Getting A Bachelors Instead Of Graduating HS

[bhobba]

Hi

For all those go-getters out there, here is an example of how to get a Bachelors instead of graduating from HS:
https://www.open.edu.au/advice/insights/university-at-sixteen

It is from Aus. You can do it overseas, of course, but you do not get it mostly paid for by the government unless you have Australian or NZ citizenship - called a Commonwealth Supported Place.

If you think it is beyond you, remember the normal HS curriculum is designed for the below-average student, so most people pass. I do not know of any studies confirming this, but IMHO if you have at least average IQ (defined as between 85 and 115) or, of course, higher, you can do it. Just my view, of course, but certainly worth a shot. Here in Aus, from grade 10 on, many schools allow you to study at an outside organisation for a few subjects. So you can try before you buy, so to speak.

Thanks
Bill

 

[jedishrfu]

I knew someone years ago who did something like this. They skipped through HS without a degree, skipped through undergrad also without a degree and went to grad school.

I don't know how he fared although I did see that he wrote a popular book the mathematician Paul Erdos.

The danger of his approach was that should he fail in grad school then he will have nothing to fall back on degree wise. In my time, that was something truly dangerous although now maybe not so much.

 

[bhobba]

The danger of his approach was that should he fail in grad school then he will have nothing to fall back on degree wise. In my time, that was something truly dangerous although now maybe not so much.

Oh yes - what you wrote can indeed be dangerous. A few, however, like Feynman and Fermi, would thrive in such a situation. They basically did it anyway - Fermi's admissions essay to university was considered of doctoral thesis standard. He had to go through the usual courses, though but did them at an accelerated pace. He was already beyond his supervising professor in his experimental physics work, so he basically did what you mentioned. People like that are scarce. Feynman, of course, tested out of a lot of subjects at MIT and started graduate work from the second year. If I remember correctly, his senior year was basically doing research work with Slater. Gell-Mann did the usual route but started college at 14. Terry Tao started HS (in Australia HS is grades 7-12) at 8, attended university classes at 9 but remained in HS. When he got enough to graduate from HS, he went full time to a university near where he lived, Flinders University, completed a combined Bachelors/Masters at 16, and then went for his PhD at Princeton on a Fulbright scholarship.

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

Some points not right are:
H.S. for below average people
Main idea of earning undergrad deg without at least equivalent of H.S.
Reference to "I.Q."

Better or more complete elaborations to support those would be of interest.

 

[bhobba]

Some points not right are:
H.S. for below average people
Main idea of earning undergrad deg without at least equivalent of H.S.
Reference to "I.Q."

Better or more complete elaborations to support those would be of interest.

Ok. If HS were pitched at average students, then 50% would not get through by the definition of average. It must be at a level below-average students can cope with, so the vast majority can pass. Average students can go at a more accelerated pace if they wish to and are given the opportunity. Here in Queensland, we, until very recently, started school at 5 and finished HS at 17, then started a 3-year degree at 17, finishing at 20. Then someone got the bright idea (Bond University actually) of compressing semesters into 3 semesters a year so you can do it in two years. Other universities followed suit and 2-year degrees are now common. So without any HS acceleration at all, you could get your bachelors at 19. Some universities in the US (for example, Baylor, if I remember correctly) do the same, and with some advanced credit, you can do it in 2 years, certainly 3. All getting a degree by 18 in Queensland, required is to accelerate your HS studies by 1 year. I have seen no stats on it, but that seems quite doable. For example, my niece had trouble at primary school, and my sister approached a local private school, Kimberly, to see if she could start a year early:
https://www.kimberley.college/

In those days, they only did from grade 8, and she had done grade 6, but because they have multi-age classes were fine with it. You can leave school at the end of grade 10 if you get a job or apprenticeship. She left to go out and work and did not do grade 11 and 12. I do not know of any studies that show the results of such minor acceleration, but what I can say is that since changing school age from 5-17 to 6-18 in Queensland, it seems not to have had any effect on HS graduation, those going to university etc.

