His feeling was that there were some classes a student that age (13 in this case) simple couldn't take, and that many of the other classes he taught would have to be rethought in approach, or they could potentially be inappropriate.  We aren't talking here about modern experimental stuff but classical literature.  I think you would have to ask - is it fair to put the child in that position?  What kind of uncomfortable situations might he find himself in?  And is it fair to ask the prof to change his presentation?  Or the other students to forgo aspects of the discussion in tat way?  You might have understood at 14 what it felt like to be used as a sexual object.  To what extent do you think an adult university professor who really doesn't know a particular 14 year old should or would feel comfortable making that kind of assumption about a child's understanding?  How many 14 year olds would speak up to someone if in fact they did not feel comfortable?

 

 

 

 

[quark]

I think that makes the standards very, very low.

 

Exactly this.

 

 

[Tsuga]

I do not know where there is discussion of a child doing university level literature courses? The OP asked about how high school literature is handled by kids who are graduating very early. The ages are rarely before twelve and generally students for whom that happens do not enter university until between thirteen and fourteen. Fourteen is high school aged. In many states 14 year olds participate in dual enrollment at universities.

 

Even for a student graduating at twelve, why is it that they are now ready for taking a literature course right away? Is there some reason that it is assumed that this is any different than an 18 year old student who graduates and then takes lower level (often not university level) math classes until they can handle the math, or takes the science pre-requisites, or knocks out English 101, 102, and a speech class first things because they are intimidated by literature courses? My father failed his college literature course 4 times because he just could not seem to understand Shakespeare or Homer and he was in his mid twenties. The man has been a successful architect for 45 years with three degrees.

 

Secondly, I think the idea that because a student can handle graduating high school with a districts requirements is then somehow be magically prepared for college is quite false. The OP asked about high school graduation. More than half the students who graduate most high schools are not prepared for all university level classes. There is a ridiculously steep learning curve for huge quantities of students regardless of age. Drop out rates are very high among the first two years. The phenomenon is so common that the term "gap year" exists.

 

Why does it become a situation where a student who graduates early somehow has a higher bar to meet than my father or any other random 18 year old? Why are they not held to the same standards?

 

Lastly, I do not think there is a single person here who believes that the life experiences of the students who enter a college literature class (regardless of their age) are all going to be anywhere near the same level. The life experiences I had entering college were vastly different being a homeless teen than that of the 40 year old housewife who sat next to me in my World Lit. class. I guarentee you that at 14 I understood far more about being used as a sexual object than my husband ever will. At least one in five girls under twelve understands more than I ever want to even think about. This is what makes the class so interesting. It is not that somehow at 18 you magically become viable and your experiences become valid.

 

My son has darker skin in a rural white town. He learned Spanish from members of the hispanic migrant workers and their children (and was often lumped in with the children by other white members of the community). He has stopped fishing with the neighbor he idolized because said neighbor went on a lengthy rant denegrating my son's racial herritage directly in front of him using words such as lazy, dirty, stupid, ingrate, and theiving along with quite a few racial slurs. The entire group of five males whom Ds was with not only agreed, but joined in. I guarentee you that Ds understands racism on a level my white skinned, upper class, 60 year old mother will never understand. That has nothing to do with his age. There are children in Baltimore who understand race in a way that I will never understand. These are not isolated instances. To say kids do not understand is an argument coming from the majority who thankfully has never had to explain such things to their child or teach them how to handle the emotions that come with it. To say that kids do not understand is coming from an adult who thankfulky has never had to be that child.

 

But all that just speaks to the fact that the humanities aren't as easy to do as some people would have us believe. It's easy to fake it because the grading rubric is often weak and subjective.

 

But a lot of work done in the humanities just plain sucks and you've hit on one reason that many people aren't prepared for it.

 

The only difference is, we pass the students in the humanities, because so much of them have been taken over by relativism.

 

It's really sad, IMO, because I think there is crappy literature and crappy writing and weak analysis but the average GPA in many universities in these classes is ridiculously high. People have over-inflated ideas of their own critical thinking and writing abilities.

[Tsuga]

 

 

 The phenomenon is so common that the term "gap year" exists.

