
Let's End Adolescence - robg
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_45/b4107085289974.htm
======
peakok
It is naive to assume that "adolescence" was a concept invented out of the
blue, then deliberately experimented by some politics, it _never_ works this
way. The opposite is true : at some point we needed a word to describe a
change in society, and a new cultural phenomenon that didn't exist before.
Then was born the concept of adolescence and the teenager, wich is a worldwide
phenomenom in Occident and other parts of the world.

Necessity is the mother of all virtues. People responsabilise when there is a
need for it, especially when there is no other choice. Should the economic
crisis worsen and make our life tougher, you'll see a lot of young people do
whatever it takes to support their family and take a more serious stance on
life and politics.

Some people are afraid that young people cannot responsabilise because of
their education. I would argue that the same people underestimate (1) the
potential of the young people, wich fuels the problem, and (2) underestimate
the greatest educator of all : necessity.

~~~
bokonist
It wasn't invented out of the blue, but it was an evolved creation of
politics. In classic democratic fashion, a lot of factions were pushing their
own agenda that ended up making the country as a whole worse off. The
education establishment has continually upped the drop out age. Labor unions (
in alliance with wealthy parents) pushed for stricter child labor laws to
reduce competition for jobs. Aristocratic progressives wanted an institution
to indoctrinate immigrants in the American way of live. The rise of
credentialing laws made college a necessity for earning a decent income. Since
colleges require a high school diploma, this put teenagers in an eight year
holding pattern, waiting for a piece of paper.

The result of this has been every bit as disastrous as Newt claims.

~~~
jacobolus
> _Labor unions_ ( _in alliance with wealthy parents_ ) _pushed for stricter
> child labor laws to reduce competition for jobs. Aristocratic progressives
> wanted an institution to indoctrinate immigrants in the American way of
> live_ [ _sic_ ]. _The rise of credentialing laws made college a necessity
> for earning a decent income._

Please provide citations of serious studies of these trends you talk about;
this analysis seems facile and frankly misleading, even as a first-order
approximation, but I’m not an expert so I’d be glad to be convinced otherwise.
In particular, “indoctrination” of immigrants is going to be hard to establish
as a primary goal of the education system, and the benefits of credential laws
and the technical training institutions that go along with them in fields such
as medicine, engineering, and so forth are hard to overstate.

~~~
bokonist
Unfortunately a lot of this came from books and articles I read years ago.
"Indoctrination" is a bit of a loaded word, perhaps I should have said
"assimilation" or "acculturation". But it was definitely a major factor. I
remember reading a long paper about the movement establishing universal high
school in New Haven in the early 1900's. It all revolved around dealing with
the massive flows of immigrants who had no grounding in American civic
culture.

As for credentialing laws, pretty much all professions rely on some level of
book knowledge plus on the job training. The book knowledge can be provided
for by reading books and passing an exam. You don't need to attend three years
of law school in person to become a great lawyer. Nor do you need four years
of university to be a great engineer. The architecture profession seems to
have been much better off without any degree requirements. Just compare the
architecture of the 1800's to that of the past few decades.

30% of jobs in the U.S. economy now have legal credentialing requirements.
That includes everything from hair dresser to interior designer. Even jobs
like parole officer now require a four year college degree. We're essentially
recreating the old guild system, which stifles economic growth. I don't think
it's any accident that the most dynamic sectors of the economy - software,
consumer electronics, movies - have virtually no licensing requirements.

~~~
jacobolus
For some things (e.g. the hair dressing you mentioned), I concede that
licensing requirements are unnecessary, and their use should be reexamined.
For others (public defenders, surgeons, structural engineers, etc.) such
licensing and formal training is in my opinion critically important. To
construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading.

What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees?

Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American
political institutions is a mis-use of public education?

~~~
bokonist
_What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees?_

Today all of them do because it is legally required. My girlfriend is
currently attending architecture school and it is beyond useless. She's
learned an awful lot about "aura" and "algorithmic design" and precious little
about designing buildings for the real world. Architects end up learning
everything on the job.

In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for architects to be high school drop
outs. The New York Public library, some of the tunnel projects under London,
the California Aqueduct, were all designed by drop outs.

The structural integrity of the buildings was very high, and the aesthetics
far surpass the creations of modern architects.

 _To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading._

I obviously would not want an untrained surgeon practicing on me. The trouble
is that credentialing laws are a highly unstable equilibrium. It requires 8
years of post-secondary schooling to prescribe penicillin, read an x-ray, or
set a broken bone. I could be convinced that 2 years of schooling might be
necessary. But not 8. The reason it is so high is because of lobbying by the
AMA. I'm sure they argue that the requirements are in the public interest.
Perhaps they even believe their own PR. But if you talk to doctors about
medical school, most of them will tell you that it had little relevance to
their actual job.

Perhaps the most notorious example of credentialing is the orthodontist
profession. The average orthodontist works 35 hour weeks and makes 350k (
about 40% more than dentists). The reason for this is that number of
orthodontists allowed to graduate each year is actually capped at 280. The
orthodontist association have even gone after inventors who devise new labor-
saving (and thus income-reducing) braces, See the case of Viazis v. American
Association of Orthodontists. This is blatantly anti-competitive, and it costs
thousands of dollars from the pocket book of every American.

 _Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and
American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?_

I once worked a bit on capitol hill. The civics class description of American
democracy bears little resemblance to the reality. However, these the civics
class lies are probably necessary to make a democratic system even marginally
functional. My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral
democracy.

~~~
rsheridan6
>My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.

To be replaced with...?

~~~
bokonist
One option: Abolish Congress and the presidency. I mean, what have they done
for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30
years? Use some sort of board of trustees to select the Supreme Court justices
and the Joint Chiefs. Perhaps this board of trustees would be selected by
existing trustees, or perhaps we could use something like the Venetian lottery
system ( [http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-
elect...](http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-
elections.html) ).

Other options include something like Juristopia (
<http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html> ) or Formalism (
[http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html)
)

Or, if you want something a little more proven, there is always Monarchy.

Basically, anything that doesn't use a ritualized form of gang warfare would
be better than democracy in my book.

~~~
hugh
_I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed
they've done in the past 30 years?_

Luckily, the job of the government isn't to do good deeds -- it's to hold onto
power in order to stop even worse people from getting it.

The purpose of democracy isn't to get the best people into power, it's to stop
the worst people from getting into power.

~~~
bokonist
I would welcome a government that did absolutely nothing except stop bad guys
from getting into power. Unfortunately, Congress thinks its job is to pass
"legislation" and it does so in vast quantities. This has piled up over the
decades covering the entire country in a gray legislative goo. If abolishing
Congress is too big of step, how about changing the rules so that any new law
requires a 70% majority? Or maybe even a 90% majority?

I'd also note that democracy is altogether a failure at preventing the worst
people from getting into power. Some of histories worst tyrants from history
have come to power through party politics.

~~~
justindz
Where could I find a list of terrible tyrants that came to power in a
representative democratic system? That ought to be interesting.

Or are you saying that all systems with parties are abominable because of
parties, regardless of the details of how the systems work?

~~~
bokonist
Off the top of my head: Sulla, Cromwell, Robespierre, Napolean, Hitler,
Mugabe. There are many more, but I'd have to verify.

------
nir
The 3 stage process of childhood - adolescence - adulthood is already
irrelevant in many affluent Western countries, but what was removed isn't
adolescence but adulthood.

Many 40 year olds manage their lives as teenagers (look at the low birth rate
in western Europe, or high divorce rate in the US) and vice versa - teenagers
build $15b (if you believe it ;)) companies.

~~~
tomjen
I don't believe that a low birth rate says anything about when people grow up.
If it did, teenage mothers would be the most responsible people in society.

~~~
jimbokun
You know, a teenage mother raised a man who was just elected to the most
powerful position on Earth.

Anecdotal, yes. But your comment relies on a stereotype. How do we know that
teenage mothers do not quickly start maturing from the point they become
teenage mothers, relative to their peers? They almost have no choice.

(I say that knowing of some concrete counter-examples to what I just argued.
But that's just anecdotes, too.)

