Newt Gingrich: Let's End Adolescence

[Masquerouge]

Yay, a solid response.

But I'm not quite onboard with your description of pre-20thcentury parenting. (Sidenote, I don't suppose you could point me at a link with some child mortality/family size historical data?)

Here is some data for the United States, 1800-1990. Will give your neck a nice workout

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5842&page=232

To sum it up:
1800 fertility rate, 7.04,
1850 fertility rate 5.04, infant mortality rate 217 per 1,000,
1990 fertility rate 1.96, mortality rate 7.6

The story is pretty much the same in all Western countries. That's what we were taught in school: Lots of kids, lots of death, so slow growth, then beginning in the 19th century lots of kids, but less death, so population explosion, and now no kids, and no deaths, so no growth again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
(Very cool article if you're not familiar with DTM)

Because I think that society treasures not only children but human life in general a lot more over the past century or two. That doesn't mean that children can't be treasured just as much by parents (or society) nowadays even with legal majority lowered - perhaps the opposite, "children" will refer to humans that aren't bigger than us, smarter than us, and a lot more pissed off than us and legitimately in need of protection from society.

Ok, I can go with life being more treasured, not just kid's lives, but IMO the most drastic changes happened for kids, what with not working anymore, mandatory education and, oh yes, not dying anymore

 

[Narz]

The brain achieves adult levels of reason and capacity at like 14 or 15.

Masquerouge's account of 19th century parenting is mostly accurate. However it doesn't follow that today's treatment of youth is preferable. Childhood is being extended further and further because parents are unnaturally clingy to their children. I hear more and more reports of parents arguing with college professors over their kid's grades. I know plenty of college students and just over that whose parents still take care of everything for them, and would be lost without them.

Newsweek wrote an article about it a few years back, they coined the term "Twixer" basically someone in their 20's (a growing group) who doesn't really accept living independently and still depends on (and in many cases lives with) their parents.

Rights and responsibility is the only solution to this.

Nice post.

I don't see the harm in giving adolescents adult rights & responsibilities (like being able to work).

It's a touchy subject for my because my parents basically incarcerated me in a reform school until 18 (when I could legally leave) and I had no say in the matter.

If you give a 15 year responsibility he/she may well live up to it. If you treat him/her as a immature child they will live up to that.

 

[Narz]

BTW, I didn't read Newt's essay as I have no interest in the man (or neoconservative ideals) but I don't see the logic in how giving adolescents a few rights is somehow going to bring us back to the 19th century. (wasn't the problem then that the didn't have any rights?)

Children were seen as property then, they still are, but less so now. Giving them the right to work & control their own destinies to more a degree than they do now is a good thing. A few years ago I got in a heated RL debate (which I almost never do, except with my GF) about abortion & some idea for legislation where a teenager girl would have to approve the abortion with her parents (IIRC, they could also oppose her decision to keep the baby). Sick stuff.

 

[Neomega]

Why doesn't newt just say "lets end premarital sex and drug use". He is advocating ending a social structure.

Also, over half of Americans go to college, should we end that as well... give them a blunderbuss and send them out to hunt turkey's in the Appalachians?

Newt is stupid.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I actually have to agree with much of what Newt Gingrich said.

1. People had more responsibilities at younger ages in years past.
2. In the present young people do the same adult things they did in years past (sex, drugs, and rock and roll!) but are considered or allowed to be adults.
3. This affects are educational system such that people are babied until relatively late in life.
4. This makes it harder for Americans compete with those of other cultures.
5. We need to fix this by overhauling the educational system.

But of course this all a ploy so we can use 12 year olds for sweatshop labor.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is there any pressure at this point to push a kid to finish up high school so he can apprentice at his father's dead end trade?

Nope, because the social structure has changed. Newt is trying to push us back to that golden era in terms of social structure norms, which could bring back the old pressures as the norm. What I see in his rant is assigning more responsibilities. I see nothing about giving more rights.

 

[holy king]

I totally agree with what he is saying. We need to get them off the streets and into jobs, while they are not in the classroom. This doesn't mean sweatshops you over exaggerators, they should be able to work at younger ages in places that are less demanding, like say using their ability to type to work in an office or something. I wish I could have worked at 13-14, I could really have used the cash.

Newt 2012.

great, throw more people on the job market, and even better: do not provide a basic pay to every citizen.
that's the way to the revolution, man...

 

[JollyRoger]

Should be pretty easy to talk a kid into joining a union.

 

[holy king]

another factor i hadnt put in the equation.
i like this gingrich guy.

 

[OzzyKP]

If you give a 15 year responsibility he/she may well live up to it. If you treat him/her as a immature child they will live up to that.

This is the crux of the matter.

btw, Narz: http://www.youthrights.org

 

[IglooDame]

Nope, because the social structure has changed. Newt is trying to push us back to that golden era in terms of social structure norms, which could bring back the old pressures as the norm. What I see in his rant is assigning more responsibilities. I see nothing about giving more rights.

