grr

[juliet]

13 yr old wanting to go to university

Oh for *fuck's* sake. He's 13, my arse would he "have no problems coping with life at university". And there's plenty of ways to avoid him "stagnating" at secondary school if they stop just pushing the poor kid to take exam after exam. Not to mention the fact that just possibly, if he'd *not* taken A level Maths early, he might have done better than a B.

grRRR. This sort of thing really pisses me off.

Comments

[kitty-goth.livejournal.com]

Quite. My parents pushed hard for the LEA to put me up two years at secondary school. I'm very glad they didn't. I barely coped with my first year at Uni at just-17. At just-16 I think I would have lost it.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I think the 'needing to clear lecturers as non-wrongcocks' angle is just a cover, albeit a good one. Whenever one hears of these prodigies their lives sound indefinably sad - most notably in the case of that kid at Cambridge (iirc) a couple of years ago who ended up fleeing his pushy family and going into hiding.

[mr-tom.livejournal.com]

I think that both he and his parents are a bit confused. As ne fule kno, being an undergrad has bugger all to do with academia, and everything to do with getting the sort of education that you really should be 18 for... :-)

[j4.livejournal.com]

Quite.

I think there should be a lot more focus on actually learning and developing rather than just racing through all the possible qualifications, trying to "finish" them as quickly as possible, trying to tick all the ticky-boxes and then finding yourself at the end of it all saying "Right, er, what's next?" -- hell, I felt like that anyway at the end of my degree. Moo moo moo goal-oriented quackety-bollocks. Likewise university is (or at least should be) more than just a place where you can get the next qualification, and I really don't think a 13-year-old would be likely to benefit as much from the other aspects of university as a 17- or 18-year-old.

I wonder if hsenag would like to comment...? ;-)

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

I know someone who started the International Baccaulaureate program at age 14 and went on to uni at age 16... a good two years ahead of everyone else, and skipping the first-year classes that the IB gave him credit for already.

He got a 2:1 - probably could have done better, but not a bad grade for the amount of effort. Academically the work was not a problem. Socially I don't think he's any worse off than he would have been if he'd been made to keep to the same schedule as anyone else.

I would have loved to be able to go to uni early as I would have been able to move away from home early. This wasn't an available option. Did I benefit from this, in terms of social adjustment? I don't know. I suspect not; my home situation was nothing short of abusive and I did not fit in well with my 'peers' at school, so I was pretty lonely. Leaving home was the best thing I have ever done for myself and if I could go back in time, I would leave sooner even if I stayed in highschool.

I think it is difficult to group children entirely by age group and expect them all to be the same or expect them all to have the same levels of maturity. Different people will naturally grow and mature at different rates, and this is compounded by the fact that different people will have different experiences as well. I have students who cannot grasp concepts that their younger siblings can.

My response to someone so young wanting to go to uni is along the lines of 'Well, why not?' and I think that the 'why not' will vary hugely from person to person.

I do think that for the majority of 13-year-olds uni would probably not be the best option, and that it would set an alarming precedent, and the practical considerations are important.

And there's plenty of ways to avoid him "stagnating" at secondary school if they stop just pushing the poor kid to take exam after exam.

I definitely agree there.

I wonder whether Open University accepts younger applicants? Very little of the teaching is done face-to-face, so the security considerations would be different, I'd think.

Interesting that the article doesn't have any quotes from Adam himself.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

if they stop just pushing the poor kid to take exam after exam

It's not at all clear from the article that he's being pushed to take the exams.

And there's plenty of ways to avoid him "stagnating" at secondary school

Could you suggest some?

But yeah, I find it hard to understand how a 13 year old could deal with being at university full-time. And it does seem silly to go for an exam (that) early if you're not going to get a top grade.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

I think for many people, learning in a structured way is important - both to help with motivation and to avoid leaving major gaps. The qualifications are just the milestones that one aims for during this process. And (rightly or wrongly) they are an essential part of advertising one's abilities in today's society and so generally need to be done sometime - so why not get them out of the way?

The "Right, er, what's next?" question is a good one, but there are answers. For example, having an undergraduate degree at age 18 allows you to do the same things you would have done at age 21, such as doing a postgraduate degree and thus getting the full university experience - you've just saved a few years.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Another article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-775981,00.html)

Looks like his parents are talking about moving near whichever university so he can live with them.

Also, apparently he's hoping to "move up to the top grade this year" for his A-level maths - so he retook some modules, I guess.