 

That's not what a gap year is. A gap year is a year off to enjoy or live life before continued study. It does not depend on a student's preparedness for college. What you are talking about are high attrition rates.

[mom2bee]

.... Drop out rates are very high among the first two years. The phenomenon is so common that the term "gap year" exists.

I have never heard the term "gap year" used in that way. It isn't about dropping out at all. I have only ever heard the word used to describe a situation where a student, after successfully completing one stage of education elects to postpone or put off going straight on the "the next thing" which is usually either university or work. During that year they take time to pursue an interest or explore other opportunities. Some youth get jobs, volunteer, travel, or put more energy into a hobby.

 

Outside of the US, the idea of a gap year is very common. Some countries actively encourage the time off, some countries MANDATE the time off. I have never heard of a "gap year" being related to dropping out.

 

[Dmmetler]

Even extremely gifted LA students (I have two) need time and experience for their voice and view to mature. Personally, I would rather give them that time, and send them to college around 16-18, because developmentally, voice and view are starting to cohere, and the student has something to work with.

 

An English degree isn't just about reading widely. And at undergrad level, it isn't about having unusual and different ideas on texts. It's about honing your voice so you can present the required material with utmost clarity and complexity. Any humanities subject is really about communication, at the core.

 

Often children gifted with LA can communicate deep insights into texts. They can even be 'good writers'. To me, those years between 12-16 are so very useful for maturing the voice, and reading as widely as possible in order to develop a comparative foundation, that I really don't see the point of extremely early college in the LA's.

 

 

JMHO.

The point of early college in any field is to meet the child's needs, in the best way possible available at the time. If a child is wilting on the vine, is starting to hate themselves and the world, and is so frustrated they don't know which end is up, you have to meet that need somehow. For some kids, that can be met by a magnet school, if there's one in the area, or by mentors, or by online classes, or by boarding school. For others, the best choice may well be a few college classes, living at home and attending college full-time, or a full-time EEP with on campus housing on a traditional university campus.

 

It's not discipline specific. It's kid specific. There is no reason why a kid who is gifted in the humanities should be expected to spin their wheels in the interest of developing their voice, as opposed to going ahead in some way and developing their voice as it develops. Music is an area where voice needs to develop, and mature players tend to have more emotional depth and nuance-but no one tells a young talented musician that they shoudn't move on technically even though they'll be better at 20 on the same piece just because they've lived more. There is plenty that they can learn, even if they can't learn it all yet.

[luuknam]

How many 14 year olds would speak up to someone if in fact they did not feel comfortable?

 

How many 18yos would?

 

Isn't the idea that at 18 someone is an adult rather arbitrary to begin with?

[Bluegoat]

How many 18yos would?

 

Isn't the idea that at 18 someone is an adult rather arbitrary to begin with?

 

In a way, yes, it is arbitrary, and I wouldn't pick 18 as "the" age, but I think we recognize some general age categories as being different.

 

We do have different expectations for how adults - like university professors and other university students - interact with younger teens and older teens.  If we leave it up to the student to indicate when he or she is uncomfortable, it is one thing if an 18 year old decides not to speak up or drop the class and remains uncomfortable , and another thing for someone 12 or 13 or 14.  It's also going to put the professor and other students in a different position is that happens with a 14 year old than with a 17 or 18 year old.

[regentrude]

In a way, yes, it is arbitrary, and I wouldn't pick 18 as "the" age, but I think we recognize some general age categories as being different.

 

We do have different expectations for how adults - like university professors and other university students - interact with younger teens and older teens.  If we leave it up to the student to indicate when he or she is uncomfortable, it is one thing if an 18 year old decides not to speak up or drop the class and remains uncomfortable , and another thing for someone 12 or 13 or 14.  It's also going to put the professor and other students in a different position is that happens with a 14 year old than with a 17 or 18 year old.

 

I would say the younger teen is ready for college when he or she can handle it without being accommodated for being uncomfortable with content. I don't find it reasonable to expect a college instructor to adapt his teaching to accommodate children. If the kid is in a college classroom, the kid needs to handle the material just like the older students - or the parents should rethink the decision to send the kid to college.

