Yes, exactly. In practice, of course, I’d expect a lot of 13-17 year olds to pass it, and few 7 year olds, if any.
But if minors really are as incapable as so many people here seem to think, it wouldn’t have to be very elaborate at all, would it? Someone so obviously incompetent should be easy to spot.
Well, that’s more or less the first point I’m hoping to reach some agreement on: it’s wrong to discriminate against someone because of his age, if he’s otherwise capable. That’s the first step - realizing that the current system is flawed.
Second step: figure out exactly what age is standing in for. When we say “you aren’t mature enough to do this yet”, what exactly does that mean? If we’re talking about driving, being “mature enough” could involve a completely different set of skills, knowledge, and experience from, say, voting. In this case, we must determine what exactly makes someone “mature enough” to control his own education.
Third step: come up with a reasonable way to test whether an individual has whatever skills, knowledge, or experience we’ve decided he needs to be “mature enough” for various situations.
Fourth step: come up with a way to implement the previous step’s tests into law, considering the implications this will have for people of all ages who are used to the current system, the complexity of tracking who has passed which tests, etc.
You’d be surprised how much disagreement there was on that point. Why don’t you read the thread yourself?
Well, obviously I think the opposite… not much more I can say about that. But we’re still talking about education, I hope. Do you think the age that kids can drop out of school should be raised to 18 in states where it’s lower?
Why would that be worse? Do you think a test designed to assess this particular form of competence would be less accurate than an age limit you admit is imprecise, or is it just that disenfranchising a competent 30 year old is less offensive to you than disenfranchising a competent 17 year old?
That’s a strange definition of fair: it’s OK to discriminate against someone as long as you don’t do it forever.
Let me put it this way: suppose the law is changed so that everyone over 50 is denied certain rights that everyone else enjoys. Is that fair? After all, there’s no “unless you die” here - anyone who reaches age 50 has already been under 50 for his whole life, so we know everyone will be allowed to exercise these rights at some point. Everyone who lives long enough will be
Unable to decide your own fate, huh? Hmm… sounds like a certain group who’s the subject of a certain thread.
But seriously, yes, you’re right. If the wrong criteria are chosen, a lot of people who thought they were adults will suddenly find out what it’s like to be a kid again. That’s terrible, but what it says to me is not “Oh god, we better stick with the flawed system we have now”, but “Whoever’s on that committee is going to be under a lot of pressure.” Congress isn’t going to pass a bill that takes the vote away from most of their constituents; I’d worry about the criteria being too loose, not too restrictive.
I believe I’ve answered this above… let me know if not.
Greater, I would hope.
Well, a specific definition would depend on exactly which choice we’re talking about (still education, I hope) and what criteria we’ve come up with to decide if someone is competent to make it. I can post my thoughts on what those criteria should be, but frankly I was hoping to hear some suggestions from others - I can’t believe I’ve thought more about the meaning of maturity than the rest of the great minds on the SDMB.
I don’t think you’re the first one to bring up “fighting the system”, but I don’t know why. I sure never mentioned it as a motivation.
What I’m saying is that if you put good people in a bad situation, some of them will do bad things - not because they turn into subversive freedom fighters, but because they’re trying to make their lives easier in the short term. I don’t think most cheaters are thinking of how impressive that high school diploma will look to employers or college admission boards; they just think getting grades they don’t deserve will cause them less hassle than leaving school, or showing up but ignoring their assignments.
I was a participant in that thread, sometimes even answering your posts. But maybe you didn’t read that thread yourself.
My point was that if all you claimed was that plagiarism doesn’t automatically make you a bad person, I don’t think anyone would argue, in those terms. This is simply overstating the opposite case: you claim that cheating doesn’t mean you’re an evil, permanently warped person (to overstate it even more) or doesn’t make you a murderer, or some stupid shit like that, and then you solicit all sorts of patronizing “OK, it’s true, plagiarism doesn’t equal murder and I never said it did but it’s still bad…” Start with “it’s still bad” and you don’t get the time-consuming diversion and everyone’s happier.