I was using IQ as a proxy for student ability. While it seems reasonable, it does require research to validate.

Yes, I am making assumptions that need to be backed up by research. If anyone knows such research, please feel free to share.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

I went to a pretty good university, with pretty good students, and faced with the same facts came to the opposite conclusion: that they should have their students do more rather than do it faster.

 

[bhobba]

I went to a pretty good university, with pretty good students, and faced with the same facts came to the opposite conclusion: that they should have their students do more rather than do it faster.

Yes, that is a debate here. Should, for example, better/more motivated students do algebra and geometry at greater depth rather than move onto calculus ASAP? I am in the latter camp since Calculus opens so many doors. But some think really bedding down the basics is preferable. Personally, I was bored with the pace in my education and switched off for several years after burning bright in the US equivalent of grade 7. I would have relished moving onto exciting areas faster - in fact, that is what I did on my own time. But I paid the penalty later without going into the details.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Choppy]

I suspect the more the world shifts toward online learning the more common opportunities for students to advance at their own pace will be become.

However, there are down sides to consider. Whilst I agree that enabling brighter students to advance faster certainly has advantages, there are also down sides to it.

1. Direction. How many people know, as a young teenager, what they really want to do in life? A lot of students on a more typical trajectory struggle with this when graduating high school at ~18. Sure, there's the occasional kid who knew he or she wanted to be a doctor at eight years old and didn't deviate from that path, but those are a rare breed. As a young teen, you don't even really know what's out there.
2. Life experience. There's something to be said for being able to place a lot of what you learn in advanced education in a context that's based on your own life experiences. And it's not just a case of not having had them yet. I also worry that too much emphasis on academics too early may not allow people to advance in other aspects of their lives - friendships, relationships, sports, artistic expression, work experience...
   
3. Maturity. Often going to university involves stepping out of your home and living on your own. It's one thing if you have a strong support network, but a lot of otherwise bright students really struggle with the responsibilities of looking after themselves. Doing this at a younger age is likely to exacerbate these issues.
4. Focus on early achievements. There's this notion out there that seems to favour early achievements--like if you can finish a bachelor's degree before your eighteenth birthday, you are a genius and destined for greatness. But for every 18 year old who graduates university there are ten more who look at that and think they won't amount to anything because they haven't passed that milestone in their own lives yet. And it's already been mentioned... what happens if the degree doesn't work out? Now you've got a kid who doesn't have either a university degree or a high school diploma.
5. Social inclusion/exclusion. The vast majority of undergraduate students are in the 18-22 year old age range. Or at least in that ball park. All geographical details considered the bulk of this group can legally drink, to go to bars, etc. Being 16 in that crowd will be difficult to keep up socially. And there are power gradients that come with age differences at that stage of life too.

 

[DaveE]

I would be concerned about what parts of your education you are neglecting by accelerated curriculum. If you are highly motivated and adept at math and science, you should pursue that at full speed. For example, I was able to take Math classes at a local university as a high school student. But I think it's really important to not allow that to interfere with the rest of your education (humanities, civics, PE, etc.). One of the roles of education up until graduate school is to make you take courses that you otherwise might skip. You may only care about Physics now, but is important that you know the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism. It is important to have read several of the classics and be able to write a good essay. It is important to have worked with others in Drama, Music, Sports, etc. These things will pay off later in ways you may not appreciate right now. I wasn't crazy about having to read "Crime and Punishment" at the time, but now I'm glad I did.

There shouldn't be in a rush to get to the finish line if you don't what race you are running yet. Ask everyone you come across with an undergraduate degree and ask them if they switched majors, you'll be surprised at how many changed their course as they matured and learned more.

 

[dlgoff]

But I think it's really important to not allow that to interfere with the rest of your education (humanities, civics, PE, etc.).

I disagree. I would have rather used those hours in Math and Physics. Just sayin'

 

[symbolipoint]

I would be concerned about what parts of your education you are neglecting by accelerated curriculum. ...