 

In this vein, it seems irrelevant whether 18 year olds would speak up about being uncomfortable, because that, too, should not matter - unless the instructor is grossly out of line in his presentation of content. OTOH, I have the feeling that being "uncomfortable" has become rather fashionable these days - students used to be able to study literature without trigger warnings and opting out.

[Bluegoat]

I would say the younger teen is ready for college when he or she can handle it without being accommodated for being uncomfortable with content. I don't find it reasonable to expect a college instructor to adapt his teaching to children. If the kid is in a college classroom, the kid needs to handle the material just like the older students - or the parents should rethink the decision to send the kid to college.

 

In this vein, it seems irrelevant whether 18 year olds would speak up about being uncomfortable, because that, too, should not matter - unless the instructor is grossly out of line in his presentation of content.

 

Yes, this is precisely what I was getting at - it doesn't matter if the 18 year old is made uncomfortable or what he decides to do about it. 

 

It's easy enough to see that a few classes would never be right - no Catullus for a 14 year old - and some would be fine, like most math classes. 

 

But I think it is actually rather tricky to say whether other literature or even history classes would be appropriate, or some social science classes.  Many of them do touch on themes and questions and discussions that could seem to need modification for a younger student. It isn't quite the same as a parent teaching a novel to a child who she is responsible for and knows well, or a high school teacher directing the teaching to a discussion appropriate for minors. 

 

ETA - I totally agree with you about discomfort being in fashion.  This would take on a different sort of weight though with a child being asked to cope with adult material.  Who judges, and what happens if they judge incorrectly?

[regentrude]

But I think it is actually rather tricky to say whether other literature or even history classes would be appropriate, or some social science classes.  Many of them do touch on themes and questions and discussions that could seem to need modification for a younger student. It isn't quite the same as a parent teaching a novel to a child who she is responsible for and knows well, or a high school teacher directing the teaching to a discussion appropriate for minors.

 

I don't think they should need modification or even a label of "appropriate" vs "inappropriate". I don't see how any content can be intrinsically inappropriate for "minors". It may not be what the parent would have chosen, but I fail to see how merely being 14 precludes a student from discussing a subject. (And most 18 year olds won't have first hand experience with many of the topics either.)

So, I don't see why topics should be taboo for a student just based on age. The whole idea is just a societal convention.

If the kid is too young to handle sensitive material and easily upset, he should stay home.

 

I totally agree with you about discomfort being in fashion.  This would take on a different sort of weight though with a child being asked to cope with adult material.  Who judges, and what happens if they judge incorrectly?

 

I think the judgment should come from the parent, in cooperation with the child. And the worst that happens is the kid so dislikes the class, he decides to withdraw. I don't think any harm comes from discussing uncomfortable books - unless the person is already severely traumatized from her own life events and emotionally fragile. I hope parents would realize this before sending such a fragile child to college.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think they should need modification or even a label of "appropriate" vs "inappropriate". I don't see how any content can be intrinsically inappropriate for "minors". It may not be what the parent would have chosen, but I fail to see how merely being 14 precludes a student from discussing a subject. (And most 18 year olds won't have first hand experience with many of the topics either.)

So, I don't see why topics should be taboo for a student just based on age. The whole idea is just a societal convention.

If the kid is too young to handle sensitive material and easily upset, he should stay home.

 

 

I think the judgment should come from the parent, in cooperation with the child. And the worst that happens is the kid so dislikes the class, he decides to withdraw. I don't think any harm comes from discussing uncomfortable books - unless the person is already severely traumatized from her own life events and emotionally fragile. I hope parents would realize this before sending such a fragile child to college.

 

I don't think that having any experience with the topic or not has anything to do with it.  It might affect interest, but it wouldn't be either appropriate or inappropriate on that basis.

 

I would not say that all topics are equally appropriate no matter what the age.  I think that any professor would be crazy to allow a minor to attend a class where they would be discussing the most appropriate way to translate explicit sexual imagery, or to discuss what the poet was on about at all.  That fact that the child is a minor is significant - public schools have a parental role because the students are minors.  Adults are not allowed to treat or talk to minors in entirely the same way they would to adults.  I think it is asking a lot to ask adults to discuss books with adult themes with a minor in the class - it can't help but affect the presentation, and it can't help but affect the discussion.  And while most books are not as extreme as erotic Greek poetry, many do have those kinds of themes in them.