But I guess it soothes you to make people assert that plagiarism isn’t an act that necessarily and irrevocably destroys one’s character. Very tedious.
It seems to me that arbitrary age “prejudice” as you call it is all over our society–or would you do away with residency requirements for citizenship (“Hey, some immigrants are perfect citizens as soon as they get off the boat, and others never get to be good citizens–so why do we require them to live here for two years before they’re eligible for a citizenship”) or age-requirements for holding office, or even prison sentences (“Some prisoners are truly remorseful before they’re in jail for a week, while others never feel remorse, so why do we base their release simply on the length of time they’ve been in jail? That’s not fair.”)
I’m starting to think that opening this discussion is a strong sign that you lack the maturity you’re claiming. Maybe our elaborate maturity test should just be “Do you think Mr. 2001 makes a lot of sense?” If you answer “Yes,” you get sent back to school.
Ah, so you were. My mistake. Perhaps you skimmed over the bits where people argued exactly the points you think no one would argue - but in any case, that’s something to discuss over there, not here.
Yes, age discrimination is everywhere, and I think the age restrictions for holding office should be eliminated as well. I have no problem with the other things you mentioned, since they aren’t age restrictions, but feel free to start your own thread about prison sentencing or citizenship requirements.
Gee, a personal insult in Great Debates. What a fine way to prove your own maturity!
Maybe later you’ll feel like addressing the rest of my post and actually adding something to the discussion.
I apologize for any personal insult contained in my previous post. I was striving to note the irony that your point (not you) seemed overly simplistic and appealing to just the kind of immature mind that you were claiming your testing is meant to find. But it was close to the edge, and if I feel inclined to Pit you, I should take it to the Pit.
I don’t think my points about sentencing or citizenship are irrelevant to your topic: they’re right on the money, because if teenagers are entitled to have their maturity tested to exempt them from legal restrictions on a case-by-case basis, why wouldn’t prisoners or immigrants make similar claims that they were being deprived of their rights by arbitrary time restrictions? I think they would, and I think they’d have a stronger case than teenaged slackers demanding their “rights.”
The law is often arbitrary, because the alternative to arbitrary is “really unfair.” 18 means 18 for everyone, and 16 means 16. If you had to mount a legal case that you were mature beyond your years, wouldn’t that simply privilege rich teenagers capable of paying lawyers to present elaborate demonstrations of their maturity? What would exceptionally mature but impoverished kids do? Suck it up? And that’s not unfair?
I think that what a lot of us are seeing (and you are not) is that so many of these items that you are striving for ‘equality’ with is that they are all very much intermingled. It’s hard to discuss whether someone can drop out of school at 7 and then not discuss labor laws and child exploitation. Of course, we then can look at things like age of consent, legal (both civil and criminal) liability, etc. Plus, aside from ‘society’ we have to talk about parental responsibility and authority.
Or, we can stick with an admittedly flawed system- but one that will almost always err on the side of protecting minors from predatory adults. And never discount the possibility that predatory adults will be the ones writing these tests you’d like to see implemented. If I like the idea of having sex with little girls, you can bet that any pretty young things that appear before me for ‘clearance’ to engage in sexual relationships will pass. If I run a factory, you can bet that any kid that shows up wanting to get out from the ‘oppression’ of school will find a sympathetic ear.
The current system is fairly arbitrary- but it’s very hard to move the goalposts the way it is set up now.
btw- **yosemite ** and I are not mis-remembering the previous thread. Our conclusion of your position logically follows every argument that you made in that thread. If a child has a list of enumerated ‘rights’ that their parents can not infringe upon, but they must still foot the bill for the consequences of those actions, that’s unfair. Thing is, I also remember you downplaying the importance of the parental role of feeding, clothing, and sheltering their child- a position most parents would disagree with.
Successful in reducing the number of accidents and dead kids - and being dead is something hard to grow out of. Yes, many, if not most, kids would not get into accidents or be distracted.
