Ready for university by Grade 10 or age 16 yrs?

[Astronuc]

Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_time/shouldkidsbeabletograduateafter10thgrade
By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY Kathleen Kingsbury – Fri Nov 7, 4:50 am ET

High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school. (See pictures of teens and how they would vote.)

Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars. Students may take the exams - which are modeled on existing AP or International Baccalaureate tests - as many times as they need to pass. Or those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years, taking a second, more difficult set of exams senior year. "We want students who are ready to be able to move on to their higher education," says Lyonel Tracy, New Hampshire's Commissioner for Education. "And then we can focus even more attention on those kids who need more help to get there."

But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests. (See pictures of the college dorm room's evolution.)

With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."

. . . .

Can most children be ready for junior college by Grade 10?!

This does seem to shift the burden of education from the public to the individual.

 

[mgb_phys]

Can most children be ready for junior college by Grade 10?!

Given the standard of first year uni course compared to A levels (ie 16-18) of 20 years ago yes.
Are they ready to live away from home and study on their own - no?
A few universities have had policies to accept very young child geniuses eg. in maths - but they generally have a parent along

This does seem to shift the burden of education from the public to the individual.

Bingo -although I normally do the cynism around here.

 

[Moonbear]

I view it as something being done to cut costs and artificially inflate graduation rates rather than actually doing what most benefits the students. Push them out the door with a diploma before they get a chance to drop out, and make them pay for their education rather than continuing to offer a free public education for those last two years.

I also don't think that a 16-year old has the maturity to necessarily make a good decision about whether to take the "easy way out" of getting a diploma after 10th grade or staying in school two more years.

 

[turbo]

I also don't think that a 16-year old has the maturity to necessarily make a good decision about whether to take the "easy way out" of getting a diploma after 10th grade or staying in school two more years.

I agree. It's also a problem for universities if this happens wholesale. Decades ago, schools operated with fairly stringent (in some cases) "in loco parentis" policies. Many of these policies were eased during the Vietnam war because it was reasoned that if you are old enough at age 18 to be drafted and risk your life, you should be considered an adult in other ways. During the early '70's dorms on many campuses became co-ed, restrictions on drinking were eased (the drinking age in Maine was lowered to 18 during the war), etc. Flooding colleges with 16 year olds would put them right into the baby-sitting business, perhaps requiring them to establish separate housing for underage students, with rules more appropriate to their age.

 

[mgb_phys]

Flooding colleges with 16 year olds would put them right into the baby-sitting business,

It has become a problem for UK universities. There was an outbreak of 'won't somebody think of the children' in the last few years - so anyone who has any contact with kids, even just after school soccer practice, suddenly has to have a range of expensive and intrusive police background checks.

Because of the ways school/uni term dates fall you can have students that reach 18 during the first semester.,this left colleges with the task of getting background checks on ALL their staff, TAs, postdocs etc. So the solution was just to send these kids away for a year.

It also gave the government a problem that they weren't legally of age to sign their own student loans - but the government just changed the rules for itself.

 

[mgb_phys]

I also don't think that a 16-year old has the maturity to necessarily make a good decision about whether to take the "easy way out" of getting a diploma after 10th grade or staying in school two more years.

In the UK they always have had this option. School is only compulsary until 16. The next two years were optional for people who eventually wanted to go to university.
But because you had to pay solicial security benefits to unemployed 16year olds but nothing for 16 year old students there is/was a lot of encouragement to 'increase skills' and 'allow wider participation in higher education'

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This seems like somewhat of an incoherent question to me. If this is done on a broad scale, university will change and adapt to the maturity level of the students.

It seems well worth trying to me. In general I would advocate educational innovation, which I think in some respects is the greatest strength of the educational system in the United States, and I don't regard education for an individual as some do-or-die, must-get-it-right-the-first-time-or-your-life-is-ruined thing. If it doesn't work out well we'll just go back to doing it the same way as before.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

Not sure exactly what they are proposing?