~~~
thras
Actually, her mother was the one who raised him. Barack's mother ditched him
with her parents so that she could live with her husband and daughter in
Indonesia.

~~~
Alex3917
Not until he was in fifth grade.

------
frisco
One thing that continually throws me is the whole, "more school, especially
more college!" idea. The skills that have actually put me in interesting
situations, like serious brain machine interface research or a startup doing
quantitative methods for human resources, had nothing to do with school. At
least for me, I'd have been much better suited for an "apprenticeship" rather
than having just having to tolerate classes as a distraction to the lab, where
I learned about Kalman filters and intricacies of neuronal tuning in a kind of
learn-it-by-yesterday-as-needed setup from the people who were actually
writing the papers.

Given the amount of ADD we have as a culture, training hackers with an
emphasis on "you as an individual can create things that have the potential to
become forces of nature with only a cheap computer and some knowledge" and
deep familiarity with the internet (irc? google-fu?) seems to be the best way
to graduate world class engineers. You won't get middle American teenagers to
sit down and study like Chinese students will; but that's fine. Our hackers
will end up just as knowledgeable as theirs, and maybe more creative.

EDIT: One more thing: we need to drill home that "post things to share with
your friends for free!" is neither a business model nor a
KILLERAPP!!111oneoneone. We need to inspire kids to go after the next big
problems, and not just fill them up with hype and dreams, but actually give
them the technical abilities to do it.

~~~
shard
Sure, American hackers will be just as knowledgeable as Chinese hackers, but
if in general the Chinese population becomes more learned (which is happening
at a rapid pace as China gets closer to being a first world nation), we would
have disadvantages that they don't have, such as the anti-intellectual
attitude that exists in many parts of the US.

~~~
frisco
Yeah, this is true. It's a problem, and I think it stems in no small part from
how deeply rooted religion is in this country. I don't think it has a lot to
do with the lack or presence of an adolescence, though, or really much in
general to do with childhood altogether.

------
Dilpil
The real purpose of high school is keeping the roving hordes of teenagers off
the street. Teenagers have no judgement (I certainly didn't), and we would
like to have some method of keeping them occupied. Unfortunately, where before
that method involved actual learning, nowadays schools are basically just low
security prisons.

Furthermore, Newt is completely off when he claims that all adolescents want
more responsibility. This is simply untrue. A small fraction of adolescents
want more responsibility, the rest want to hang out with their friends all day
and do nothing. Which is actually pretty close to high school.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> A small fraction of adolescents want more responsibility

It's a question of the meaning of "want." I think a small fraction of
adolescents can _articulate_ that they "want" meaningful responsibility and
structure, or make any efforts to get it.

~~~
unalone
I think that lots of adolescents honestly do not want to do anything. They
prefer having no responsibilities whatsoever.

I thought it was otherwise: that people who didn't want to work or improve or
learn were people that didn't have a good method of doing so, that they were
restricted by the system. Long story short, I found out that's radically not
the truth. Some people are a little bit icky inside.

~~~
wensing
_I think that lots of adolescents honestly do not want to do anything. They
prefer having no responsibilities whatsoever._

That's because you can't start with adolescence. You have to start increasing
responsibility from roughly age 2. Get them used to it, reward it, show them
the connection between increased responsibility and increased choice and
freedom. Then they'll want it. The problem with most adolescents is the 12
years prior.

------
mnemonicsloth
_Adolescence was invented in the 19th century to enable middle-class families
to keep their children out of sweatshops. But it has degenerated into a
process of enforced boredom and age segregation..._

 _The fact is, most young people want to be challenged and given real
responsibility. They want to be treated like young men and women, not old
children._

Where have we heard this before?

<http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html>

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Is this starting to become like "I, for one, welcome our new X overlords?" is
on Slashdot?

PG wrote everything. Let's take that as a given. Now can we move on?

I'm not trying to be persnickety, but your comment adds absolutely nothing to
the discussion and sounds like fanboy tripe. If PGs article was on here, we
could talk about that. But it's not. AFAIK, every one of PG's articles has
already appeared on here and we've already talked about it. So on with the new
material, okay?

