"We've invented adolescence, and stretched it out too far" says psychologist

[ZEE]

since you are an Eventian, JM i will cut you come slack...

but all the things you mentiond here should not be manditory... but RECOMMENDED. Think of it this way: you get extra credits going to summer school. hence you might get out of school 1- 2 years early/ ahead of the "lazy" students...? forcing high school students into this type of strict regiment is just asking for trouble of one kind or another. I believe Japan has/used to have a strict education system. i also believe that student suicides are very high in that country...

pieceâ„¢

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What we are arguing is that that is a result of the current practice. It would be less likely to occur with a change of how young adults (teenagers) are treated.

JM

Yes, and what I am saying is that you are out of your gourd if you think that increasing the intensity of work for children is going to keep them from burning out as adults.

Note that I don't think that making school a year-round thing is bad, but if it's just more of the same style of education that we give them now then it's going to be counterproductive. The problem is with the style and focus of education, not the amount of time and effort put into it.

[Jon Miller]

That is because the Japanese have very stressful exams, competition. Additionally, why do we keep young adults children longer. We keep them in highschool and middle school taking advanced classes instead of letting them get into college earlier where interesting education happens.

People are encouraged not to skip, rather schools focus on allowing advanced classes and keeping them restricted in highschool. Almost always (excepting a few, rare teachers) it would be better to go to college and learn from professors and be in the more reponsible and free college environment then to stay in highschool.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


Yes, and what I am saying is that you are out of your gourd if you think that increasing the intensity of work for children is going to keep them from burning out as adults.

Note that I don't think that making school a year-round thing is bad, but if it's just more of the same style of education that we give them now then it's going to be counterproductive. The problem is with the style and focus of education, not the amount of time and effort put into it.

Oh, I agree that that needs to change also. But we would get a 33% or so increase just by having school continue through the summer.

JM

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
They have functioned as adults for a long period of time. Even now, you can see a big difference in responsibility/etc from someone who left home at age 18 and had to take care of themselves versus someone whose parents took care of them until they were 22 (you will see the difference at 22, not at age 18).

JM

I think that this is the big issue. The problem isn't really with 14-17 year olds being treated as less than adults, it is that 18-22+ year olds are routinely being treated as teens. College has turned into high school part 2 for a large part of our generation, with parents babying their children at least until they finish undergrad. The college students respond to this babying by acting like irresponsible babies, for the most part. Then, after graduating from college, many realize that they have no marketable skills and have to live at home. They're the so called "boomerang children"

There are many factors responsible for this IMO. There are too many people going to college who simply shouldn't be there, getting worthless degrees from institutions that really don't need to exist. They're not really interested in learning, their coursework isn't demanding, and their parents are paying the bills, so they spend all of their time partying. There's little growth. They just get to spend 4 years acting as though they never left high school, and they graduate college no more mature at 22 than they were at 17.

[Jon Miller]

That is also an issue, and maybe the one that should be dealt with first.

JM

[Barnabas]

John, I agree with adolescence being invented, but childhood is real, you cant burden kids so much with no vacations and making them study so much.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That is also an issue, and maybe the one that should be dealt with first.

JM

The first thing that I would change is the drinking age. It may seem counterintuitive, but I think the whole sneaking around, fake i.d. scene here for 18-20 year olds helps contribute to this prolonged adolescence. You're still doing the same things in college to get beer as you were in high school, and there's still this sense the society really doesn't consider you to be grown yet.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Oh, I agree that that needs to change also. But we would get a 33% or so increase just by having school continue through the summer.

JM

True, but we already have problems with people who lack any ability to function in an unstructured environment. Do you really think that adding more structured time for children is going to help them function as human beings (ie, outside of corporate worker-factories)?

[Jon Miller]

Having 2-3 months of completely unstructured time (in the summers) where there is little parental supervision is definitely hurtful and nonproductive towards their growth as human beings. They can, and should, have unstructured time during the normal weeks. As well as holidays.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Barnabas
John, I agree with adolescence being invented, but childhood is real, you cant burden kids so much with no vacations and making them study so much.

Giving them the entire summers off has nothing to do with their burdens. Their burdens are during the standard school weeks. The entire summers off just provides them time to waste and learn not to value their time and to forget that which they had learned.

JM

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Having 2-3 months of completely unstructured time (in the summers) where there is little parental supervision is definitely hurtful and nonproductive towards their growth as human beings. They can, and should, have unstructured time during the normal weeks. As well as holidays.

JM

Sure, assuming that they're never going to need a sense of self-direction that lasts beyond a couple of hours.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Also, your ideas are shown false in college. In college it is the students who work (some) who often do better than the ones whose parents paid for everything and didn't work at all. I am not saying that students in college should have to work a hard 40 hours a week. However, I do think that some work, 10 hours a week at least, is very healthy and should definitely be encouraged.

I worked betewen 6 and 20 hours a week during undergrad.

JM

I worked about 20 hours a week in college. In my opinion, I worked way too much.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Giving them the entire summers off has nothing to do with their burdens. Their burdens are during the standard school weeks. The entire summers off just provides them time to waste and learn not to value their time and to forget that which they had learned.

JM

I agree with you here. IMO, a six weeks of school- two weeks off year round approach would be better than what we currently have.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


Sure, assuming that they're never going to need a sense of self-direction that lasts beyond a couple of hours.

I didn't know a single child who used their summers productively. Ever.

JM