If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   How to send a kid to college by age 12, and make sure his or her teeth are extra bright   (mnn.com) divider line 11
    More: Interesting, Mona Lisa, teeth, colleges  
•       •       •

6822 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-29 12:51:54 PM
6 votes:
Why would you jeopardize your child's chances at being a well-adjusted and socialized adult by sending them to college at 12 (home-schooled or not)?

I don't like those douchebag helicopter parents who hold their kids back so they can have a competitive advantage, but at least they have the right idea.  Accelerating can lead to some botched adults.  Not all of them can turn out like Steve Wolfram.

If your kids are too smart for their classes, then sure, let them take college courses early but mix in some time off with travel and paid or volunteer work. Then send them to college properly at 18.
2013-06-29 07:49:23 PM
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: rugman11: Yeah, there's no reason a wealthy family couldn't put 12 years worth of education into 6 or 7 years.  Especially when you've got only four or five students at a time.  The problem is that public schools have to target the median and run a class that doesn't leave anybody behind.  Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to let anybody get ahead either.

And it's not always a good idea.  These kids seem to be doing fine, but they also have a natural, built-in support structure that a lot of students don't have.  It worked for them, but I'd hesitate to push it as a recommended course.

If public schools teach at the median's pace, won't they leave 50% of kids behind?  I think the target is set just above "potato" these days.  (Thanks, GW!)

This family does not seem wealthy.  The only working parent (in a family of 12!) seems to be dad, retired military and a FEMA functionary.  Mom claims to be a physician, but I can't find a word about any practice; I don't believe she could earn any significant money as a doctor will tending 10 kids, let alone home-schooling them.  She sells phone consultations; maybe that's doing well.    Oh, and she writes for "Mormon Times," which is telling but hardly lucrative, I imagine. In any case, she claims to have schooled the kids herself, not hiring expensive tutors.

I don't think "1% wealthy" parents would choose home-schooling.  Much of their kids' career preparation depends upon schmoozing with other rich brats and their families.  (Note that a "career" does not involve productive work, necessarily.)

I really don't know what to make of this extreme outlier family.  They're selling the message that home-schooling is easy for any (two-parent) family and can produce extraordinary results.  Smells like "get rich quick in real estate" seminars.


Oh, I don't think they're "1% wealthy," but between his pension and salary they're probably pulling down six figures, which goes a long way in Alabama, far enough to raise 10 kids anyway.  My point about "wealthy" was less about being Bill Gates rich and more about being rich enough that one parent can stay home full time to do the teaching.  Personalized learning plans (which is what it seems like they use) work best when the teacher knows the student really well, like when it's the parent doing the teaching.
2013-06-29 06:17:53 PM
1 votes:

profplump: Why would you tolerate a society that requires lockstep age-driven advancement in academics in order to be considered well-adjusted?


Nobody is requiring anything. I'm talking about the way things inherently are, not necessarily how they should be.
2013-06-29 05:03:47 PM
1 votes:

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Why would you jeopardize your child's chances at being a well-adjusted and socialized adult by sending them to college at 12


Why would you tolerate a society that requires lockstep age-driven advancement in academics in order to be considered well-adjusted? What's so damaging about collegiate study that 12-year-olds can't recover from attending lectures?

We're not talking about situations where children are locked in a room and force to study 18 hours a day. We're talking about situations where children actually have more time to for undirected play, where they are more interested in the things they are learnings about, and where they're not tied to some external advancement schedule. Why would any of that lead them to be less "well-adjusted"?
2013-06-29 04:20:38 PM
1 votes:

BokerBill: TFA:  We find out what the child likes first and then we broaden as we go.

I like this approach. First get them engaged learning something, anything. It's just more fun to learn stuff you care about. Once a kid learns that learning can be fun, then you show them how the other subjects can be interesting too.

But that kind of learning requires the teacher to know the students very, very well: something on the order of home schooling with its high teacher/student ratio and its extended teacher/student relationship.


Yeah, there's no reason a wealthy family couldn't put 12 years worth of education into 6 or 7 years.  Especially when you've got only four or five students at a time.  The problem is that public schools have to target the median and run a class that doesn't leave anybody behind.  Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to let anybody get ahead either.

And it's not always a good idea.  These kids seem to be doing fine, but they also have a natural, built-in support structure that a lot of students don't have.  It worked for them, but I'd hesitate to push it as a recommended course.
2013-06-29 02:53:37 PM
1 votes:
my 14 yr old is skipping high school (sort of) and going to college next year. it is the dual enrollment program at FAU.

my 13 yr old actually has a higher IQ and almost photographic memory but he is much lazier. the older one works hard.

we have always had problems with school not wanting them to get any farther ahead. they wouldn't give extra work or let them learn more. they used to use them as extra helper to teach other kids how to do stuff.

i am thankful that i served in brussels for awhile and was able to send them to a montessori school for preschool thru grade 1 and 2.
GBB
2013-06-29 01:27:53 PM
1 votes:

Aidan: GBB: Let him play with that for a while until he wants to start building things. Then a lot of math will come into play. But, be sure he's really into the electronics and not the mechanics. My parents thought I was destined for Electrical as well, but I grew more into Mechanical.

One thing you should look for is his learning technique. Is it completely procedural (step 1, step 2, step 3....) or is it conceptual (start here, end there, here's the path and why you want to go this way and not that way).

I hear you on that one. I strongly suspect he's like you in that respect. Heavy mechanical. And right now his learning technique is to a) make small things like basic circuits b) talk about all the amazing things he's going to make and c) try to get us to make them for him. So clearly I don't have to worry YET. I just really wish there was a step between basic circuits and bomb-detonating robots! :P But I'm gonna try the Dummies series of books for him. We're already reading old Radio Shack books at bedtime (Jesus those are dull).


Hopefully ONLY that respect.

One thing that I got into in Middle and High school was RC car racing.  Has both electrical and mechanical aspects.  Also adds social skills (teamwork, management, conflict resolution, camaraderie, etc), money management, time management, and various other skills.  It also led me down a path that was more manual labor than I was expecting.  But there is nothing wrong with makers, builder, and fixers.

Either way, the sooner he figures out what he's good at and passionate about, the better.
2013-06-29 12:58:02 PM
1 votes:
Much as she claims it doesn't, I think the fact that the parents are likely both exceptionally intelligent has something to do with it but I'll agree that I'm not a genius and I probably could have condensed much of what I learn in K-12 into a much shorter time.  We spend a lot of time in school repeating things and trying to keep the pace slow enough for one teacher to cover with 30-40 kids.  Plus add in the challenge of trying to get more conservative parents to agree to more advanced or controversial lesson plans and I could see how a smart person, dedicating her time with complete autonomy to tailor it to each child could get her kids through the material quickly.
2013-06-29 12:48:45 PM
1 votes:
You had better believe that public school and parents themselves certainly do hold children back.
2013-06-29 12:35:25 PM
1 votes:
media.tumblr.com
2013-06-29 12:32:26 PM
1 votes:
Yeah...I'm gonna need the full 18 years if not a little more to financially prepare for helping them through college.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report