~~~
aswanson
Sorry, Dan, but the strange loop generated by what I am submitting here is
irresistible. Cheers:
<http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/12/the_guy.php>

~~~
bjelkeman-again
Thanks. That really threw me in a loop.

------
swombat
I discarded this guy's argument once I read this paragraph:

 _And experiments such as the one my daughter, Jackie Cushman, is running in
Atlanta—where poor children are paid the equivalent of working in a fast-food
restaurant to study and do their homework—are examples of a more dynamic
future._

How is being paid to study and do homework an example of early adulthood? One
huge difference between adults and non-adults is adults tend to grab every
opportunity to improve their skills, and understand that those don't come that
often.

This article started with an interesting (if incendiary) premise, but then the
author showed that he has poor logical skills. Perhaps he should go back to
school himself.

In short, this article is a hodge-podge of potentially interesting half-ideas
and downright nefarious illogical conclusions.

~~~
JesseAldridge
You discarded all of it because you didn't like that one part? This type of
behavior always annoys me. There are lots of interesting and important
thoughts here. I agree that these ideas need to be closely examined and
refined a great deal before being put into practice -- but I'm not just going
to shout "FAIL" -- because while that may be gratifying to the ego, it is
utterly counter-productive.

~~~
swombat
I decided that once you took away that key step of "having a clue what an
adult is", the rest of the argument fell away like a puff of smoke in the
wind. There may be interesting ideas in there, but they are too closely
interweaved with dangerous mistakes and incendiary "political linkbaiting".

------
ChaitanyaSai
If Newt Gingrich says this, I have to wonder if it is because Republican think
tanks have come to the conclusion that the allure of Democratic ideals are too
irresistible for school/university inhabiting kids, and they must be converted
to tax paying realists much earlier.

~~~
Dilpil
The reason republicans so frequently tout this line is because they
fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of education. Newt and company believe
that education is essentially career training, and as such cannot fathom why
kids need to be learning things like calculus and biology.

The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals. Industry
does not want to simply hire people who know exactly how to do the job.
Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual, and they do this by hiring
college grads.

Now certainly the value of a diploma as a measure of intellectual curiosity
has gone down dramatically, but I believe this was the original reason.

~~~
mynameishere
_and as such cannot fathom why kids need to be learning things like calculus
and biology_

I'm pretty sure that Gingrich who is a professor, and every other republican
who has ever considered the question in any way, recognizes the use and
purpose of calculus and biology. But don't let reason get in the way of your
mindless contempt.

 _The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals_

No, it isn't, unless you are talking about highly selective liberal arts
colleges. And even then, the best you are going to get are 3rd generation
photocopies of Susan Sontag.

 _Industry wants to hire people who are intellectual_

No it doesn't. Period. Even the relatively "creative" jobs like software
engineering want a fundamental skill set and raw intelligence, not the ability
to quote Chomsky.

~~~
wallflower
> The real purpose of education is to turn people into intellectuals

Reminds me of something Seth Godin (?) once said - that the whole purpose of
school is to institutionalize mediocrity

~~~
unalone
Don't knock on intellectuals. There's something to be gained from the path
they take. The fact that most people miss the path entirely doesn't change
that. It's like saying that most programmers never make anything of worth:
yes, it's true, but it doesn't make the entire career irrelevant.

That quote, however, is spot-on. Anything that doesn't focus on the best and
brightest hurts the best and brightest in a way. And the fact that they
survive despite this is a sign of those people ignoring the system rather than
of the system's working. I wrote a lengthy post about this long long ago:
can't find the link, apparently subjects delete themselves here?, but my point
was that by _making_ a system that was hostile to people like that, while
ensuring it possible to live without the system, American school systems
encourage people driven by ambition to become successes. It's why we have such
a powerful entrepreneurial drive in the country.

I wish I could find the link, though, because I said it better back then.

EDIT: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=258239>

------
dc2k08
they take away a quarter of my life (av age of death 75) holding me back and
forcing me to learn for tests things that i dont want to know. i like
volcanoes. i know how they work. i dont need to be tested on their
intricities.

finally i get a chance at a college education and choose something that i hope
better gels. if it doesnt its back to step one. if i succeed, im most likely
stuck in a 9-6'er at a job that will eventually bore me, turning the cogs for
the economy in the dream i am supposed to have.

the more money i make, the more things cost. meanwhile the politicians take
summers off and long breaks, pay themselves handsomely and imagine that this
is fair. they wonder why i am not happily churning out kids for them to
support their economy and further wedge myself in their dream. i'll keep
pissing about thanks.