But I think it's really important to not allow that to interfere with the rest of your education (humanities, civics, PE, etc.). ...

LIKE LIKE LIKE

 

[Astronuc]

H.S. for below average people

What does this statement mean in the context of "Some points not right"?

A student population represents a broad spectrum of capabilities, interests and experience. I attended two high schools, and the second was much better than the first. I was put in advanced classes starting in grade 8 and 9, and continuing through grade 12. I attended summer programs at a local university, and between 11th and 12th grades, I attended a summer science program in electrical and nuclear engineering. I was interested in STEM and history/religion, but not literature, so my grades in the subjects of interest were high, and my grades in English/literature were more or less average.

I enjoyed sports, but I was not on a school or varsity team, but I'd play soccer on the weekends with fellow members of the German club. Otherwise, I'd ride my bike out to rural areas outside the city, or to a library to browse books on a variety of subjects.

I think the OP refers to an exception rather than a rule.

The challenge in education is to reach those struggling while encouraging those who excel. HS in theory prepares one for learning at university, and along the lines of V50's post, how does one fit more into HS (and lower grades) in order to provide greater opportunity for most, or everyone?

A side issue - I have seen some exceptional HS students burn/flame out in university.

 

[bhobba]

I would be concerned about what parts of your education you are neglecting by accelerated curriculum.

I know it is different in the US, but here in Aus, you have completed the compulsory education in humanities, a foreign language etc., by grade 9. Grade 10 is considered preparation for grade 11/12. When I did it all those years ago, virtually everyone in 11 and 12 did English, Maths B and C (a bit more advanced on Calculus BC also covering things like basic Markov Chains and Mechanics), Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Geometrical Drawing and Perspective, i.e. STEM. It has changed now - STEM, especially maths, is the least popular option - humanities are the go - even at university.

In the US, you can do 5 O levels from the UK system, which meets the entrance to universities like ASU. That, by good students, can be done by grade 9 (10 in the UK). So arrangements that allow early entrance already exists.

Personally, I think what you need as far as humanities go to be a good citizen does not require more than grade 9 study. I would, however, recommend a calculus-based economics course. Back in my day, virtually everyone in most degrees did it. It has changed now. Of course, many universities in the US have a generals requirement to study a more varied curriculum and a major. Or you can go to schools that mostly do your major. Here in Aus, degrees tend to be more of the latter type. Similar in the UK from what I know.

As far as humanities go, Seatle Prep offers an interesting option in conjunction with Seattle University:
https://www.seattleu.edu/artsci/undergraduate-degrees/matteo-ricci/humanities/

After 3 years at Seatle Prep, entrance is into the humanities degree. You get two degrees - one in humanities and another area like math or physics.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

LIKE LIKE LIKE

I gave it my like, not because it is my view, but it is a well-known counter-argument against my view. It, in many ways, lies at the heart of the difference between the Aus, UK systems and the US system. It seems like the key issue. Personally, if you like that kind of education, i.e. broad-based with a major, then something like the BA Humanities after 3 years HS, from Matteo Ricci College, and a specialist degree looks good. It is not what I would do, but different strokes for different folks.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DaveE]

I gave it my like, not because it is my view, but it is a well-known counter-argument against my view. It, in many ways, lies at the heart of the difference between the Aus, UK systems and the US system. It seems like the key issue. Personally, if you like that kind of education, i.e. broad-based with a major, then something like the BA Humanities after 3 years HS, from Matteo Ricci College, and a specialist degree looks good. It is not what I would do, but different strokes for different folks.

Thanks
Bill

Or, if you can, there is a dual degree program with a BS from Caltech and a BA from Reed. Two of the finest higher education institutions anywhere. I think it's a minimum of 5 years, and way too hard for me, LOL.

Of course this is way beyond the "skip High School" topic.

 

[HAYAO]

People who have been raised in a healthy way usually learn how to learn from young: how to make the right effort. These people are well socialized and tend to do well in anything that they are asked to do, so if these are the type of people who is willing to take the risk to get Bachelors without HS diploma, I would say go for it. Even if they fail in some way, they'll figure out something. I wouldn't label them as failure just because they weren't able to get Bachelors for some reason and ended up with zero diploma. A failure is only when one decides that they won't put the effort to make their own lives better.

