The takeaway from this story is a condemnation of US higher education tbh. Exquisitely gifted 13 year old graduates from college with a major in physics & a minor in math — wants to apply for PhD programs but his parents can’t afford it https://abc11.com/elliott-tanner-college-graduate-university-of-minnesota-physics-major/11788944/
independent learning!! I paid attention to about 10% of my classes for my 17 years of education. I'd do homework or read or whatever during class.
on my own time, I'd read, write programs for my calculator, go to museums and zoos, talk with friends and family members (this is definitely an example of privilege--not everyone has the opportunity to just discuss medicine, law, economics, history, politics, etc with experts as part of their upbringing.)
There are also sometimes opportunities to take courses at a local community college alongside regular education, such that you save money on college and get advanced content, but aren't graduating college before 18 and are still spending most of your day alongside developmental peers your own age.
I mean, I mostly thought school was boring as shit, but I think the vast majority of kids feel that way. It wouldn't have occurred to me to blame my parents for school being boring any more than it would have occurred to the average kid to resent or blame their parents for school being boring. I think pretty much every kid ever has gone "ugh, why do I have to spend 13-22 years doing this shit for 6-8 hours a day???"
The education system could and should absolutely be improved in many ways, but I don't think the answer, even in the short term, is to have kids spend less time in the only real communal environment they'll get for their entire lives.
I'll also say that, like most people, I remember a small fraction of what I learned in school. Getting to certain content sooner or getting through content faster wouldn't change the fact that by 25, I had a general base of knowledge, a lot of practice "learning how to learn", and specialized knowledge in my field. As a kid, I didn't really conceptualize forgetting things, since I basically never forgot anything. I knew it would happen. And I worried about it even. But I couldn't really understand what it would be like to have my brain prune unused/underused neural pathways. But it's important because it contributes to the conclusion that more doesn't necessarily equal better.
So, as I'm thinking through this, I could maybe see an argument for accelerating people with truly eidetic memories, because getting through more content will actually result in them knowing more, but that's a very special and rare case. Plus, people with eidetic memories are that much better at independent learning, and also far more likely to need additional social and emotional support that would come from not skipping ahead.
The place I teach is attached to a university, and all the kids are technically university students. They take some classes with us, and then pursue whatever it is that they're incredibly good at with the university. These kids' development tends to be very "spiky:" they'll be (say) doing graduate level math at 14, but only modestly better--and sometimes worse--than their age-peers at literary analysis. Giving them the opportunity to do high level work in their area of strength while also operating in a (relatively) normal high school environment with other kids who are like them is a huge boon, and results in kids who are dramatically less fucked up. We're an unusual school, but we're not singular; the options are out there (we're also public and free).
deleted by creator
independent learning!! I paid attention to about 10% of my classes for my 17 years of education. I'd do homework or read or whatever during class.
on my own time, I'd read, write programs for my calculator, go to museums and zoos, talk with friends and family members (this is definitely an example of privilege--not everyone has the opportunity to just discuss medicine, law, economics, history, politics, etc with experts as part of their upbringing.)
There are also sometimes opportunities to take courses at a local community college alongside regular education, such that you save money on college and get advanced content, but aren't graduating college before 18 and are still spending most of your day alongside developmental peers your own age.
deleted by creator
I mean, I mostly thought school was boring as shit, but I think the vast majority of kids feel that way. It wouldn't have occurred to me to blame my parents for school being boring any more than it would have occurred to the average kid to resent or blame their parents for school being boring. I think pretty much every kid ever has gone "ugh, why do I have to spend 13-22 years doing this shit for 6-8 hours a day???"
The education system could and should absolutely be improved in many ways, but I don't think the answer, even in the short term, is to have kids spend less time in the only real communal environment they'll get for their entire lives.
I'll also say that, like most people, I remember a small fraction of what I learned in school. Getting to certain content sooner or getting through content faster wouldn't change the fact that by 25, I had a general base of knowledge, a lot of practice "learning how to learn", and specialized knowledge in my field. As a kid, I didn't really conceptualize forgetting things, since I basically never forgot anything. I knew it would happen. And I worried about it even. But I couldn't really understand what it would be like to have my brain prune unused/underused neural pathways. But it's important because it contributes to the conclusion that more doesn't necessarily equal better.
So, as I'm thinking through this, I could maybe see an argument for accelerating people with truly eidetic memories, because getting through more content will actually result in them knowing more, but that's a very special and rare case. Plus, people with eidetic memories are that much better at independent learning, and also far more likely to need additional social and emotional support that would come from not skipping ahead.
The place I teach is attached to a university, and all the kids are technically university students. They take some classes with us, and then pursue whatever it is that they're incredibly good at with the university. These kids' development tends to be very "spiky:" they'll be (say) doing graduate level math at 14, but only modestly better--and sometimes worse--than their age-peers at literary analysis. Giving them the opportunity to do high level work in their area of strength while also operating in a (relatively) normal high school environment with other kids who are like them is a huge boon, and results in kids who are dramatically less fucked up. We're an unusual school, but we're not singular; the options are out there (we're also public and free).