The difference is that a 22 year old and a 45 year old (and most 18 year olds) are the same develomentally. People do better with experience, yes, but that is a different dimension. There are lots of things you can expose kids to which they won’t get good at until they are developmentally ready.
There is another implication of lowering the age of adulthood. In my town I discovered, to my shock, that it is quite common for parents to toss a kid out of the house when he turns 18, even if he is still in high school. If you lower the age of adulthood to below 18, there will be some kids who can legally be turned out. Not allowing this makes a parent responsible for debts which kids are allowed to run up, etc. If a parent is forced to support a child, it is only reasonable for a parent to have the ability to prevent a child from getting into debt, etc.
Maturity has many dimensions. Schools do allow kids who can and have done all their high school work at younger ages graduate and go to college, but these same kids might not be ready to make it on their own. I really doubt that there is any test possible that covers all these aspects. The kids on restrictive licenses have all passed the same road test that adults take. That test cannot measure the ability to resist temptation and distraction from friends. I don’t know what test could. Sure, some 16 years old don’t need restrictions and some 20 year olds probably do, but there is no way of telling that. The system is a feasible, cheap to implement, compromise that has saved lives.
There are still important differences - the biggest, IMO, is that you can’t choose when you’re born, but you can choose when you apply for citizenship or commit a crime.
If there’s a 2 year residency requirement to become a citizen, and you want to be a citizen in 2007, then you can move in 2005. If there’s a 5 year sentence for shoplifting, and you want to be a free man by 2011, you can do your shoplifting before 2006 - or better yet, not at all. OTOH, the day you were born is something you have no control over, just like your ethnicity.
That’s a great reason to have the tests done somewhere other than a courtroom, some time other than during a trial. Rich kids have to wait in line at the DMV just like poor kids; this should be the same.
Yes, they are. And yes, I do see it - I’m just trying not to turn this into another endless, boundless youth rights thread.
Naturally, if someone can drop out of school at age 12, and then his parents can kick him out of the house, he needs to be able to support himself. That will involve getting a job and signing contracts with a landlord, utility company, etc. So I see three possibilities: (1) no one can choose his own education until he’s deemed competent to work and sign contracts, (2) anyone deemed competent to choose his own education is automatically allowed to work and sign contracts, or (3) anyone who is competent to choose his own education, but not to work or sign contracts, is supported by the state if he leaves school. I wouldn’t mind paying taxes to support those kids, but I suppose most people would, so #3 is probably out.
As I hope I’ve made clear, I would rather err on the side of allowing minors to make their own choices.
An interesting point. I’m afraid I don’t see either of those possibilities as big problems–if someone comes to you asking for rights, it’s best to err on the side of giving them those rights–but looking at it the other way, I can share your concern: if you think sex before marriage is immoral, no unmarried teenager who stands before you is going to get a fair chance. If you run a school, no kid who shows up wanting to get out of school is going to find a sympathetic ear.
But that’s not a fatal flaw. It just means the tests must be written so they can be evaluated objectively, written and approved (and possibly evaluated) by a panel instead of a single person, and there must be a process for appeal.
Every argument except the ones I made against that specific claim, you mean?
Look, it’s quite possible that I may have given you the wrong impression at some point. I’m not the best writer here, and my desire not to have my posts sound like technical manuals often causes me to leave things implied that should really be made explicit, or skip over points that I think I’ve already made.
But IIRC, every time someone made the claim you’re talking about, I pointed out that it was wrong and explained how it could not happen. Rights come with responsibilities, parental obligations decrease as kids’ rights increase, etc. If you base your criticism on a misunderstanding of my position, and ignore my attempts to clarify it, that’s dishonest.
The past is the past, though. Whether it’s the same position I’ve always had, as I believe, or a change in position, as you believe, what I’m saying now is I agree parents shouldn’t foot the bill for the direct consequences of their kids exercising rights the parents are not allowed to violate, and I am willing to change my proposals to ensure that can’t happen.