~~~
crabapple
_they take away a quarter of my life (av age of death 75) holding me back and
forcing me to learn for tests things that i dont want to know._

then drop the fuck out! go work at ford. see you in twenty years.

------
tdavis
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are many things wrong with "kids these
days," completely abolishing adolescence would... what's a good word here...
suck! Look, I did my fair share of dumb stuff when I was younger, most of
which was done in the name of boredom. But what's the alternative here? "Happy
13th birthday, son, now go get a job!"?

If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people
are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles. I adore the feelings of
achievement that being an entrepreneur/adult have brought me, but at the same
time I recognize the fact that "being a kid" wasn't as bad the article makes
it out to be. I spent most of my time playing video games, hanging out with
friends and, yes, doing drugs! OMG! But you know what, at the end of the day,
it was still _fun_.

I think we as a society should do everything in our power to encourage young
people to focus on school so that they don't get dragged down into the worlds
of drug addiction, poverty, etc. However, the reason I had so much time to
dick around during my adolescence/teenage years was mainly because school was
far too easy and not engaging enough. The entire schooling system is not
nearly as progressive as it needs to be. Furthermore, there are not nearly
enough reasons to excel at it. Working hard in high school just means you can
get into a good college where you have to work even harder (and, unless you
_really_ excel or are financially secure, take a long-term monetary hit for
the privilege) and the reality is that where one attended college is rarely
relevant today.

School should be designed to provide useful knowledge instead of information
that is merely cataloged, regurgitated, and forgotten. It should encourage and
enable young people to find something they are passionate about and learn
relevant things about that and gain useful experience in the process. The only
classes that I worked hard to excel in and go beyond the bare minimum were
programming and writing courses. It should come as no surprise that these are
the two topics I am most passionate about to this day.

~~~
omouse
_If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people
are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles._

Or that they have nothing better to do?

~~~
josefresco
Sex and drugs are not activities exclusive to adults (nor should they be).
Kids DO have better things to do, and for them (as well as adults) it's
usually sex/drugs/rock&roll that are the 'better things'.

~~~
unalone
Most kids get into sex and drugs because they're bored. I don't know a person
that got into either for any reason but "There's nothing to do." I hear that
from every single party-going person on my dorm floor when they go out. "I
_need_ to get drunk, because there's no other reason to be in college and
there's nothing to do."

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> Most kids get into sex and drugs because they're bored.

And here I was thinking that sex and drugs are loads of fun, regardless of
whether you're bored or not.