[daneel-olivaw.livejournal.com]

...and if he wants to spend three years vomiting in gutters from 18-21, no-one is stopping him. It's the one-size-fits-all mentality to education that's the problem here. I'm guessing that the kid wants to go for a degree, and if so then it's *stupid beyond belief* to put barriers in his way. He can pick up the kind of eductation you're talking about in any number of ways once his body has caught up.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

Could you suggest some?

Music lessons! Sports! Penpals! Lots of fun things!

I had a maths teacher once who did not care if we paid attention in class as long as we did not disrupt his teaching. He didn't make us hand in our homework, either. He said 'do as much as you feel you need to'.

The class was possibly the best-behaved class I have been in. The people who needed to ask questions asked them. The people who didn't, wrote letters or whatever else instead.

It was the first maths class where I ever actually enjoyed the mathematics.... and I was only paying attention for about 20% of each class. That was enough.

There are LOADS of things to do to make school more interesting, without even having to break away from a traditional classroom setting.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

None of that actually helps him progress in academic subjects, though.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

How would you avoid him "stagnating" at an ordinary secondary school?

If I were Adam I'd be thinking "here's my pass out of this hellhole!" But I agree that sending a 13-year-old to Uni would be a Bad Move. There's a case to be made for the state paying for home tuition, but spending all his time at home would also be a Bad Thing. I'm not sure I know what the right answer is.

[reddragdiva]

Yes, he should be cooped up in a classroom for four years of pointless torture.

By crikey, if I had had an opportunity to get the fuck out of school ...

[daneel-olivaw.livejournal.com]

Open's the best thought I've had here. The school has an obligation to house him during termtime until he's 16, so he could remain in an environment surrounded by his peers, but still progress his education. Still not ideal mind, but there is no foolproof solution within the UK system.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

I beg to differ.

Music doesn't help with academic subjects? Nonsense. Music IS an academic subject as far as I am concerned (okay, I am a music teacher, so I am biased), at least as much as English is.

Sports are certainly good for the brain on a few different levels.

Penpals can teach a person a hell of a lot.

Volunteering (left this one out by accident) looks excellent on a CV, if that is what is the concern, and again, a lot is there to be learned.

All of them are still learning, anyway. He's obviously good enough at the academic side of things, but if all he is doing is writing exams I do wonder what the rest of his life is like. I submit that a lot of things which are certainly learning activities could be quite easily done at or through school, and this would enrich his education considerably.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Well, you said "Music lessons", which I interpreted as "learn to play an instrument", rather than "learn music as an academic subject".

The education system (probably rightly) forces us to do a certain amount of sport, music etc already, and efforts should be made to ensure he doesn't miss out on that minimum level if at all possible. But it's not clear to me what the benefit would be of him being pushed into doing more of those things (or any of the other things you describe) if he's not interested - of course, it may be that he is.

I don't know if all he is doing is sitting exams, but there's no evidence to suggest that's the case.

What we *do* know is that he has reached a certain level in a number of academic subjects (a surprisingly broad range, in my opinion, especially if he does get As in all of them), and he wants to progress in them. If forced to remain within the pre-18 education system for those subjects, he will certainly stagnate in them. This seems (to me) to be the point his parents are making.

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Ruth Lawrence got a starred first from Oxford when she was 13. She was home schooled. She seems to have done all right and not turned into a mass murderer or anything. She became a Professor, had a research career, got married and had a kid. See this from the BBC web site

On the other hand, Sufiah Yusof did maths at Oxford when she was 12, but disappeared after her exams when she was 15 because she'd had enough of her parents pushing her. Mentioned here - a report of a study into whether you suffer if you are labelled "gifted".

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

If forced to remain within the pre-18 education system for those subjects, he will certainly stagnate in them.

I think that there is considerable education to be had in academic subjects without ever having to set foot in a university. University is only one route. It is, in many ways, a more convenient route than some others might be, but it is not the only way to learn.

Well, you said "Music lessons", which I interpreted as "learn to play an instrument", rather than "learn music as an academic subject".

What do you define as an academic subject? I think that learning to play a musical instrument is a very academic undertaking in many ways.

[lnr]

Open University is certainly the thing that springs to mind here. And perhaps continuing in school for other lessons than the ones you're being a genious in, though that might be awkward if you end up a target for bullying.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

I think that there is considerable education to be had in academic subjects without ever having to set foot in a university. University is only one route. It is, in many ways, a more convenient route than some others might be, but it is not the only way to learn.

I don't believe that's true for the subject he's expressed an interest in (biochemistry). Certainly there's no other path to the research career that the article in the Times says he's interested in. Of course, what he wants to do might change.