Do you have any statistics? I wonder just how significant the improvement is. I haven’t been able to find any for my own state.
Seems irrelevant to me. What matters is how well they can make decisions, not what’s going on in their brains that causes them to make those decisions - the results, not the process. They could have a rubber chew toy inside their heads for all I care; what matters is whether they can show themselves to be competent.
It is different, but are you saying it’s less important?
No offense, but this really sounds like an excuse. First you say younger people should be restricted because they aren’t as capable of making decisions; now you say it only matters when that lack of capability is caused by one specific thing. Seems like an awfully convenient way to avoid applying the same logic to people who are closer to your own age.
All this does is change the question from “how capable is capable enough” to “how developed is developed enough”. Do you think that’s easier to answer? IMO it’s just as difficult, and has the added disadvantage that it focuses on process instead of results.
Agreed.
That’s why I treat them separately (but see above for my thoughts on rights that depend on each other).
Someone who’s ready to leave school may not be ready to drive a car. Someone who’s ready to work may not be ready to vote. It seems ridiculous to me that someone should only be able to have all these rights, or none of them - but that’s exactly what happens with many of them. The first day you’re allowed to vote is also the first day you’re allowed to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets, or lease an apartment, or (in some states) have sex.
In that case, why do you think teenagers are any less likely to resist it than adults… or is that not what you mean?
You can’t say “group X is better than group Y at activity A” if you have no way to determine who’s good or bad at that activity. If you claim teenagers are more easily distracted, you must have some way to measure how easily someone is distracted.
To expand on this a little… the purpose of timed prison sentences and residency requirements (and various other legal time limits) is a subject for another thread, so I won’t argue about whether those time limits are necessary or arbitrary.
As a rational person, arbitrary limits of any sort do bother me a little bit when there’s no need for them, but not nearly as much as discrimination and prejudice based on factors beyond the victim’s control. That’s the key issue for me: when you’re treated as a second class citizen because of something that isn’t directly related to what you want to do, something that you have no control over, that’s unacceptable. That’s the common thread that links sexism, racism, and ageism, but not the length of prison sentences or residency requirements.
You’re right. I appreciate pseudotriton ruber ruber’s contributions to the thread, but calling me immature for starting it isn’t one of them.
I realize you want to talk solely about education, but I don’t think it’s possible to do so in a meaningful fashion. The concept of rights and responsibilities is contextual; you can’t consider one aspect of a complex system like this without considering the effect on others. And no, I don’t propose to lower the age at which kids can drop out of school; I’m talking about the concept of legal self-responsibility in a larger sense, which is regulated by both states and the federal government. Individual states can and do set portions of this at different ages, and that’s fine.
Way to miss the entire point. Yes, I think it would be less accurate, and less fair. I think you reversed the ages in your example, by the way.
And you failed to address the societal burden of devising and administering these tests. I work in the corporate world, and we pay a lot of attention to Return On Investment, or ROI. Or, as the VP of our unit likes to say, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”
No, it’s a pretty good definition of fair.
From Merriam-Webster online:
Fair
6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>
…
FAIR implies an elimination of one’s own feelings, prejudices, and desires so as to achieve a proper balance of conflicting interests <a fair decision>
It’s an impartial rule, applied without subjectivity. Everyone is given a chance to meet the conditions, and there is no way that I can prevent you from achieving the qualifying condition. Unlike the testing proposal you offer, where I must trust a standards-setting body to, for example, not include a “moral grounding” clause that requires me to testify that I have some form of religious faith.
Yes, it would be fair, assuming that there was some logical basis for this act. It may not be popular, and I certainly wouldn’t like it, but it would be fair.
Boy howdy, are you idealistic. Do we live in the same United States? From my perspective, Congresspersons have an incentive to take the vote away from the portion of their constituency that didn’t vote for them, as it increases their chances of re-election.
You do realize that what you are proposing is not too dissimilar to Jim Crow laws, right? Making the right to vote, or to make decisions about when you must attend school, based on qualifications you must demonstrate sounds familiar, and disquieting.