>Allowing kids to opt out of school at 16?
Always been done like this in the UK.

>College level course at 16?
The UK system is to specialise (eg only maths/physics/chemistry) from 16. So these courses are equivalent to US college level intro courses.

>Go off to college at 16?
Please no, it's bad enough with new 18years olds.

I'm not saying the UK system is correct, it's just what I have experience as a student/teacher in. It's also changed over the last 10years to be more like the US system.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

In the UK they always have had this option. School is only compulsary until 16. The next two years were optional for people who eventually wanted to go to university.
But because you had to pay solicial security benefits to unemployed 16year olds but nothing for 16 year old students there is/was a lot of encouragement to 'increase skills' and 'allow wider participation in higher education'

School is only compulsory until about age 16 in most places in the U.S. too, I think that's the exact age here in NH. I believe this is a program designed to specifically prepare students in large numbers to proceed to more advanced studies, though.

In NH for at least the last two decades or so we've also had an optional program in many places that is very focused on transitioning to a vocational environment for students that want it, conceptually modeled on the apprenticeship / vocational tracks available in some European countries as I understand.

At age 16 the students begin leaving school regularly (getting bussed back and forth for part of the day) to a regional vocational school where they might specialize in something like auto mechanics and repair, construction and contracting work, office skills like small business accounting, retail management and marketing, nursing assistant work, etc. My understanding is that among the students who decide to participate in the program it has reduced dropout rates and been really good for people who plan to or have to directly go into the work force after high school. (This one involves them staying in school until age 18, though.)

Experimenting with stuff like that may be easier for New Hampshire because we have a relatively smaller population than states, only about 2 million. For another example, we have one particular, large high school that is the largest school in the state where a lot of our English as a Second Langauge resources are focused. In that one school 80 different languages were spoken as of 2000 when I was a student teacher there.

(New Hampshire has a relatively diverse population, at least in terms of there being many ethnic communities. About a third of the state population is of French Canadian descent, when I was a kid you'd infrequently run into old people who still only spoke French. And there are lots of refugee populations who have been resettled here - Bosnian, Somali, Sudanese, Hatian, etc.)

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

>College level course at 16?
The UK system is to specialise (eg only maths/physics/chemistry) from 16. So these courses are equivalent to US college level intro courses.

That's similar to what we would call "Advanced Placement" high school courses, I think.

>Go off to college at 16?
Please no, it's bad enough with new 18years olds.

Like I said, if it doesn't work out we'll just go back to the way it used to work. We're pretty flexible.

I think, though, that in the 1800's in both the U.S. and Europe children might go to college at this age, so it's not without precedent.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

P.S. on the regional vocational schools - there is of course a good deal of vocational programming available right at the high schools themselves, the special schools are simply more intensive and focused.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

In NH for at least the last two decades or so we've also had an optional program in many places that is very focused on transitioning to a vocational environment for students that want it

There are attempts at that in the UK. There is a general feeling that the all or nothing at 16 is bad.
But most of the schemes have been seen in the past as ways of rigging the youth unemployment statisitics or providing cheap labour.

The switch from an apprenticeship where you got paid and it led to a skilled job - to a vocational degree where you pay fees and there is no job seems to make more sense to the politicians than the potential students.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

One thing that I thought was nifty when I was considering the local vocational school program as an option at that age was that there actually were a few very part-time jobs available at the vocational school. Only for a handful of hours a week, but you could actually essentially make a bit of money while you were at school! Though those jobs were won by just a few individuals, the ones who performed best in the program.

For this specific program the students do not have to pay, which is something that's emphasized when they're advertising it to the students. There are paid tuition vocational schools for students who drop out of high school or who graduate on the standard path and want vocational training, although those are subsidized by the government to some degree as I'm sure the ones in the UK are.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Back in the 17-1800s people went to college around that age, no?

I think a 16 year old is prefectly able to go to college and not waste their time in high school if they so wish. I would have been one of them. I literally wasted the last two years of high school doing and learning nothing. Part of the problem is that 16 year olds are treated as kids and should be expected to act like a young adult.

 

[mgb_phys]

I literally wasted the last two years of high school doing and learning nothing.

You can simply put higher academic level courses in high school.
I was lucky, my local education authority had a policy of building separate colleges for the 16-18year rather than having it in the same school. This allowed them to have better trained teachers (most science teachers had PhDs) and better labs while still saving money by concentrating it all in one site.
These were still in the same town so you lived at home.

It's not a perfect system - you had to decide at 16 if you wanted to eventually go to university and be an engineer or go to the technical school and be a bricklayer. But it worked well for many people.

 

[Cyrus]

You can simply put higher academic level courses in high school.
I was lucky, my local education authority had a policy of building separate colleges for the 16-18year rather than having it in the same school. This allowed them to have better trained teachers (most science teachers had PhDs) and better labs while still saving money by concentrating it all in one site.
These were still in the same town so you lived at home.

Good luck finding teachers the US to teach a bunch of immature high school student's for less than what a garbage man makes yearly.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Good luck finding teachers the US to teach a bunch of immature high school student's for less than what a garbage man makes yearly.

Yeah, it's really unfortunate. The one exception is actually Alaska where Sarah Palin's from; they have to offer starting pay at a good twice what the national average is to persuade people to move out into the bush to teach. But I assume that they fund it with the state oil revenues.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

In some ways it's the best teaching option. While perhaps being elitest you are teaching only those students who have chosen to take those subjects and want to go to university so they are generally smart, well behaved and well motivated.

The main problem is that promotion is more limited - because of a shortage of science teachers anyone in a regular high school is going to advance up the ladder quickly while being in a specialised college with other skilled staff it's more limited.

 

[Astronuc]

My high school had a physics teacher who was a PhD Physicist from Caltech. I took a short summer course in physics from him at a local university - he was brilliant. His courses were a blend of experiment and theory.

He spent two years at my high school and then went on to a research position at Shell Oil Co.

The chemistry teacher at my high school had an MS Chemistry and we took a college level course in chemistry (AP BC).

The one disconnect in the Calculus, Physics and Chem was a lack of coordination between the classes. We did little calculus in Physics, and some application of differential equations toward the end of chemistry.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Speaking of coordination between classes, you know what I think would be absolutely awesome?

I went to a liberal arts college and there was this block of courses freshman and sophomore years, required for all majors, just generically titled Humanities I, II, III, IV. The courses would intensively cover one period of history or a social movement at a time and it would be a full-court press of various coordinated lectures, seminars, readings from original sources, and other elements on the history, literature, anthropology, music, art, and every other aspect of, say, Ancient Greece, the Hebraic Age of Prophets, Medieval Europe, Renaissance Realism, etc. - for two years solid.

It was so great, just such a rich academic experience of really studying something thoroughly. I've attended several other schools part-time undergrad or for graduate work and I've never seen anything like it.

Anyways, I've always thought that it would be really fabulous to do the same sort of thing but cover calc, physics, and computer science at the same time, so you could get really in-depth on the historical development of everything and at the same time you're studying the math see the physics it sprang from an vice-versa, and also be fiddling around with programming physics simulations, applications of linear algebra, numerical methods, etc. in the computing field.

⚛​

 

[cristo]

That's similar to what we would call "Advanced Placement" high school courses, I think.

That maybe so, but the point is that all students in the UK that are going to university have to do A levels. In the US, the AP classes are just a bonus, but cannot be taken as a prerequisite for college classes.

Like I said, if it doesn't work out we'll just go back to the way it used to work. We're pretty flexible.

I would have hated to have gone to university aged 16. Most 16 year olds are not nearly mature enough to live independently (and I'll happily put myself in that bracket at that age!). Let alone the fact that you can't drink at 16

Personally, I think the UK system works just fine: compulsory education up to 16 years old, then two years of college, if you so wish, before going away to university. The 17 and 18 year olds are then in a class of students that are going to be going to university, and this is basically two years of prepping for university, by studying fewer subjects in more detail. Students who leave at 16 are then free to enter vocational courses, or apprenticeships, for whom the extra two years in college would not be advantageous.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

That maybe so, but the point is that all students in the UK that are going to university have to do A levels. In the US, the AP classes are just a bonus, but cannot be taken as a prerequisite for college classes.