What do you define as an academic subject? I think that learning to play a musical instrument is a very academic undertaking in many ways.

Well, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion anyway, since being forced to study English (say) through lack of an alternative has the potential to be just as pointless/bad as being forced into playing sport or whatever. The point is that he will stagnate in his chosen subject(s).

But I'd base any definition around the set of subjects one can study and take GCSEs/A-levels in at school, and degrees in at university. I don't think you can get a degree (just) in playing the piano, but if you can then I would argue that this was a mistake.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Terminology correction: he's a prodigy, but not (necessarily) a genius. It's quite annoying when the media confuses the two :-)

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

You can get a degree in playing the piano. Several, in fact. You could get a B Mus with a performance major... you could go through the ABRSM (http://www.abrsm.ac.uk) and get an associateship... whether the degree is of any advantage in terms of pursuing a career in music is another argument, of course, but there are certainly recognised academic degrees in music performance (as well as the usual theory, composition, history etc). Yes, for almost all performance degrees you do have to study some theory and history - just as to study computing properly you will need some maths.

In terms of usefulness towards getting a career, a music degree is about as useful as any other university degree. It doesn't guarantee a good job, or good pay, or even a job at all. The bit of paper you get at the end is nearly worthless. There are much better reasons for going to university.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

She seems to have done all right and not turned into a mass murderer or anything. She became a Professor, had a research career, got married and had a kid.

I don't want to go into details because I can't substantiate what I remember hearing with anything concrete, but I don't believe the path to that point was entirely rosy - I could of course be completely wrong about this.

On the other hand, she's now further ahead in her research career than she would have been if she'd waited till 18, and she seems to be pretty happy now.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

There are much better reasons for going to university.

Yeah, like wanting to learn the stuff taught there, which seems to apply to this kid :-)

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I don't think he would do well at university per se - He would probably be very good at answering questions but could he carry out the research and project work side of things? I don't think he could - at 13 I could have handled the level of mathematics and knowledge that my degree now involves, if I had been allowed to learn it that early instead of having to sit and read Seamus Heaney poems 200 times, but I couldn't have run the course of having to think of, set up, and get right a whole experimental study. I don't think the relation of self to world has developed that far by 13. Fifteen maybe, for some, but not thirteen.

They could let him do most of the first two years of the degree now I suppose, but I think he'd learn more from it if he took it when he was older. Unless he took a completely theoretical subject.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

especially if he does get As in all of them

Looks like the BBC's definition of top grades and mine differ: today's article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3150095.stm). No mention of whether he got up to A in Maths, either.

[karen2205]

I sort of agree with this, but would you really think of a university as being an appropriate environment for a thirteen year old? He won't have much contact with his peers/the students aren't going to accept him as 'one of them', because of the age gap - he'd be lonely and miss out on experiences he needs to grow as a person.

I think the best solution would be for him to go to a university near his home *part time* and start on degree level work in whatever subject he wants to do, while continuing to go to school/a sixth form college part of the time - that way he doesn't specialise too early, but gets stretched in the right places and gets to socialise with those of his own age.

Anyway, is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3149789.stm true?

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think it would be an appropriate environment (I said this elsewhere in the thread, I think). I just think that academically university-level study is probably what he needs, and that in the end doing it young is an advantage. The point feanelwa made about experimental work etc being a potential problem needs to be considered carefully, though. I agree that doing it part time is a good solution all round.

I have no idea about the accuracy of most of that article, but the last paragraph is true.

[karen2205]

What's meant by experimental work in this context?

What happened to your maths teaching after the age of nine then? Did you get to go on to uni level study?

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

What's meant by experimental work in this context?

I guess practical researchy type stuff.

What happened to your maths teaching after the age of nine then? Did you get to go on to uni level study?

Yeah, part-time. I got a degree from Surrey when I was 13, while continuing other subjects at school up to age 18 (then went to Oxford and did an MSc and DPhil in Comp Sci).

[karen2205]

You got your first degree at 13!

So what did you do between the ages of 13 and 18?

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

GCSEs and A-levels in other subjects (already having done Maths meant I could do History and Latin for A-levels as well as the obvious sciency Physics and Chemistry, which made for some nice variety).

[karen2205]

Good, now I don't feel quite so inadequate, for only having one degree, four 'A' levels and ten GCSEs:-)

(Only weirdly motivated people do higher degrees:-) (present company excepted))

Has Latin ever proved useful to you? It's the kind of thing I sort of wish I'd had the chance to learn for the joy of learning - but not really something I'd ever be able to pick up in the future.