I’d rather not have to hope. The current system gives me and every 15-, 16- and 17-year old an ironclad certainty that the necessity for schooling and the advent of the ability to legally vote, enter into contracts and all the rest comes at age 18. No testing required.
This is a key point. Why is it that, despite the unlikelihood of you being the only one to have thought about the issue, you’re in the distinct minority? Could it perhaps be that there are some merits to the arguments against your position?
Okay, so you’re not suggesting that the kids who are cheating are doing it to fight back against an oppressive system. That doesn’t improve the situation.
You don’t think most cheaters are thinking of how to get things without working for them; I do. And so do most of the others posting in this thread and the other one. Can you support your position in some way that is more convincing than saying “I think”?
In the first place, the subject has nothing to do with lack of respect for younger people. The present system has to do with a feeling of responsibility to the young; love for the young and a desire to allow them to grow into mature adults.
Arguing that you are more concerned with the interests of young people, just because you are closer to their age only sounds good, at first glance. You have stated that you felt you were judged on age and not on your abilities. That says that you are too close to make an unbiased judgement. You say that I’m too old to remember what it is like to be young, which is not true. However, using your argument the change in circumstance that will change your beliefs will come when you become a parent. That is when you will be able to understand both sides of the subject.
Golly dern, the parents have something to say about the admission of a student and so does the school. After that week of being a visiting student could it be possible that the school might say “you watched TV or played games too much.”?
And the application asks for credit card information. Whose card might that be?
In other words Sudbury gives children freedom of choice under controlled conditions, which I don’t believe conforms to your argument.
[sup]Don’t tell me you don’t want to have children because of the way they are treated, either.[/sup]
Actually, I understand your position on this point. However, i do believe that, due to the interconnection among rights, your position is untenable as a matter of policy. Perhaps the communication failure is on my part- I understand your sliding scale of rights/responsibility, but I don’t think that in the real world this works with most rights.
Any right you grant a young person is automatically trumped by the withdrawal of material support by their parents. However, if you remove the parent’s ability to use this as leverage, then you have a system in which there is no effective check on children’s behavior, with the parents footing the bill. Or, I suppose you could push the bill onto the taxpayers, but I don’t think that will ever happen.
I also think that you are being somewhat dishonest in that you keep framing your arguments with a 17-year old as your example, even though you advocate no lower limit to being ‘emancipated.’ I’m sure that we can all think of mature 17 year olds…but what do you do when a 10 year old passes your test? And wouldn’t a mature 17 year old be understanding enough to know that their one more year of ‘oppression’ also ensures the safety of their peers, as well as younger children, from predatory adults?
Is giving basic human rights to a group that’s been the victim of discrimination for hundreds of years worth the burden of devising and administering these tests? I say yes, unless that burden turns out to be far, far more than I expect. Let’s say, over $500 million annually.
It’s objective, that’s for sure, but I don’t think I’d call it impartial. It still only burdens a subset of the population, who have nothing more in common than a factor beyond their control. IMO the fact that people are constantly moving out of that subset (and new people being born into it) doesn’t make it any more right. I doubt we will reach an agreement on this point.
Don’t worry, the First Amendment would still be in effect.
Well, at least you’re consistent.
A little bit, I suppose. It’s still worth it, in my opinion.
It also gives them the ironclad certainty that they won’t be able to do any of that before age 18. There’s something to be said for the guarantees of a fixed schedule, but in this case I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
At this point, it seems more likely that I really am the only one to have thought about it this much.
No one else seems to have any suggestions as to what qualities age is standing in for - who else has even tried to define the competence to make one’s own decisions, regarding education or any of the other issues I’ve debated in the past, as anything more specific than “something mysterious and unmeasurable that most people have by age X”?
Nope, sorry. At least that puts me in good company.
Ah yes. We care so much for you that we’re going to tell you what to say and what to do for the next couple decades. We hurt because we love.