~~~
ksvs
Both are true. When you're bored you get into dumber kinds of fun.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Nuthin dumb about it done right.

~~~
unalone
Of course it is. Neither is a pleasure derived from your achieving anything
whatsoever. It's an automatic pleasure. I'd compare it to the pleasure that
you get from eating food, or from drinking soda. It's pleasurable entirely
thanks to automatic changes in your body.

Therefore, it's "dumb" in that it requires no effort whatsoever on your part.
And if you come to _rely_ on that stuff for entertainment, then you're not
gaining anything as you go. As opposed to its being used sparingly, in which
case you're off doing more productive things.

------
jhancock
I don't think adolescence is a social experiment. Its a part of our biology;
some more so than others. The article is solid in regards to stating problems
with our youth. Fixing our social and economic structures is a very tough
process.

The article draws rapid conclusions from its anecdotes. The U.S.'s social
problems can't be summed up or resolved by such simplistic ideology.

------
DTrejo
I feel like many of the top comments here don't address the main point of the
article:

the US education system needs to be made more efficient.

Instead there are

-arguments about semantics

-Republican VS Democrat

Only lower down, in the less pointed-to comments, is there any meat.

------
dpatru
A long time ago I listened to "The Bell Curve" on tape. One of valuable ideas
I got from the book was that we should strive to create a valuable place for
everyone in society. Everyone, whether young or old, intelligent or not,
should feel that they are contributing something of value. No one should feel
that they have nothing to give and that society would be better off without
them. Furthermore, we should encourage everyone to give their best to society.
Thus, if the best effort a man with an IQ of 80 can do is sweep the streets,
then we should give him job as a streetsweeper and not replace him with a
robot.

To me, this idea, that everyone should have a valuable place is society,
explains what's wrong with adolescence. We as a society do not allow
adolescents (young adults) a valuable place in society; we should be
encouraging them to do the most useful work they can do; instead we discourage
them. Sure, there is encouragement for being a scholar and for excelling in
sports, but only a few adults are gifted in those areas: those few who will
later go on to be teachers, professors, writers, and professional sports
players. The rest of them are forced to do work which they are not good at,
which they don't value, and which society doesn't value. Is it any wonder they
become bored and turn to other things?

A better system is described in an old book I recently re-read, "Farmer Boy"
([http://www.amazon.com/Farmer-Little-House-Ingalls-
Wilder/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Farmer-Little-House-Ingalls-
Wilder/dp/0064400034)), not long ago which describes the life of a boy on a
farm in New York in the 19th century. He was given as much work and
responsibility on the farm as he could handle and he grew to the challenges.
At school he learned to read and write and do arithmetic, and at home on the
farm he learned to do useful work, negotiate, and spend wisely. When he was
about ten or eleven, a wagon-maker offered to apprentice him. In return for
several years of work, the boy would get room and board and training in the
whole business of wagon-making with the likelihood that at the end of the
period, he would buy the business which employed about 50 men. His father
preferred that the boy become a farmer like he was, but he let the boy decide,
saying to his mother, "We can keep him here on the farm by law til he's
twenty-one, but he won't do any good if he's wanting to go."

Such a system worked very well in the past because it efficiently transitioned
young people from a state of dependence on their parents to independence and
it's accompanying responsibilities. A possible problem with that system is
that it offered young people few opportunities beyond what was available to
their parents. However, even then adults had a lot of opportunity to improve
their situations by working harder at their jobs and by educating themselves.
Today, there are many more opportunities. The job market is global: if you're
not getting paid what you're worth, it's easier than any other time in history
to find someone who will pay you more. Educational opportunities abound: books
are relatively cheap, there are lots of libraries where you can read for cheap
or for free, the Internet has lots of educational resources, and there are
many institutions offering formal education. In addition, the number of work
hours needed to survive is smaller than ever. So the argument that young
adults need to be restrained from working and confined to public schools for
several years because they won't have an opportunity to educate themselves
later is unconvincing.

~~~
gaius
_Everyone, whether young or old, intelligent or not, should feel that they are
contributing something of value_

If the average person is not contributing _at least_ the economic value they
are consuming, your society is in a death spiral, and it doesn't matter how
anyone "feels".

~~~
unalone
But what does "having a valuable place in society" have to do with not
contributing economic value? I don't quite understand you.

~~~
gaius
If someone's work is worth 100 units/time period but society spends 200 u/t to
make them feel good about themselves, then that's a net loss. And this isn't
just an academic point; a society that eats itself from inside like this can't
last and will be replaced by something considerably less warm and fluffy.

~~~
unalone
You're assuming that by providing a "place in society" society is indeed
trying to pull the wool over citizens' eyes. I think it's possible for a
society to legitimately find good places for everybody to work without it
being haberdashery. Just automate all of the pointless, frivolous tasks, and
find more meaningful jobs for everybody.

~~~
gaius
The post I was replying to made the point that unskilled jobs should _not_ be
automated, but given to the "less able" to make them feel good about
themselves.

------
wumi
we've traded focus & specialization for broad generalized learning in the
hopes of producing 'well rounded' individuals (at least officially). While
great in theory, in practice it fattens the coffers of our nation's largest
(private) universities & secondary education systems.

i.e. apprenticeship v. general education

fact: public universities will increase tuition when the number of students
graduating with degrees in <4 years increases.

------
Tichy
Why stop there - let's remove individuality altogether. With a proper mix of
drugs, children could absorb the lessons at school at a much faster rate, and
could take the role they are destined for with near 100% accuracy. Unwanted
and misleading desires could be done away with. Imagine the benefits for
society if kids were 100% docile and controllable.</irony>

~~~
unalone
Yeah. Because school is ABSOLUTELY a good way to promote individuality and
unique thinking. Because most teachers DON'T push for students to adapt to a
single way of thinking because it makes them easy to manage. Because students
DON'T judge students for individuality, creating a lopsided social ladder that
lasts easily into college. </unnecessary tag>