 

 

[wendyroo]

I don't think that having any experience with the topic or not has anything to do with it.  It might affect interest, but it wouldn't be either appropriate or inappropriate on that basis.

 

I would not say that all topics are equally appropriate no matter what the age.  I think that any professor would be crazy to allow a minor to attend a class where they would be discussing the most appropriate way to translate explicit sexual imagery, or to discuss what the poet was on about at all.  That fact that the child is a minor is significant - public schools have a parental role because the students are minors.  Adults are not allowed to treat or talk to minors in entirely the same way they would to adults.  I think it is asking a lot to ask adults to discuss books with adult themes with a minor in the class - it can't help but affect the presentation, and it can't help but affect the discussion.  And while most books are not as extreme as erotic Greek poetry, many do have those kinds of themes in them.

 

I dual enrolled in a film class when I was 15.  We watched and discussed Lolita among other "questionable" films.  It never would had occurred to myself or my parents that the professor would in any way limit or change the discussion because I was there.  At the beginning of the semester, my parents looked through the syllabus and picked a few films that they felt I would be better off watching at home before they were shown in class.  They rented them and I watched them ahead of time, and when they were shown in class I was fully prepared to discuss all the events and themes.

 

To be honest, in many ways I was far more mature than most of the 18 and 20 year olds in the class.  They were embarrassed to say the word penis.  They didn't know the term pedophilia.  They had little to contribute to the discussions.

 

All of my papers got glowing comments from the professor and I ended up with the top grade (by a wide margin) in the class.  I certainly don't think I was pulling down the level of discourse due to my age.

 

Wendy

[regentrude]

I would not say that all topics are equally appropriate no matter what the age.  I think that any professor would be crazy to allow a minor to attend a class where they would be discussing the most appropriate way to translate explicit sexual imagery, or to discuss what the poet was on about at all.  That fact that the child is a minor is significant - public schools have a parental role because the students are minors.  Adults are not allowed to treat or talk to minors in entirely the same way they would to adults.  I think it is asking a lot to ask adults to discuss books with adult themes with a minor in the class - it can't help but affect the presentation, and it can't help but affect the discussion.  And while most books are not as extreme as erotic Greek poetry, many do have those kinds of themes in them.

The professor usually does not have any information about the age of his students. I never know which of my students are minors (it does not matter in physics) - this info is not on the roster. Unless the student looks conspicuously young, nobody would notice.

The fact that the child is a minor is completely irrelevant as soon as he sets foot on the college campus; this is not public school, and college does NOT have a parental role.

If I, as parent of a minor, allow my minor child to sign up for the class, I do so with the understanding that the material in a college course is designed for an adult audience; if I do not think my child can handle the content, it is my parental responsibility not to let my child take the course.

 

But I completely fail to see what harm is done when a student who is a minor, but obviously deemed mature enough to handle college by his parents, discusses explicit imagery and why any instructor would be "crazy" to do allow him to participate.

[go_go_gadget]

I don't think that having any experience with the topic or not has anything to do with it.  It might affect interest, but it wouldn't be either appropriate or inappropriate on that basis.

 

I would not say that all topics are equally appropriate no matter what the age.  I think that any professor would be crazy to allow a minor to attend a class where they would be discussing the most appropriate way to translate explicit sexual imagery, or to discuss what the poet was on about at all.  That fact that the child is a minor is significant - public schools have a parental role because the students are minors.  Adults are not allowed to treat or talk to minors in entirely the same way they would to adults.  I think it is asking a lot to ask adults to discuss books with adult themes with a minor in the class - it can't help but affect the presentation, and it can't help but affect the discussion.  And while most books are not as extreme as erotic Greek poetry, many do have those kinds of themes in them.

 

The age of consent in the Western world averages 14-16, with a few outliers in both directions. But you're saying American teenagers should be kept from even discussing academically what they'd legally be allowed to do in most similar cultures?

 

I did DE starting at 15, and took a human sexuality course in the sociology department. The only part of the course that was censored for me was an optional field trip to a sex shop, which I couldn't enter. If a particular student is too immature for a class (and there were a few who fit that description in my class, all over the age of 18), then they should choose not to take it.