Or maybe I’d be so blinded by the natural drive to protect one’s offspring at all costs that I’d only be able to understand one side–the other side. New beliefs, obtained by a change in circumstances, aren’t necessarily any better than the old beliefs they replace.
That would contradict most of the school’s policies and principles, especially the first sentence on the page you quoted, “Sudbury Valley has a policy of open admissions, accepting all applicants who have the capacity for full participation in the school’s program as self-directed, autonomous members of the school’s community.”
Other schools based on the same model have similar policies: “Greenwood has a policy of open admissions, accepting all applicants ages 5 through 19. An admissions interview gives applicants and their families an opportunity to learn more about the school.”
Self direction means students choose how to spend their time, not staff members. I encourage you to read the FAQ (more of an interview, actually), if you haven’t already. If they were likely to kick kids out for spending too much time with video games, why would they have a video game area, and why wouldn’t they say anything about an enforced schedule anywhere else on their site?
Obviously, places like SVS have to operate in the context of the laws we have today, which is why students need parental consent to change schools and why they don’t have their own credit cards (though SVS will also accept a check, and minors can have checking accounts).
I’m still not sure what you’re trying to prove, though. Sure, the application process depends on parties other than the student, but once someone is enrolled, they spend their days at school pursuing whatever they feel interested in. I brought up SVS to show that a strict schedule of lecture and assignments, as found in a typical public school, isn’t necessary for learning - kids who don’t sit in classrooms all day, listening to teachers and doing schoolwork, can still pick up just as much knowledge, and it’ll be about things they have a passion for.
Why not?
I’ve seen how parents think and act (look at how many complaints about TV and movies start out, “how am I supposed to explain to my kid…”), and I don’t want that to happen to me. I’d feel slightly more willing to have kids if they were going to grow up in a world that respected them as people, though.
Trumped in whose eyes? Don’t you think there are young people who’d willingly give up material support from their parents in exchange for rights? I mean, that’s how it works for everyone at age 18 today, and some young people feel that’s too late.
Indeed. That’s why I haven’t proposed doing that.
Dishonest? Eh, I don’t think so. It is intentional, though, first because 17 year olds are the ones most affected by laws that set an age limit at 18, and second because it makes things smoother: when I talk about mature 17 year olds, people nod and think “sure, I guess there are some of those,” and then we can talk about what those mature 17 year olds should be able to do.
If I talk about mature 12 year olds, people say “hey wait, what mature 12 year olds?!” And then I have to explain how it’s a hypothetical person, and even if I haven’t met any 12 year olds who I’d pass, I don’t want to set the limit at 13 because of various reasons, most importantly because I haven’t met every 12 year old in the world. That’s a distraction.
If I don’t use an age in examples at all, I sound like a math textbook. “Let M(q) be the age at which a child q is mature, and let L be the age at which children are legally considered adults. Let C be a child of age X. If M(C) <= X < L, the unfairness of this situation, U, may be determined as follows…”
You call him a mature 10 year old. If you don’t think he should’ve passed, then you ask yourself what makes him so much less mature than the 17 year old who just passed, and then you look at your test to figure out why it wasn’t measuring that aspect of maturity.
You’re not the first one to ask a question like that, but it’s always amusing. “I know you think everyone should be judged by their capabilities as individuals rather than the day they were born, and if someone demonstrates their competence, we should treat them as competent, no matter how old they are… but what if they’re only X years old? :eek:”
As if I’m just going to say, “Oh my god, you’re right. Every time I wrote ‘no matter how old they are’, it was just a typo for ‘as long as they’re Y years old or older’. I can’t believe my spellchecker didn’t catch that.”
Only if he believes such ‘oppression’ is necessary to ensure that safety. Believing there are better ways to do it, or that being treated as a human being is worth the risk, doesn’t make him immature. (And besides, wouldn’t a mature 17 year old care enough about his peers’ freedom of choice to know that the age limit at 18 will continue to hurt people younger than him, even though he’ll only be personally affected for one more year?)