~~~
Tichy
But they are not good enough, they did not succeed in quelling adolescent
behavior.

~~~
unalone
I don't think that the adolescent phase is one of individuality. Quite the
opposite. And while I don't completely agree with this article, I do think
that a system that treats adolescents like adults would be an improvement.

Not one that makes them work and leave school, mind you. Just one that
respects them aging. A part of me feels that if we let teachers swear in front
of students, let them act like people than act completely neutral, and start
teaching them about how to solve their own problems, we'd find that a lot of
the problems in modern society would just vanish.

Every instance in my life that I've felt like rebelling against a system was
an instance in my life when I was treated like an adolescent per se. And that
happened very rarely: I was lucky enough to have teachers that usually took
the time to treat me like an adult. Whenever I see a student in college
getting violently drunk and acting like an ass, I would place money on that
person originating by acting against some authority figure. (Indeed, I have
friends whose families let them drink, and none of those kids are alcoholic
whatsoever. I wouldn't call it a formal study, but I think trends say that
kids get into stuff like that when they associate that with being grown up.)

------
qaexl
I agree with Newt Gingrich's assessment of the problem. However, I don't like
this solution, particularly within the context of
[http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_col...](http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index.htm)
(warning, very long article) and
[http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=203...](http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2032)

Gingrich is right in that the institution is a failure. However, his proposed
solutions merely reinforces those institution. A big part of the problem comes
from the shift in meaning of the words "teachers", "students", "homework",
"responsibility", etc. As the author from the Wharton article says:

"Consider this one example from my recent experience. I attended a conference
of school counselors, where the latest ideas in the realm of student
counseling were being presented. I went to a session on the development of
self-discipline and responsibility, wondering what these concepts mean to
people embedded in traditional schooling. To me, self-discipline means the
ability to pursue one's goals without outside coercion; responsibility means
taking appropriate action on one's own initiative, without being goaded by
others. To the people presenting the session, both concepts had to do solely
with the child's ability to do his or her assigned class work. They explained
that a guidance counselor's proper function was to get students to understand
that responsible behavior meant doing their homework in a timely and effective
manner, as prescribed, and self-discipline meant the determination to get that
homework done. George Orwell was winking in the back of the room."

I just thought of an alternative solution, one that does not necessarily
require a lot of political clout. The solution is something parents can
implement directly without having to lobby for legislation. Simply, the
parents has their kids pass their GED by the time they are 13. They may be
required by different laws to also pass the different standardization tests,
but depending on the circumstances, studying for the material in the GED
should be enough. This can probably be done over the age normally reserved for
middle school.

A 13-year-old with a high school diploma (via GED) has a lot more social clout
within the adult world than a middle-school kid. He may not be legally able to
vote, or drive, or smoke, or drink, and he'd get in trouble with underage-sex
laws. However, he would not be considered a high-school dropout.

The options open up from there. The parents probably should choose an
apprenticeship, whether that be something as humble as a janitor, or something
more aspiring such as a researcher, a programmer, an entreprenuer, a soldier,
a fireman, etc. A more traditional college track would still available.

~~~
run4yourlives
If the child has gone through all the effort of completing high school at 13,
why - under your model - is the parent deciding what he/she should do after
that? Shouldn't the child determine which area of study they would like to
pursue?

~~~
qaexl
If the 13-year-old already has his heart set on something, I'm not going to
stop him. But I suspect, at least with the first generation, they're going to
screw around ... just like the first two or three years of college. Chances
are good that if the area of study isn't something he wants to work with,
he'll figure it out fast and get on with working on something else.

~~~
run4yourlives
I would think that screwing around for a few years is exactly what you would
want a 13 year old to do.