I suppose I just assumed it (more rights). To me authority (in this case, rights), accountability, and responsibility are the three legs of a stool, if all three aren't there in adequate amounts it just isn't going to work.

another factor i hadnt put in the equation.
i like this gingrich guy.

That makes one of us.

 

[Neomega]

I was working at age 10 - paper route.

 

[JollyRoger]

I was working at age 10 - paper route.

And look how you turned out.

 

[Narz]

This is the crux of the matter.

btw, Narz: http://www.youthrights.org

Thanks. I'm 29 now.

And look how you turned out.

sorry, just a nice one.

 

[knowltok2]

The brain achieves adult levels of reason and capacity at like 14 or 15.

Masquerouge's account of 19th century parenting is mostly accurate. However it doesn't follow that today's treatment of youth is preferable. Childhood is being extended further and further because parents are unnaturally clingy to their children. I hear more and more reports of parents arguing with college professors over their kid's grades. I know plenty of college students and just over that whose parents still take care of everything for them, and would be lost without them.

Newsweek wrote an article about it a few years back, they coined the term "Twixer" basically someone in their 20's (a growing group) who doesn't really accept living independently and still depends on (and in many cases lives with) their parents.

Rights and responsibility is the only solution to this.

While I don't disagree with your stories of parental involvement later and later in children's lives, I do have to note that there is a 'right' to raise your children this way. Not that it is what I consider the best way, but it isn't exaxtly something we can ban.

 

[downtown]

You can get a job at 15....

 

[Slaughter]

I had a thread/rant on education a while back. Long story short, maybe one of the reasons kids don't make more of an effort in school is that they can't see the end of the tunnel in what seems like an endless (and for an 11-year old, the next seven years do seem endless) hang-out session with their friends where popularity and being cool are more important, and good grades only get you made fun of.

THIS.

And it seems to me that many things school teaches are hard, needless, filler disciplines. Mathematics, for example: After the sixth grade, you only learn hard things that only a small part of the general population will need in their lives. The rest (a lot of people, A LOT) will forget those things as soon as they don't need them for tests anymore. Why a small group forces a bigger, immense group to learn something that they don't need? Even my Economic Math teacher pretty much told me that most things that they teach are filler. IMHO, when it comes to mathematics, here's what you need:

The basic four (adiction, substraction, division, multiplication)
Regra de Três (I don't know the name in english, damnit)
Percentage
Potency

That's it. It's ALL around 80% of the students are ever going to need in their lives. Why the educational system does not recognize that?

 

[Trajan12]

Sure, make kids work at 14-15.

Only if they can drink and have sex at 14-15.

 

[pau17]

THIS.

And it seems to me that many things school teaches are hard, needless, filler disciplines. Mathematics, for example: After the sixth grade, you only learn hard things that only a small part of the general population will need in their lives. The rest (a lot of people, A LOT) will forget those things as soon as they don't need them for tests anymore. Why a small group forces a bigger, immense group to learn something that they don't need? Even my Economic Math teacher pretty much told me that most things that they teach are filler. IMHO, when it comes to mathematics, here's what you need:

The basic four (adiction, substraction, division, multiplication)
Regra de Três (I don't know the name in english, damnit)
Percentage
Potency

That's it. It's ALL around 80% of the students are ever going to need in their lives. Why the educational system does not recognize that?

I think you should actually push more math on students, not less. Math is not an intuitive concept at first and it is not fun in the way that kids seek enjoyment. We should make an effort to give kids a level of mathematical ability that they can take advantage of if they need it in the future, and to allow hidden talent to expose itself.

And if you only make kids learn the basics, all the information tech jobs will fly out to the countries where the kids are learning much more math.

Now, coloring in maps needs to stop after kids learn basic drawing skills and hand-eye coordination. I was coloring in maps until 11th grade, which was a complete waste of time and resources.


I think we should keep adolescence, i.e. don't make kids just go out and work at 13 like the article says, but we need to take advantage of the incredible learning potential that kids have at that age, not just give them a free seven years of glorified daycare.

 

[OzzyKP]

THIS.

And it seems to me that many things school teaches are hard, needless, filler disciplines. Mathematics, for example: After the sixth grade, you only learn hard things that only a small part of the general population will need in their lives. The rest (a lot of people, A LOT) will forget those things as soon as they don't need them for tests anymore. Why a small group forces a bigger, immense group to learn something that they don't need? Even my Economic Math teacher pretty much told me that most things that they teach are filler. IMHO, when it comes to mathematics, here's what you need:

The basic four (adiction, substraction, division, multiplication)
Regra de Três (I don't know the name in english, damnit)
Percentage
Potency

That's it. It's ALL around 80% of the students are ever going to need in their lives. Why the educational system does not recognize that?

Exactly.

And despite what some believe, kids figure out fairly early on what they are good at and what their favorite subjects are. So we wouldn't suddenly run out of engineers and computer programmers, we'd instead have engineers who didn't have to waste time coloring in maps in 11th grade and historians who didn't have to waste time doing trigonometry in 11th grade.