The problem is that some overachievers are overachievers by toxic parenting. These parents don't teach children how to learn, they teach how to produce the result they want. I see this happen in Asian parents more often, but it just disheartens me how children are manipulated to become what their parents want them to become just so that the parents can boast about it. Most of these children tend to break down completely when they fail in something because they are taught from young age that they are a failure if they don't become what their parents insists. Modern psychology have a solid study on this subject.

I think @Choppy 's concerns boils down to this. A healthy overachievers are okay because they'll figure out a way. However, some overachievers are not overachievers by choice. They are rather pushed far beyond their limit by their parents, not to become who they want to be (a satisfying life) but who their parents want them to be (somebody else's life). Many overachievers are not well socialized neither, sometimes because they were just born introverted, but sometimes because their parents prevented it. They have very hard time fitting into the society, and they think that their only value is their achievements. Direction, life experiences, maturity, & social inclusion is not what these overachievers were taught to figure out on their own. They were just rather forced on by their parents.

 

[russ_watters]

I know it is different in the US, but here in Aus, you have completed the compulsory education in humanities, a foreign language etc., by grade 9...

Personally, I think what you need as far as humanities go to be a good citizen does not require more than grade 9 study.

In the US it's sophomore year in college, so that's a really big gap. In my view pretty much everything one learns before 9th grade is "kid stuff". It's not learning adult knowledge, it's preparing you to be capable of learning adult knowledge. You can't read adult literature until you learn to read at an adult level, for example.

So in my view/opinion stopping at grade 9 means learning next to nothing of what you need to be a good citizen/well-rounded adult. I strongly disagree with this idea of "accelerating" and think it's really a misnomer. It's not "accelerated" if you skip things, it's a short-cut with an inferior end result.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, while some humanities courses seem like random, barely connected subjects that aren't progressive and can be done in any order or simultaneously, the sciences and in particular math aren't like that. "Adult Math" (for science/engineering) is a fully progressive track that takes 8-10 years, starting in junior high or middle school if you are deemed advanced enough to start it early. It may be possible to accelerate this (say, with college level substitutes and summer courses) if one is an exceptional student, but you can't "accelerate" it by skipping courses.

 

[bhobba]

Interesting view. As I said, there is a fundamental difference between the UK and US systems. After the US equivalent of grade 10, you specialise in the UK (grade 11, but they start at 5 - not 6 - it is called O levels). Good students often do enough by grade 10 (5 is the minimum) and accumulate more O level subjects before doing A levels in their years 12 and 13. In Australia, good schools, like the one I went to, Indooroopilly High, get through what usually is done by grade 10, by grade 9. That is called Junior Secondary. They then start senior secondary in grades 10, 11, 12. They also have a number of what they call 'programs of excellence':
https://indoorooshs.eq.edu.au/

The one of most interest in this forum is the math/engineering acceleration:
https://indoorooshs.eq.edu.au/curri...ence/mathematics-and-engineering-acceleration

For comparison purposes, Maths Methods and Specialist Maths are just different names for Math B and Math C when I did it and is equivalent to Calculus BC in the US system. Recently they have moved from starting school at 5 to starting at 6 so not long ago it was all done one year earlier. In grade 12 they would take 4 university-level math subjects instead. This provides 2 paths to get into university. One path called ATAR is based on how well you did in 11 and 12, with extra weighting if you did some university subjects. Another path is based on performance in university subjects. Many schools will admit you if you get at least a credit in two subjects. But with some of the harder universities/courses to get into 4 would be better. Credit in 4 subjects provides a direct entry in a lot of universities and courses - but not the very competitive ones like medicine. For those, they do university subjects to get bonus points for your ATAR.

In the US, that specialisation starts much later. Researchers could do some interesting work on the difference in students produced by the two systems.

Thanks
Bill