You might ask the same thing about any measure that’s purported to keep people safe, really. Even if I’m convinced that keeping people indoors after 9:00 PM reduces crime, I wouldn’t agree to a curfew in my town, because I believe there are better ways to reduce crime, and the freedom to walk around outside at night is worth the additional risk of crime anyway. That doesn’t mean I’m not understanding enough, it just means I have different priorities.
Assuming that you’re engaging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, I will tilt once again at the windmill. I’ve previously offered a perspective of the basis for mature decision-making – you may recall our exchange on whether or not it’s a good idea to spend $6 on fast food. I’ve also offered a set of items for which age is a reasonably good proxy (physical maturity, experience and perspective), which together form the basis of the ability to make good decisions. As you yourself have admitted, this ability is not present in small children, and usually present in people over the age of 18 (although you maintain that it’s present sooner in many cases, and that setting an age limit disenfranchises some people unfairly).
If you really think you’re the only one thinking about the issue, we can probably end the discussion.
Ha ha. Unfortunately, you’re the one trying to make a case, so the burden of proof falls on you.
This is once again not helping your cause. Stick to arguing substantive points in a reasonable fashion, please.
You do realize that this is an inaccurate characterization of the case against your argument, right? And that debating in this fashion is not likely to win people over?
I note that the school requires parents or guardians to attend the interview. I also note that they are accepting only those applicants with “the capacity for full participation in the school’s program.” One wonders how they measure that capacity.
As an aside, I should say that Sudbury sounds like a great experience but a terrible school.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. YMMV.
I’m finding the elusiveness of your point to be really annoying. kniz brought this up to point out that Sudbury is not an example of what you said you want, which is the ability for kids to make their own decisions about school. Sudbury lets kids make their own decisions IN school, which is quite different.
If you want to convince people of a point, pick one and stick to it.
So you’re unwilling to consider any evidence that your hypothetical testing process could be flawed? The reason to consider the case of the 10-year old passing is to determine just that. When you are doing test or survey design, you need to consider the limitations of the testing instrument. If your bathroom scale tells you that you weigh 900 pounds, do you consider for a moment that the scale might be flawed or broken, or do you shrug and go buy bigger pants?
But placing his or her personal convenience above the welfare of others is a sign of immaturity. And pretending that the desire for personal freedom is instead a high-minded concern for one’s fellow disenfranchisees is as well.
Mr2001-
I see that this is gonig the same route as some of the previous ‘child freedoms’ threads.
I can only echo what has been said before. A system that allowed for the very young be emancipated will be less fair that what we have now, imperfect as it is. Freedom is a noble goal- but it is not the only goal of a civilized society.
I think that you are getting too caught up in the rhetoric of ‘civil rights,’ and don’t understand that we are just not buying the idea that children = blacks = women for the purposes of this debate.
A paternalistic system is a bad system- but that’s because you treat grown people the way you’d treat children. It is entirely appropriate when the people you’re dealing with are, in fact, children.
If you can’t understand that, and can’t bring out any new arguments, I don’t think there is much more I can add.
The advent of teenagers in the last century can be correlated with compulsory school attendance. So, it’s kinda fishy to use the abberant behaviour of teenagers as evidence that we need to continue to force them to attend school.
Interesting hypothesis. I’m almost tempted to call up a local highschool and ask them what would happen if they had a student with perfect attendance, no disciplinary problems, that simply stopped doing their school work. For some reason, I don’t think they’d just sit back and put F or 0 on the blank sheets of paper the student was turning in.
No, they’d almost certainly have the kid tested for learning disabilities and recommend some sort of counselling to get to the bottom of their I-won’t-work attitude. I knew people like this, and that’s exactly what happened to them. But I’m pretty confident that the student would not actually be punished (no one I knew ever was), unless perhaps they attended a strict private school. Public schools sure weren’t wasting their time disciplining non-disruptive students with perfect attendance back when I was in school, which wasn’t all that long ago.