 

If a student is a lit major, they can choose which classes to take. I've taken many English classes and my sister is an English professor, and I can say with reasonable confidence that it's possible to choose appropriate classes within the major. If a student wants to take a class on Greek sex poetry but needs a few more years to mature first, they can save it for grad school.

 

This concern is really absurd.

[Bluegoat]

I am pretty sure most people can pick out a 12, 13, or 14 year old just by sight.  I would not consider 15 or 16 to be very early graduation from high school, it isn't that odd to see a 16 year old in the university, in some systems that is fairly usual. 

 

But you know, there has also been a movement in university circles to be very careful about even 17 year old students.  It's essentially a legal issue for them.  I think that is pretty silly - 17 year olds are not substantially different from 18 year olds.  But I am honestly a little surprised that no one sees why there might be real issues around students who are younger - in some places 14 year olds are still considered legally children - in university classes. 

 

There have, from what I understand, been some court cases suggesting that universities have a greater duty of care for minor students.  Institutions that work with kids are expected to do all kinds of things to keep their liability in check.  I think it would be very difficult not to be aware of that kind of thing, aware of how what your teaching might be perceived, with very young students in a class.

 

 

[go_go_gadget]

I am pretty sure most people can pick out a 12, 13, or 14 year old just by sight.  I would not consider 15 or 16 to be very early graduation from high school, it isn't that odd to see a 16 year old in the university, in some systems that is fairly usual. 

 

But you know, there has also been a movement in university circles to be very careful about even 17 year old students.  It's essentially a legal issue for them.  I think that is pretty silly - 17 year olds are not substantially different from 18 year olds.  But I am honestly a little surprised that no one sees why there might be real issues around students who are younger - in some places 14 year olds are still considered legally children - in university classes. 

 

There have, from what I understand, been some court cases suggesting that universities have a greater duty of care for minor students.  Institutions that work with kids are expected to do all kinds of things to keep their liability in check.  I think it would be very difficult not to be aware of that kind of thing, aware of how what your teaching might be perceived, with very young students in a class.

 

Graduating high school at 12 or 13 would generally mean a student would still be at university at 15 or 16, so if courses with mature themes were absolutely unavoidable (which I truly doubt), they could be delayed until the last year or two. If a student were to major in mature content, well, that's the choice of the student and parents, and shouldn't affect the institution or instructors.

 

If there have been litigious issues regarding minors on campus, that's ridiculous. I suppose it's not too surprising, considering America these days.

[regentrude]

I am pretty sure most people can pick out a 12, 13, or 14 year old just by sight.

 

Not necessarily.

 

When my kids took their first college class at 13 and 14, respectively, none of their fellow students had any idea that they were 9th graders and not college age.

 

 

 

But you know, there has also been a movement in university circles to be very careful about even 17 year old students.  It's essentially a legal issue for them.  I think that is pretty silly - 17 year olds are not substantially different from 18 year olds. 

 

There has never been any mention of this at our school.

 

 

 

But I am honestly a little surprised that no one sees why there might be real issues around students who are younger - in some places 14 year olds are still considered legally children - in university classes.

 

Why should there be issues, if parents make the judgment call to let their child enroll in college? I honestly don't see what the problem is here.

[Dmmetler]

i'm having a hard time coming up with a single college class that I took that would have been troubling to my DD now, at age 10. Abnormal psych was so clinically focused that I don't think it would have bothered her any more than Campbell's Bio has. For literature, I took Early British Lit, and I believe she's read everything covered already. The 20th century history course might be a little hard on her, but it was one of several choices in the honors core, not a required class. (I was a Musicology/Psychology major as an undergrad).

 

Grad School, even less so-both in the school of music and the college of education. Although DD probably would have been a bit troubling to some of the Ed school professors, who seemed to believe extreme outliers don't exist!

 

Truthfully, most of what I learned in college that was at all troubling happened in the dorm and at parties, not in the classroom, and most early college students I know aren't super socially active-they take classes, do study groups, andossoboy interest groups/clubs, but they're not GOING to fraternity parties, and if they live on campus, usually it's in a section of campus housing where Early entry students are clustered that provides it's own social support, not sharing a room with a recently legal and drinking their pants off 21 yr old.