At the college(s) I attended, high school coursework could count as prerequisites for college classes if the student demonstrated proficiency. But I'm sure that policies vary between schools.

So, if you do not take A level courses, does that mean that you will not be able to matriculate to a university?

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

So, if you do not take A level courses, does that mean that you will not be able to matriculate to a university?

You wouldn't get in - uni entry requirements are based on A level grades.
(there are exceptions for mature students)

 

[physics girl phd]

note: "... those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years." It's basically a way to shaft students that aren't going to attend Yale... in favor of well-equipped facilities and upper-level teachers explicitly reserved for the preparation of future Yalies.

Of course "all students who meet high school graduation requirements within three years either a full scholarship to any state community college or a chance to take college courses while still enrolled in high school." So yeah -- we'll even provide temporary incentives to keep them in their appropriate place if they aren't future Yalies. We want them to be employed, pay their taxes and subsidize our Yalies!:rofl:

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I live in the Boston area and one of the things I've always thought is completely awesome is that anyone whosoever can just walk into Harvard and sign up for a course (without matriculating, of course.) And actually, based on the small sample of two people I've known who did that - taking a Biblical Theology course at the Divinity School and Organizational Change Management at the Business School - although it certainly provides a high-quality education it didn't sound all that much more challenging than any of the courses I took in college myself.

(I don't know whether the same sort of thing is possible at Oxford or the Sorbonne, it may well be.)

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

anyone whosoever can just walk into Harvard and sign up for a course ...
I don't know whether the same sort of thing is possible at Oxford or the Sorbonne, it may well be.

Not in the UK, you have to sign up for the whole degree and in Oxford also be admitted by a college.
It sounds like a nightmare, wouldn't you get the crackpots signing up for GR so they can expound their theories?
Oxford (and most places) runs non-degree courses ,especially in arts subjects, to the public, often run evenings or weekends - it's nice little money-maker.

 

[Astronuc]

I live in the Boston area and one of the things I've always thought is completely awesome is that anyone whosoever can just walk into Harvard and sign up for a course (without matriculating, of course.) And actually, based on the small sample of two people I've known who did that - taking a Biblical Theology course at the Divinity School and Organizational Change Management at the Business School - although it certainly provides a high-quality education it didn't sound all that much more challenging than any of the courses I took in college myself.

(I don't know whether the same sort of thing is possible at Oxford or the Sorbonne, it may well be.)

⚛​

Every year, I get invitations from MIT to take specical intensive couses. If only I had the time.


As for living independently, I don't see that as the current expectation. I believe they expect the students to live at home and attend local community colleges, although the problem with that is that some communities are some distance from the local community college. My community is fortunate to have a community college in town so that my daughter can attend college/university while living at home.

When I first started university I lived on campus although my family's home was only about 5 miles away. I preferred to be away from home. I subsequently switched majors and universities, and the second university was 90+ miles from my family's home. I'd see my family on holidays.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Not in the UK, you have to sign up for the whole degree and in Oxford also be admitted by a college.
It sounds like a nightmare, wouldn't you get the crackpots signing up for GR so they can expound their theories?
Oxford (and most places) runs non-degree courses ,especially in arts subjects, to the public, often run evenings or weekends - it's nice little money-maker.

Ah, well, that's unfortunate.

