I’m Only 9, and I’m Already in College. Here’s What Life Is Like for Me
huffingtonpost.com
huffingtonpost.com
He says about getting into college:
> I had to go through interviews and assessments to prove to the administration that I had both the scholastic aptitude and the executive functions to attend college.
But then later:
> Because of the asynchronous development, I do not have good time-management skills or strong note-taking skills, and sometimes I have trouble reading my own handwriting! My parents help me by typing out study notes from my textbooks, even though they might not understand the content.
That is not what I would consider "the executive functions [needed] to attend college" if you were discussing the admission of a 9-year-old.
He also says:
> Also, I do whine a lot over homework because it is boring and long.
and
> my parents [...] keep reminding me that work ethic and ethos are more important than IQ
and finally
> I hope to transfer to MIT in two to three years. Hopefully, MIT will disagree with my parents’ definition of work ethic.
I don't doubt that the kid is smart, and possibly much more well-adjusted than many other super-smart young kids you hear about from time to time... but I still wonder about it all. I think he still has a lot of emotional development to be done, despite his doctors telling him his "EQ (emotional intelligence) was also surprisingly high".
The first half of the essay seems fairly humble, all things considered, with him saying things like "People always ask if I am a “genius,” but my parents explain that genius is an action ― it requires solving big problems that have a human impact", which I think is great. But the second half seems much more focused on him being very smart and fully capable and just as good as an adult, thank you very much... and I think that's something for his parents to watch out for.
(Of course, I'm just some random person on the internet. His parents and support network probably know him better than I do. But these are just my thoughts.)
In times past, people would be employed and married at about the time they physically matured. This is natural. We've deviated from this due to overly lengthy and inefficient education. We're losing years of employment, affecting total lifetime earnings. We're losing years of low-risk childbearing. If you can get your education completed before you mature, then you can start your independent family life at the natural time. You can have a paid-off mortgage-free home and several children by age 20.
I have a coworker that we hired at 18. He showed up with a degree and even some previous professional work experience. He has done well.
By "doesn't mean that college is a good place for a", you seem to imply that something other than college is a good place for these young people. I don't know what that would be, because the obvious alternatives are surely worse. High school can be pretty toxic and useless. Bad stuff can happen anywhere. At least college offers more freedom and respect than high school does, even if it is still 70% a waste of time.
When I compare what my kids get in college with what I did in public schools circa 1990, 7th grade is enough. Education is shockingly inefficient.
If you can write a paragraph, you're ready for the first writing class. Unless you can get AP credit, you won't escape being forced to take that class, so why waste half a decade when you can start immediately? You can probably complete the college classes faster (2 semesters) than pre-college schooling would take you from "can write a paragraph" to "scored a 4 on AP English Composition".
The same goes for math. Knowing a bit about fractions and decimals is enough to start. You can skip the first college class if you can simplify expressions, solve sets of 2 equations, and deal with inequalities. Skipping anything more would require AP Calculus, but that still wouldn't get you out of the math credit hour requirements. You might as well just start college earlier.
If those college expectations sound like high school or lower to you, then you're old and you're starting to understand. College is the new high school, if even that. We decided to pass all high school students, with "individual education programs" as needed to avoid maintaining standards, and to expect everybody to go to college. This is the result.
Further, there's a difference between 'getting by' and actually gleaning the value of the education. People who took analysis and university level linear algebra got much more out of discrete math than I did, even though I scraped out a decent grade.
I've seen similar situations in community college. It's possible to barely pay attention and glide through the whole thing, but there's often a decent education for the taking if you put some work in and engage.
Furthermore, I think that you conflate cause and effect regarding high school. High school is not inherently toxic, rather, the adolescent process of developing Independence and the lack of emotional maturity combine to make high school years awkward and stressful. But because the underlying cause is there regardless of whether or not a child attends high school, the same effects will result regardless. As long as the child is in a high school in which the child can form friendships, the high school is a net positive, especially if, in the author's (eventual) case, the high school is a high school for gifted children which grants the children time to pursue endeavors which intellectually stimulate them.
A school for gifted children may be better, especially if not co-located with a normal school, but it will have other downsides. It will likely be a long commute and might cost as much as college. It does very little (probably just AP credit) to shave years off of the time required for education.
