Youth rights vs. mandatory education

[Ms2001]

@Stonebow

How do you test for this sort of thing?

Which sort of thing - knowing the consequences of their educational choices? Seems like a simple multiple choice or short answer test could address that. No harder than “name three causes of the Civil War” or “describe the long term effects of diabetes”.

Having a way to support themselves? I’m not sure if that needs to be tested. Once the kid knows he will have to support himself if he makes this choice, and he makes the choice anyway, then it’s his responsibility. If a test is required, proof of employment or income should be easy enough to produce.

And once they’ve made their decision, are they allowed to decide later on that it’s too hard and come back home? Or should that be dependent on the parent?

Good question. I’d say let them change their mind within a short time frame… say, a month. After that, it’s up to the parent. What do you think?

My problem with this scenario is that it seems like a formula to produce the sort of
adult I detest- someone that expects me to clean up after them. You are forcing me, as a parent, into a position of either supporting their behavior regardless of my agreement, or else tossing them out.

Now I’m puzzled. What, other than your own personal feelings, would force you to support their behavior if you don’t agree with it? I don’t see how that follows from anything I said.

If you’re just complaining that the choice is between supporting them and not supporting them, well, I can’t help you there. Whenever you can choose to do anything, you’re “forced” to either do it or not do it. Seems better than not having a choice at all, doesn’t it?

Once again, you’ve done nothing to convince any of us that this is a civil rights issue. The very nature of the fact that there is a definite cutoff when everyone graduates from this group argues against that.

You’ve done nothing to convince me that the definite cutoff has any relevance. If it’s OK to discriminate against groups selected by criteria that naturally change over time, how can it not be OK to discriminate against groups selected by criteria that individuals can change voluntarily at any time, like religion?

The group is still oppressed, even if each individual is only in the group for a limited time - the group as a whole isn’t getting any smaller. We’re still talking about one out of every four Americans.

Plus, you’ve not really argued as to why they should have these rights, or want to have these responsibilities, other than your perceived inequity. What benefit to society is it for a child to have the option to opt out of school?

Getting rid of that inequity is the benefit. The same as giving blacks or women the right to vote: can you really point to any way those benefitted society that doesn’t revolve around eliminating inequity?

Look, if you don’t see this as a civil rights issue, I’m sorry. You won’t get it.

I don’t ‘ignore the suffering’ of my kids- but I weigh their temporary suffering against long term hardships. As an adult, i have that sort of perspective.

In other words, you believe your perspective is the only correct one. You believe a little suffering now is worth it for an easier time down the road - but you aren’t the one who should be weighing those options for anyone else. Go ahead and put yourself through all the temporary suffering you want, but let other people set their own priorities.

I just chuckle at statements like you’ve been making, though. Everyone thinks, growing up, that the worst thing that can happen to them is ‘becoming the Man.’ There are a lot worse things. Starvation, homelessness, being forced into menial labor/prostitution, illiteracy, being unable to analyze the massive amounts of date you are exposed to in order to make your way in the industrialized world all beat it out as a bad thing to happen to someone.

There’s a difference between falling into a bad situation and becoming a bad person. One is a problem I can work my way out of, the other is something I might not even recognize as a problem.

If I were hypnotized to think that dog poop tasted like ice cream, I might eat it by the bucketful and live happily ever after, but it’d still be disgraceful, and I’d still be justified in telling my buddies to euthanize me if I ever found myself in such a state. Consider it a living will - and a reminder to stay away from hypnotists.

But if you are the only one that has your fundamental belief, then you need to argue in favor of those first before you propose initiatives based on them. We can point out developmental theory, basic economics, historical examples, and what do you have? Your ‘belief.’ Now, the purity of thought might be attractive to you, but you’ll not convince many that your way is either morally or practically right.

Then so be it. I have no expectation of changing any minds on the SDMB.

[drpepper]

Once the kid knows he will have to support himself if he makes this choice, and he makes the choice anyway, then it’s his responsibility.

I’ve read this entire thread and have been trying to put my finger on just where your somewhat squishy, move-the-goalpost thesis comes apart, and I think it’s right here.

Your whole premise is based on a perception that there is a certain level of attainable maturity which should grant minors all kinds of rights and freedoms. The problem (ok, one problem of many) is that you are missing some very, very fundamental precepts in childhood development.

It has been said before in this thread many times (but I don’t think you fully grasp this) that, cognitively, children are simply not miniature adults, even those that are 18 years old. Fully developed ideas on such abstractions as personal responsibility, liability, consequences, legal ramifications, “sacrifice-now-for-better-stuff-later”, interpersonal skills for getting along with the world at large, and other critical abstract thought processes are simply not present to any meaningful degree in most youngsters until a significant level of guided experience is attained; for some people, it is never attained. (Think of all the adults out there who are incapable of holding a job, maintaining healthy relationships, or staying out of trouble with the law, just to name a few examples). [and yes, I will grant you there are some exceptions to this statement; much, much fewer than you think, though, in my experience]

By thrusting such a choice on a child as “you can choose not to go to school, but it will mean taking full responsibility for yourself”, you may as well be speaking Chinese for all the understanding that will come from the ramifications of that choice. The abstract thought to foresee long-term consequences of this choice is simply not there. I’m sure you disagree with this, but you would be dead wrong and centuries of academia back up this statement.