What I'm speaking of are the real courses that matriculated students attend and could count towards a degree at Harvard or elsewhere if you're accepted into a degree program. My friends didn't describe the experience as nightmarish, even the one who took Biblical Theology. I'm sure that the school reserves the right to kick disruptive students out and in any case, as you point out it'd have to be a fairly wealthy crackpot. (Not to mention, regular students are entirely able to be crackpots and argue vehemently with the professor... I certainly did in a couple of classes, perhaps that means I'm a crackpot. )

I was pretty uninterested when I was in primary school and didn't get very good marks. The only reason I have a degree from a relatively good university is that I was able to take courses on a part-time basis and prove my mettle so that I was allowed to matriculate (and make the college a nice tidy pile of money that way :grumpy:.) So, I wonder if I'd have had very good prospects at all in the U.K.

⚛​

 

[jtbell]

anyone whosoever can just walk into Harvard and sign up for a course (without matriculating, of course.)

Don't they at least have to pay tuition?

 

[mgb_phys]

What I'm speaking of are the real courses that matriculated students attend and could count towards a degree at Harvard or elsewhere if you're accepted into a degree program.

Yes I was referring to Astonuc's point that you could just walk into any course
(jtbell - yes I'm sure paying tuition is the WHOLE point)
You could impose course pre-requisites, so for the GR course you had to have done CalculusIII, but if the aim is to make money the dept isn't going to allow that.

Most universities in the UK are getting pretty good at mature students, it's a big untapped market. There used to be a requirement to have at least two A-levels (the exams taken at 16) but you could take these at community college equivalents. And the uni generally gave minimum offers (2 pass grades) rather than 4A grades they would demand from 18year olds.
There is also the open university - which is almost entirely distant learning but offers fully accredited (and well regarded) degrees.

 

[Modestas]

Well, I am 15 years old and the best at physics in my school and most of England for my age,I can grasp quite difficult concepts yet some graduate (MA+) stuff does mathematicly confuse me. I think I could get a physics BA but I won't be able to get a 2:1 or a 1st.
Also full marks in my BPhO paper 1 this year :D...In brief, yes you can go to university at 16...not necessarily do well though.

PS I am from England( as you may have worked out) and Oxford is too overated at physics :P Imperial College is 1000 times better.

 

[cristo]

Well, I am 15 years old and the best at physics in my school and most of England for my age,I can grasp quite difficult concepts yet some graduate (MA+) stuff does mathematicly confuse me. I think I could get a physics BA but I won't be able to get a 2:1 or a 1st.
Also full marks in my BPhO paper 1 this year :D...In brief, yes you can go to university at 16...not necessarily do well though.

PS I am from England( as you may have worked out) and Oxford is too overated at physics :P Imperial College is 1000 times better.

Erm.. you say that some "graduate stuff confuses you," but you don't think you will be able to get a 2:1 in a BSc degree? What are you basing these contradictory statements on?

I guess your name suits you, though.

 

[GCT]

Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_time/shouldkidsbeabletograduateafter10thgrade
By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY Kathleen Kingsbury – Fri Nov 7, 4:50 am ET
Can most children be ready for junior college by Grade 10?!

This does seem to shift the burden of education from the public to the individual.

I went to high school in Plano Texas , Plano Senior High as well as Vines , most of the kids were fit to enter into college by the time they graduated from Vines ( first two years ) and many displayed an ability to skip the first two years of college by graduation from PSH ( next two years ).

High school trains one for college - where the performance actually goes on record. Just how much training does one need? My opinion is the more the better. Give them more time to ask more questions. More time to experiment. More time to test their skills with competitions e.g. Westinghouse.

Some states simply want to find ways to compete with faster nations such as China - where they teach Calc I - III and Differential Equations within one course. However expediting the schedule is going to cause many problems in my opinion - for one it is not based on the interest nor the displayed capability of the students.

 

[kathrynag]

I think kids should be able. I was homeschooled, so I was a little different, but I started taking college classes at 15 and went away to college. i thought it was a very good decision. i wasn't wasting my time doing nothing when I could further my education.

 

[noumed]

Some schools in the US do not adequately prepare their students for college, and especially if you consider the inconsistency of the curriculum across the nation, it's hard to say that this is a good idea.

Even so, would you really want to be the 16-yr old in the class on campus?