On another very cultural point, I know of exactly zero women with my education level who would have been willing to give birth before 20, even if they had been out of college by then -- they got to that education level by being ambitious and for ambitious women career takes precedence over babies. (There were also practical issues. If you start college at 15 there are very little safe ways for you to experiment with sex before college. All women I know want to have sex recreationally for like, several years before having a baby, and with different men than the eventual baby daddy too.) I grant that it's in a city -- I think the whole career/baby conundrum is a lot less of a problem in rural or religious areas. Still.
There is cultural variation for sure. The thought of starting with a non-virgin is revolting to me. BTW, that should go for both sexes, though obviously one is impossible to scrub clean. (tiny cleaning brushes for Fallopian tubes?) Both sexes should hold spouses to this standard. If the other person wants to violate that standard, run! They've done it before.
I seriously feel that way, and I'm not even religious or rural. I'm married, and both of us were virgins. You shouldn't experiment with sex. Before college is fine, assuming you are married before college. I'm sure you hate and reject this idea, but you really devalue yourself if you sleep around. It's how you get herpes and more. Most people get herpes, but it is NOT an inevitable part of life. Your possible choices for a spouse are reduced if you've been around. If you do discover a nice spouse, but you remember getting better sex from a different person, how will you be happy? You'll forever be fantasizing about that other person. You'll probably be tempted to cheat.
I'm sure you think my attitude is strange, but consider this: I've been married for almost two decades. My parents, with a similar attitude, have been married for over four decades. Their parents were married longer, until death. There have not been any broken homes, custody fights, half-sibling surprises, or any similar misery. BTW, the women all got above-average education for their era, but didn't use it except to attract husbands. This is a way of life that works, free of the fights and other drama that is so common today. Children grow up safe and secure, and then provide likewise for their own children.
The cheapest house on the market is going for $30,000 and the median is going for $157,100. Throwing some randomly into a calculator, it looks like $50 to $100 per square foot for real suburban-type homes. Prices are the same in Palm Bay, just to the south of Melbourne.
Yes, there are jobs. There are several large defense contractors in the area, along with many startups doing things related to software security. I usually post one to the "Who is Hiring?" thread.
So get the job, live cheaply, and buy a house. Heck, buy it in cash. Two years of a single income will do that if your tastes are not extravagant.
I have a close family member who is brighter than me. His family chose to not send him to gifted elementary school despite my objections. He is the top student in a gifted highschool now, and will be going to college next year at age 17.. and has been bored and semi-depressed for the last two years as far as I can tell.
My advice to him is to get in a major school and take it from there. I'm sure that's not hard for him. I feel like I should be able to suggest more but aside from life advice, I'm at a loss. Any pointers? I live here but he is in a country with barely mediocre support for special kids.
The worst thing you can do is stay in a mediocre home town and fall into a mediocre job...he will end up depressed if he doesn't get out.
The portion of the population that typically bears children before 18 is not randomly selected. High-risk behaviors are common in that population. Fetal alcohol syndrome (from abuse in the previous generation) reduces pelvis size. Properly controlling for all these factors is difficult, and it might purposely not be attempted.
If delayed childbearing causes the entire window of childbearing years to shift, then we must also consider the risk with older mothers. By satisfying the urge for a family of a particular size, a birth at 17 might prevent a birth at 47. Modern medicine can do something about a difficult birth, but not very much about broken chromosomes.
Full physical maturity varies greatly by individual. One can measure.
It's not an either-or proposition. What "urge for a family of a particular size" could not be satisfied between ages 20 and 47? Hopefully, you're not pushing your child to have "several children by age 20."
I can imagine it was edited.
There's a difference between being able to learn something quickly that many people have also learned (though perhaps much more slowly) and having an impact. It sounds like both the author and his parents understand this. The former will eventually help with the latter as long as the latter remains a goal.
I don't see the problem.
> my parents help me by typing out study notes from my textbooks, even though they might not understand the content.
He attends 2 schools, so his time/attention is necessarily limited. This is only tacitly related to executive functions - for some undefined value of "having". Having someone print something out for you as part of your own time management is reasonable.
I think, at worst, it would be like a normal adult trying to socialize with 9-year-old kids?
And this particular kid says he has lots of normal social interaction with kids his own age.
By the way, here's my favorite 9 year old prodigy, Yoyoka Soma https://youtu.be/91pz1E8pAOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qds6sr2kliw
This kid’s story is interesting but I feel he’s got immense amounts of work ahead of him to socialize in the “real” world. Not elementary school, not high school not college but the real world. Being socialized and able to navigate is also distinctly different than having a “high EQ”.