Also by providing such a choice to people utterly inequipped to make an informed choice which will affect the rest of their lives you are creating a population of sorry-ass people who unfortunately made the wrong choice.

You may also see this as insulting to “responsible kids who can hold a job and make their own way”; however in response I would say that even those kids have worlds and worlds of “real-life learning” before becoming well-rounded, participatory members of society without falling into a blackhole of one misguided decision or bad mistake.

[Ms2001]

@drpepper

It has been said before in this thread many times (but I don’t think you fully grasp this) that, cognitively, children are simply not miniature adults, even those that are 18 years old. Fully developed ideas on such abstractions as personal responsibility, liability, consequences, legal ramifications, “sacrifice-now-for-better-stuff-later”, interpersonal skills for getting along with the world at large, and other critical abstract thought processes are simply not present to any meaningful degree in most youngsters until a significant level of guided experience is attained; for some people, it is never attained.

With all due respect, this is not news. I’m well aware of these facts and I believe I’ve accounted for them in my position.

The point of testing competence is to determine whether those thought processes are present in a given individual. The law currently uses age as a crude measurement, assuming that people over age X have attained whatever brain development and life experience is necessary to provide competence; I believe it should be refined to measure that quality in individuals, rather than making assumptions based on the number of days a person has lived.

Now, if I were suggesting that everyone should be allowed to make educational decisions (or vote, drive a car, etc.), your criticism would be right on target. It would be foolish to assume that every 6 or 16 year old has the same capacity for decision making as most 25 or 40 year olds. That’s why I propose treating them as individuals instead of making assumptions.

If it turns out that every single individual under age 18 is, in fact, utterly inequipped to make informed choices, and everyone over age 18 is equipped to do so, then hey, nothing will change and it’ll be a big waste of time. But I don’t think even the staunchest supporter of age restrictions believes teenagers literally gain that capacity on their 18th birthdays. (Replace “18” with another arbitrary number as necessary.)

The abstract thought to foresee long-term consequences of this choice is simply not there. I’m sure you disagree with this, but you would be dead wrong and centuries of academia back up this statement.

I’m afraid you’re dead wrong in that assumption. I readily admit that such a capacity for abstract thought is lacking in many minors, but unlike some of my opponents, I’m also interested in finding out which minors those are.

Also by providing such a choice to people utterly inequipped to make an informed choice which will affect the rest of their lives you are creating a population of sorry-ass people who unfortunately made the wrong choice.

So let’s separate the “utterly inequipped” individuals from the capable ones, and provide this choice to the latter while withholding it from the former. Crisis averted.

If you don’t believe that’s possible, can you explain why you can’t measure the “equippedness” (competence, maturity, etc.) of an individual, but you can measure the equippedness of an entire group?

[Common_Sense]

[QUOTE=Mr2001]
But I’m not talking about “maturity” in general, I’m talking about the competence to make one’s own decisions about education. “Maturity” is a vague concept, impossible to define in any objective sense, and not something the law should be concerned with. The competence to make a certain decision, like choosing where to go to school, is a lot easier to define.

What does someone need to know in order to make an informed decision about his education?
[ol]
[li]He must know what his choices are. Which public and private schools are available, given his location, budget, and his parents’ willingness to help out (with transportation, tuition, tutoring, etc.)? If he doesn’t attend school, does he have something to do instead that won’t put him in any physical danger?[/li][li]He must know the implications of those choices. How do the curriculum, environment, and opportunities for socialization at a public school differ from other available options? How will his employment and college prospects be affected by a public school diploma vs. a private school diploma vs. a GED vs. no certificate, generally speaking? If he chooses one option now, will he be able to switch later?[/li][li]He must know which choice he wants to make. Has he been coerced into a particular choice? Has he taken all of the above into consideration?[/li][/ol]

Sorry it took me so long to reply; I don’t have much time to post.

Mr. 2001,

It seems you missed the point of my post, which was definitely not the definition of “maturity.” That term was used as a proxy to describe a certain level of competence which you appear to be arguing is readily present in minors.

Let me expound on my point:

The reason we have laws that don’t allow minors to make certain decisions about their own lives is that they (by and large) can’t be trusted to make the right choice, regardless of if they have access to all of the relevent decision-making factors (such as you listed).

I’ll repeat:

Are there certain minors that, given relevant facts, are quite capable of making their own decisons? Absolutely. Is that the case for the population as a whole? Absolutely not.

Again, you proposed devising a test for sorting out people who are and are not capable of making their own life decisions, that would do a better job than the current (admitted imperfect) standard of age. The burden is on you to introduce such a test.