As has been pointed out this means that your “new belief” isn’t necessarily better than the one you wish to replace. Setting that fact aside, proposing a new idea without knowledge of both sides makes no sense. This is especially true when the new proposal is based on a personal grievance. To do that would be immature.
Yes, I remember, and thank you for doing that much. However, those are still vague terms that could use some clarification. I’m hoping we can work out some objective definitions.
Physical maturity - exactly which age-related changes are we looking for? Onset of puberty, presence of various hormones, development or change of certain brain structures…?
Experience - doing what, and for how long (or until what goal is reached)?
Perspective - does this even have a solid definition in terms of deciding whether someone has it? Seems to me that if I say someone is seeing things in the proper perspective, that just means his priorities are the same as mine. Purely a subjective measurement, and one that supposes my priorities are correct.
Sorry you misunderstood that remark, but I stand by it. It wasn’t an attempt to characterize the pro-age-restriction argument at all; I was addressing the claim that having kids would make me see the light.
The new parent who now believes minors should face legal restrictions is no more correct than the new car owner who now believes his town should have more gas stations and fewer crosswalks, or the lottery winner who now believes millionaires pay too much income tax.
Indeed. I suspect they’re referring to medical conditions and obvious social disorders, but I’m composing an email to SVS right now, so hopefully soon we’ll all have some solid answers about their admission policies.
Well, the school’s been operating for decades, and several others have sprung up using the same model. I haven’t heard of any plague of illiterate adults emanating from Massachusetts who only know how to play video games and watch TV. There are a few books describing some students’ lives once they left SVS; I wonder if the same information is available online somewhere.
I thought it was clear from the OP, and my response to kniz, that I only brought up SVS to show that kids don’t need a school environment to learn… and therefore, society won’t collapse if they aren’t forced to attend. Sudbury Valley School may have “school” in its name, but what really happens there that couldn’t happen at any other well-equipped facility where kids can congregate? Their formula seems to be Kids + Resources + Freedom + Trust = Education, and even kids who don’t attend school can fit into that equation.
I answered this in the paragraph before the one you just quoted:
If you don’t think [a 10 year old] should’ve passed, then you ask yourself what makes him so much less mature than the 17 year old who just passed, and then you look at your test to figure out why it wasn’t measuring that aspect of maturity.
Considering the limitations of the testing instrument is exactly what I was talking about! If your bathroom scale tells you that you weigh 900 pounds, you don’t just give up and say it’s impossible to weigh yourself because no scale can ever work correctly. The concept of measuring your body’s mass by standing on a plate is still sound; the flaw is in the particular scale you’re using, and if you repair it, it’ll work fine.
You’re painting with an awfully wide brush there. Driving a car creates pollution and the potential for accidents; if you drive when you could walk instead, you’re putting your personal convenience above the welfare of others. You believe the risk to others is low enough, or the convenience is great enough, that the good outweighs the bad.
So, what, no member of any group that’s the victim of discrimination can ever truly be concerned for his peers - blacks who fought against racism and women who fought against sexism were acting out of nothing but individual self-interest? Or does this somehow only apply to minors?
Of course I understand. If you were buying it, you’d be agreeing with me.
I’m just trying to point out why you should - because there are so many parallels. So far, the most convincing reason anyone has provided for treating age differently than sex is that your age changes over time. I
That’s superficially true, but in effect, it begs the question. It presumes that all children should be treated the same, and that the way you have in mind is the right way to treat them.
You could just as easily say “it’s entirely appropriate to treat cars the way you’d treat cars”, but if you’re putting sugar in the gas tank instead of gas, you shouldn’t be advising anyone on how to treat their car. You also don’t treat a Civic the way you treat a Formula One racer, so “the way you’d treat cars” had better include some discretion based on the individual car you’re treating.
Furthermore, you’d better make sure you know how to recognize a car in the first place. If you put gasoline in everything with four wheels, you’d better stay away from open flames the next time you put on your roller skates. And if you treat everyone under 18 as if they’re incapable of making their own decisions, don’t expect the results to be any better.