Like you said, better finding your passions at 16 then at 22. Finding your
passions though is an essential part of life and shouldn't be taken as
"screwing around".

~~~
qaexl
I think I didn't write the apprenticeship part very well.

Choosing an apprenticeship for the 13-year-old is meant to give them a nudge.
It doesn't matter if they pick it up or rebel against it. What matters is
getting out of the home to see the world. Travelling around the world (without
family) accomplishes the same thing.

Staying within the comfort of the home _is_ screwing around ... even if it is
"exploring" your passions. That's just extending childhood. So what I should
have said is that after getting the GED (or equivalent) parents push them out
of the nest, whether that results from choosing an apprenticeship for them, or
having them travel around the country, or having them take college courses at
college campus. That is what the old rites of passages (and the hero myths
that go with it) accomplish: force the adolescent out of childhood, just as
being born means going from the comfort of the womb to the bright, cold world.
And of course, there are some who already know what they want and will already
have plans in motion.

There is an obstacle with this idea is that many jurisdictions require you to
be 16 to take it. Yet I remember hearing of college prodigies earning their
degrees before that. It makes me think there is a way to hack it.

------
symptic
I think the problem comes from a certain form of parental neglect. I'm only 22
and have no children, but it seems to me like given our greater disposable
incomes, a lot of parents think it is easier to raise kids by throwing money
at their development rather than time.

You can't raise children on the macro-scale. You raise them at the micro-
levels.

------
danielhodgins
It's all about responsibility. The guy/girl who has been working and starting
companies is bound to be more responsible and accountable than their peers who
are busy getting laid and partying. I totally agree that making adolescents
more accountable would bring out the best in people and reduce social problems
in that age group.

~~~
symptic
I wasn't aware entrepreneurs don't get laid. ;P

------
bootload
_"... Polling and focus groups, including participation as a permanent member
of an ongoing polling project ..."_

So is this a Sub for these companies to target & market stuff? ~
<http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/our_members>

------
AndrewWarner
I'll speak for myself and say that I spent my teenage years sure that I could
do so much more. Some of my best years were wasted listening to other
teenagers tell me teir bad drinking stories. Boooo

------
vladimir
I think if going to school will be money-making profession, it will encourage
corruption in the system of education.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
So profit causes corruption?

~~~
unalone
It does if profit becomes a primary rather than a secondary motive. If you
teach students "Learn to make things that people want," that would be fine. If
you teach "Make money" and leave it at that, things would corrupt.

Similarly, anything that's left open to profit will corrupt. Look at the
difference between Fox News and PBS. In some cases, not having to worry about
money lets you be uncompromising in your delivery. I think schools would work
the same way.

------
davidw
Let's End Politics Stories on Hacker News.

~~~
anthonyrubin
While I generally agree, this is the sort of political article that is worth
discussing in this forum.

~~~
davidw
I think it's got to be all or nothing, and I would vastly prefer nothing.

------
gills
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

but in this case, replace 'hell' with 'serfdom.'

------
rgrieselhuber
Given the author's political leanings, I couldn't help wondering if this was a
veiled argument for bringing back child labor. :-)

------
joubert
Is Newt happy to lower the age of consent to 12?

------
time_management
So-called "adolescence" has three stages: middle and high school, college, and
the "failure to launch" years between 22 and 28-35, when traditionally adult
accomplishments and responsibilities (homeownership, _responsibly_ having
kids, career and financial independence) are essentially out of reach for all
but the very wealthy.

The first two stages are an unnecessary waste for most people, since they end
up going through a lot more schooling than is useful for them, and could be
abolished. For the third stage, I really don't see an easy fix, because we're
talking about an extremely deep social problem. Closing the high schools and
the mediocre colleges is only going to dump people into the "failure to
launch" period early and prolong it, possibly to an even later age than now.

------
crabapple
pure claptrap. if newt was less career-minded like he is proposing, he could
have taken a history class and looked at mortality rates in the eighteenth
century to realize why benjamin franklin was working at 13.

oh and aren't these alvin-tofler-acolytes the ones telling us we will change
careers three times? that flexibility requires intellectual flexibility...you
aren't going to have that if you mainline people into one job at 13. so what
is it newt?

and his "stats" on rising teen pregnancy, drug use, stds??? not only bogus but
100% wrong.

newt is just a gruff dick who never smoked a bowl in college, never got a
drunk grope from a gorgeous girl way out of his league, never woke up on the
front lawn of the dorm still half wasted...and he wants to make sure _you_
never have fun too! college was the time of my life! i got a degree and
learned a lot...but also had more FUN with booze and women than i did before
or since? WHY IS THIS TO BE AVOIDED????

~~~
dpatru
Why should working people be forced to finance this?

------
petergroverman
Well Written... I find myself in complete agreement.

------
pragmatic
Why isn't this man (Newt) president?

~~~
unalone
Because he's bigoted and intolerant when it comes to many other issues.