[Ms2001]

@Common Sense

The reason we have laws that don’t allow minors to make certain decisions about their own lives is that they (by and large) can’t be trusted to make the right choice, regardless of if they have access to all of the relevent decision-making factors (such as you listed).
[…]
Again, you proposed devising a test for sorting out people who are and are not capable of making their own life decisions, that would do a better job than the current (admitted imperfect) standard of age. The burden is on you to introduce such a test.

Indeed. I stuck to listing questions of fact in that post because, so far, no one has given me a sufficient idea of what other qualities someone must have in order to make their own decisions. The closest they get is basically “I know it when I see it” or “I know I have it and I know they all don’t”. There can be no test for something that can’t be defined.

Would you like to take a shot at explaining how you know when someone has it?

If no one can define it, I can only conclude that this quality is imaginary, and shouldn’t be considered by the law at all; only the questions of fact are relevant.

[Common_Sense]

@Mr2001

Indeed. I stuck to listing questions of fact in that post because, so far, no one has given me a sufficient idea of what other qualities someone must have in order to make their own decisions. The closest they get is basically “I know it when I see it” or “I know I have it and I know they all don’t”. There can be no test for something that can’t be defined.

Would you like to take a shot at explaining how you know when someone has it?

If no one can define it, I can only conclude that this quality is imaginary, and shouldn’t be considered by the law at all; only the questions of fact are relevant.

You said:

“Indeed. I stuck to listing questions of fact in that post because, so far, no one has given me a sufficient idea of what other qualities someone must have in order to make their own decisions. The closest they get is basically “I know it when I see it” or “I know I have it and I know they all don’t”. There can be no test for something that can’t be defined.”

And

“There can be no test for something that can’t be defined.”

“If no one can define it, I can only conclude that this quality is imaginary, and shouldn’t be considered by the law at all; only the questions of fact are relevant.”

sigh

Look:

I have explained my position clearly.

I am fully willing to listen and even be persuaded if you are suggesting some specific test that would be a better standard of competence than age. I really am.

But if you are looking to argue that age is not, on average, an accurate gauge of one’s ability to make one’s own decisions, then you are simply bordering on the ridiculous, and I will no longer respond; I would rather argue over the roundness of the Earth.

[Ms2001]

@Common Sense

I am fully willing to listen and even be persuaded if you are suggesting some specific test that would be a better standard of competence than age. I really am.

Well, let’s start with the questions of fact I listed earlier. Let’s say that’s my specific test. You apparently don’t think it’s sufficient; you think it fails to measure some other aspect of competent decision making (am I right so far?). Shall we discuss what that aspect is and how we can decide whether someone has it, or are you asking me to propose test after test after test until you say “yup, that one sounds right”?

But if you are looking to argue that age is not, on average, an accurate gauge of one’s ability to make one’s own decisions, then you are simply bordering on the ridiculous, and I will no longer respond; I would rather argue over the roundness of the Earth.

That is not what I’m saying.

Age is, on average, a fine gauge of one’s ability to make various decisions, but “on average” is not good enough to limit someone’s rights.

[Common_Sense]

@Mr2001

Well, let’s start with the questions of fact I listed earlier. Let’s say that’s my specific test. You apparently don’t think it’s sufficient; you think it fails to measure some other aspect of competent decision making (am I right so far?). Shall we discuss what that aspect is and how we can decide whether someone has it, or are you asking me to propose test after test after test until you say “yup, that one sounds right”?
That is not what I’m saying.

Age is, on average, a fine gauge of one’s ability to make various decisions, but “on average” is not good enough to limit someone’s rights.

But you never gave a test that would measure decision-making prowess…your “test” was simply to give the minor all the decision-making criteria that should be examined in making a rational decision, when RATIONAL DECISON-MAKING CAPABILITY IS EXACTLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE.

The question I am raising is how you would create a test that is a better measuring-stick than age (as unperfect as it is) to measure the ABILITY TO MAKE GOOD LIFE DECISIONS.

Being young myself, I am not totally unsympathetic to your view, and could be persuaded. But you must answer on topic first.

[Ms2001]

@Common Sense

But you never gave a test that would measure decision-making prowess…your “test” was simply to give the minor all the decision-making criteria that should be examined in making a rational decision, when RATIONAL DECISON-MAKING CAPABILITY IS EXACTLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE.

Suppose I say that “rational decision-making capability” must be imaginary because no one here has given any indication that they can tell the difference between people who have it and people who don’t. In that case, the questions of fact I listed are all that’s needed to decide whether someone can make a competent decision. How do you show that “rational decision-making capability” actually exists?

Or suppose I say the best way to test “rational decision-making capability” is to look at someone’s hair. People with brown or black hair are great at making rational decisions; people with red or blonde hair are not so great; people with grey or white hair are somewhere in between. That would obviously be inaccurate… or would it? How would you prove otherwise?

Look, I know this must be as frustrating for you as it is for me, but do you see what I’m getting at here? You want me to come up with a test for something, but none of us seems to know what it is, so even if I come up with the perfect test, how will any of us recognize it?