After one of our beloved BK parents came across the following article in Psychology Today (an article more than 5 years old), and the UK Daily Mail ran an article on the same subject yesterday, I decided perhaps it was time to revisit this issue after refraining for a few months.
Please see my John Taylor Gatto discussion thread where the topic of adolescence was first debated. I decided it might be best to break the topic into its own discussion area, as Gatto has many ideas and is regarded mostly as a polemist (which can stunt discussion, perhaps responsible for the relative lack of interest in that thread).
First, Psychology Today. This isn’t some fringe publication. I had not heard of Robert Epstein prior to seeing the article and you can be sure that I will read at least one of his books within the next month or two. He parallels Gatto in this printed interview to a large degree. It’s comforting to see, and yet perplexing why these ideas continue to behave like fringe ideas (as witnessed by the Daily Mail article)
In this post, I talk about Steve Martin, the comedian. In the mid 50s (1955-58) when he was 10-13 years old, he neglected his studies in favor of working at Disneyland; specifically the magic shop there on Main Street. It was there that he honed many of his entertainment skills and cultivated a love for entertaining. It paid off. My point in bringing him up is because his adolescent period would be impossible in today’s world. The Psychology Today article discusses why.
Since I posted on the subject back in June, I’ve read no less than 17 books over the summer. This was mainly in part to my ailing back problems where I had to ice for hours a day lying prone on the floor. It afforded me the time to read a lot. Many of my reads were about education and education philosophy, and I’ve sure acquired a bit of knowledge from all those pages :yes:
One hundred years ago in the United States, 8 grades of school was considered a decent education. Of adolescents aged 13-17 back in 1913, approximately 89.5% of them were not attending school but were mostly working in some capacity. Back then, a mere 2% of students ever went to college. Was this a problem?
In case you’re tempted to think these were the medieval days in the USA, consider that Einstein’s theory of relativity and his famous equation E=MC2 were well established let alone published. Back then, people could not keep teens out of participating in society and therefore their education years of 6-12 had high expectations. FYI, the proliferation of high school was an effort to give “everyone” a liberal education, and it was met with opposing views: those that favored intellectual cultivation, and those that favored a more practical vocational approach to education. When adding the two together, school became more viable for teens, and slowly more of them began to remain in school longer. Junior high emerged as a compromise between essentialism and utilitarianism as a way of segregating kids into career or intellectual tracks (hence why machine shop was taught in junior high); it was sort of like a mini-high school concept that would succeed given that very few went to high school.
Fast forward one hundred years and we’ve crippled our teens while deeming them incapable if they do not remain in school until “graduation” of high school (which is now a meaningless accomplishment). Those vocational opportunities, especially in middle school, are evaporating in a futile effort to make everyone an intellectual. Meanwhile, with the rise of credentialism, the self-esteem movement, etc, graduation standards at all levels have declined precipitously. The dumbing down of the youth is absolutely apparent among our younger teenagers. This is both an artificial and structural emergence.
In the last century, life decisions, careers, responsibilities and all that’s concomitant have been delayed. Instead of facing these decisions at the age of 13, 14, or even 18 - they are not faced until a decade later in some cases and progressively more towards a decade and a half later!
Also in the meantime, the meme “they’re just a child” referring to a 15 or 16 year old permeates the psyche. This troubles me. It’s not that I trust the current dumbed down youth, but rather I realize it wasn’t always this way and it doesn’t have to be your child.
It’s not that I want to rant on and on about the subject, nor do I want to advocate abolishing schools or speeding up education unnecessarily. Rather, people really ought to rethink the legal, social, and societal standing of the youth. I personally believe that at least the top third cognitively speaking (and perhaps a whole lot more than that) are capable of so much more than is allowed or expected. Early learning is just the beginning of the demonstration of how wide the gap likely is.
The current trend in US society is to postpone adulthood later and later. The UK Daily Mail article is a confirmation of this trend; psychologists have now extended “adolescence” to the age of 25 for clinical purposes. Truth is, in the upper crust of society and perhaps the entire spectrum, many aren’t starting their independent lives (career, family, independence, etc) until they’re near 30 years old. In the not-that-long-ago past, age 30 was the elder of the tribe! Man’s life expectancy wasn’t much longer than 30. Today, we don’t even get started until then.
I, for one, believe this is backwards, and I will not accept it for PokerCub, fait accompli.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts, dissenting or otherwise.
:biggrin:
