10 ms·

Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

174 points by saadmalik01 12y ago

idlewords 12y ago
If you hunt them for sport from childhood, the survivors get wily indeed.
fred_durst 12y ago
> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. > I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a year or so later than is expected. I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. > I want them to remain free of social pressures to look, act, or think any way but that which feels most natural to them. Awesome how the author takes his past issues of "social pressures" and maps them onto his kids. Wonder if he ever realized that "social pressures" are one of the most natural things a child learns. This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life.
- learc83 12y ago
  >I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. Edit: see my comment further down this reply chain for links to evidence.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    > There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. That's horrifying. Can't wait for the rest of us to have to clean up their experiment.
    - learc83 12y ago
      What are you basing that on? There is evidence that not teaching children to read until age 6 or 7 has an overall net benefit. Many countries ranked very well for education, don't start formal education until age 7 (Finland and Sweden for instance). The children in these countries are taught to read later than in the US, but they do just as well or better on reading tests later in life. Children in the US weren't taught to read until first grade a few generations ago. Hell, when I was in kindergarten, 25 years ago, we spent the whole year learning the alphabet--now kids are expected to know the alphabet by the time they enter kindergarten. There is no evidence that this is beneficial and plenty that it is harmful.
      - crucifiction 12y ago
        Care to cite some of this evidence? I was just reading about this and found zero evidence its somehow harmful and only anecdotal evidence that it is not beneficial and "evens out" later.
        pyre 12y ago
        Do you have evidence that teaching a child to read at 7 years of age is a significant detriment to their overall learning? Do you feel like the parent post that not teaching them to read at 4 years old is 'child abuse?'
        quizzas 12y ago
        some references to start you off re the benefits of the Finnish system where formal education starts at age 7: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-finland-where-school-starts-at-age-7 http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-lea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
        learc83 12y ago
        Children in New Zealand who began learning to read at age 7 had better reading comprehension than those that started at age 5 by the time they were 10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612000397 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612... Children in Germany who started school at age 7 performed better on standardized tests than those who started at age 6. http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf
- droithomme 12y ago
  > Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages The author's father worked for the state department of education and his mother was a substitute teacher. What evidence do you have that they are rich as you claim? > I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse Child abuse is a serious accusation. Please state the evidence you have that there is child abuse and the steps you have taken to report your personal knowledge of the situation to the state authorities.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    I absolutely disagree that this type of "home schooling" should be legal. I do believe it is child abuse. These people should be treated just any parent that does not enroll their child in school. And I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. It's true that these parents are likely sick and need mental health treatment. Maybe I should have more sympathy for them, but I think about the poor kids and about how lucky I was to have parents who cared more about their children than some crazy ideology.
    - learc83 12y ago
      >I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. I can almost guarantee that these kids will turn out better with their parents than if they are raised in state custody. Outcomes are far far worse for foster kids than for unschooled kids. Where do you draw the line. What about parents who don't pay attention to their kids, sit them in front of the tv and provide no education or emotional support other than putting them on the bus in the morning? These kids can read and write, there are many kids in public school who can't. There are way more kids living in bad school districts with uninvolved parents who spend less than the 2 hours a month studying that these kids do.
    - konstruktor 12y ago
      I find absolutely no reason to believe those people have any sort of psychological problems. The guy writes eloquently and coherently. The arguments he makes are rational, albeit, in my opinion, not compelling. The question is: How much freedom do parents have to influence their children's upbringing. This is clearly a political issue, and seems to have been settled in the US in a way that gives parents a lot of choice. To label somebody who actually uses these liberties as mentally ill is absolutely disgusting.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  >This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life. If you actually believe these children are being abused I'm sure that you can call CPS on their parents. If not, the only way you could make a "joke" in worse taste would be to imply paedophilia. >Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. "Everyone we know who unschools, in fact, has chosen autonomy over affluence. Hell, some years we’re barely above the poverty line." Doesn't sound like they're living like rich kids. Nor are they living like paupers. They own their farm and they're not even using as many public services as a normal family with two children would.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    > They own their farm > barely above the poverty line. Doesn't really add up. Any guesses on how much a farm in Vermont costs? It's not cheap. Big hunch the money for that farm came from someone else. Most likely an inheritance.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      An asset is not necessarily liquid; also plenty have people have negative net worthy.
- pyre 12y ago
  > I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse What does it say about you if you feel that this is child abuse, but do nothing? Also, by claiming that this is child abuse, you are grouping it with things like sexual and physical abuse. Are you sure that you are attempting to make such a strong statement?
  - hueving 12y ago
    No, a fairer grouping would be with refusing to let your child attend a school, read books, or use the Internet.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    The other reply to this talking about depriving your child of an education etc, is exactly what I would say. And absolutely, yes I feel that this is definitely child abuse.
    - pyre 12y ago
      Then, are the Amish 'abusing' their children? What about the Inuit[1]? [1] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/sixties-scoop.html http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-pol...
- pdonis 12y ago
  > with zero concern for the the world around them How do you figure that?
- pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
  Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's parents in real life. The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are crippled socially. It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on. I doubt that. To me a more plausible and equally good explanation is that schools are primarily places where parents can drop their kids off for half of the day to be able to go to work. Homeschooling requires someone to stay at home and do the schooling, which is becoming less and less affordable for most of the people.
    - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
      Yeah.... no. I know people who were more than financially able to do this, and the kids still ended up messed up. To reiterate, if you actually haven't seen this first-hand, it's best to keep your mouth shut. Confirmation bias only makes this whole thing worse.
  - nekopa 12y ago
    I've met plenty of homeschooled people/parents. What on earth do you mean by socially crippled? If anything, these people have been the most socially apt people I've met. Maybe that is because I value different social traits than you do.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    If by 'socially crippled' you mean unscarred by bullies, unbored by mass indoctrination lectures, and untutored in vandalism and cheating, then sure.
- Lalakh 12y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. If you met two 10 year olds, one learnt to read at age 4 the other at age 8- do you think you could tell the difference? Would it really matter? Actually more than likely it would- the one who learnt at age 8 is more likely to read for pleasure. An overly formal approach in the early years can be counter productive, and often damaging. Not to mention the fact that all the time spent at age 3-4 learning to read, is time missed doing the stuff they should be: learning social skills, problem solving, independence... See some of the vast amount of research on this by reading the section on reading for pleasure pages 16-19 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/121.pdf http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c...
  - ejstronge 12y ago
    Thanks for linking to an article that at least mentions research - it's easy to go off of general feelings in conversations like this. I just want to point out, however, that pages 16-19 do not conclude that children who learn at 8 years old have a greater pleasure than children who learn at 4. The conclusion, which isn't a hard one to agree with, is that teachers should find ways to make reading more exciting.
    - Lalakh 12y ago
      Agreed- just think it is worth pointing out that there is no proven advantage in teaching children to read early,that there can actually be some concerns with teaching reading at an early age, and that there are also no disadvantages to learning to read later. These are worth a read to: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-too-young-should-schooling-start-at-age-7.html#.U_C5H7w7Ybg http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-... http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html
- joelhooks 12y ago
  I've got 4 kids, 16-7, none of which have ever been to school. The only thing we require them to do is read and learn. The subjects don't matter. The oldest likes philosophy and science. My 12 year old enjoys video production and 3d animation. My 9 year old really loves comic books and cooking. My 7 year old loves crafts and writing adventure stories. We unschooled when I was making $10/h. They all have big groups of friends, with an incredible level of diversity. They spend a lot of time with them, and enjoy unstructured, uninterrupted play. Beyond that, they all love organized sports, field trips, traveling when we want. The older children always have the option of going to school, and choose not to. With regards to learning to read. Our oldest was reading at 4, one read at 9, and the other two around 5/6. It doesn't matter. Your fear and ignorance is understandable. It's "radical", and certainly not for everybody. The suggestion of "child abuse" is silly, and totally unfounded. I've actually met many of these "clowns", and can attest from experience that you're not only wrong, but out of line. Experiencing life with our children is wonderful.
socrates1998 12y ago
There are a lot of things I like about this, but I am do see some issues. I think the boys are learning a lot of very interesting skills, but I think they would struggle a lot with becoming lawyers and doctors like the author claims. My biggest concern would be their reading skills, and later, their advanced math skills. He says they read fine, but reading is something that must be done almost every day for years to get to a highly literate point. Literacy and reading comprehension are essential skills to navigating the modern world. I am just not sure what kind of jobs or careers they will be prepared for later on. I mean, it sounds great and I would love to have done a lot of this stuff as a kid, but I just see issues if the parents don't really stay on top of it. If you grow up hunting, fishing and farming, you don't exactly prepare yourself to be a doctor, lawyer or engineer. On the other hand, if you have the reading and maths skills, you can still be a hunter/fisher/farmer.
- learc83 12y ago
  >He says they read fine, but reading is something that must be done almost every day for years to get to a highly literate point. Literacy and reading comprehension are essential skills to navigating the modern world. Almost all of my reading was done on my own time. School work was a detriment to the reading ability of me and my siblings. I read for fun, and by forcing me to spend time reading things I didn't want to, I spent less time reading overall.
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    Without doubt, school was an impediment to my reading. My favorite class in high school was US History. I had an interest in the subject, so I already knew everything that was being taught in class... so I read a book instead. The teacher called on me repeatedly during the first week or two because he saw I wasn't paying attention. I asked him to repeat the question, then answered it correctly every time. Then, he stopped asking me questions and let me read my book in peace. Then there was the time that my health teacher called my parents - and my girlfriend's parents - in for a conference. Turns out, when a 15-year-old boy knows the difference between a vagina and a urethra, he must be having sex in the janitor's closet or something. The fact that when I was curious about the mechanics of sex I went to the library and checked out anatomy textbooks apparently never crossed his mind.
rdtsc 12y ago
> Everything I learned felt abstract and standardized. It was a conditional knowledge that existed in separation from the richly textured world just beyond the school’s plate-glass windows, which, for all their transparency, felt like the bars of a prison cell. Tell that story to a kid in Africa who has to walk miles to get to school and the school might not have electricity or water and so on. They would say "So, you're telling me, you have free transportation to school, teachers, computers in ever classroom, air conditioned rooms, and you choose let your children learn to carve 'beautiful long bows' instead?" Sorry that is how I feel. I can't shake the feeling that this is elitist. Like the article puts (as if pre-emptively trying to defend against a counter argument) this is like living some "Jeffersonian fantasies" -- that is exactly what I see here. At the end of the day they are dooming these children to live in an isolated sheltered bubble. Which would have worked great in early settler days. Not today. Today unless they keep in that bubble they will be controlled and owned by those that understand how compounding interest rate works, how computers works, how the legal system works, how lobbying works, how quarks work, how genes work and so on. Now with that said, it is their right to do it and it is nice to have that choice. This is what makes it great to live in this country. I personally think they are a little bit crazy for doing what they are doing.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Tell that story to a kid in Africa who has to walk miles to get to school and the school might not have electricity or water and so on. They would say "So, you're telling me, you have free transportation to school, teachers, computers in ever classroom, air conditioned rooms, and you choose let your children learn to carve 'beautiful long bows' instead?" This is a bit of a false dichotomy. You can learn pretty much whatever you want without being locked in a brutalist concrete box with no windows with dozens of other restless children. Honestly, I think I would have learned way more (and way faster) if I had just avoided elementary school and was given the latitude to study at my own pace (and maybe do some outdoorsy stuff like that mentioned in the OP). It wasn't until middle school that "normal" schooling (being locked in a room for hour-long sessions) became even remotely useful to me. Of course, a lot of this is about finding a learning style that works; there is no universal learning style that is good for everyone. Which is why I agree with >it is their right to do it and it is nice to have that choice.
fchollet 12y ago
The fundamental problem with the elementary school system in the west is that kids are given no room for self-direction whatsoever; school for them is de facto a part-time prison or "labor" camp. As a result they are trained by association to dread to that which the system purports to champion: learning, culture, reading, knowledge, even any demonstration of intelligence. It takes a combination of luck, will and positive external influences (good parents, a mentor) to overcome that. But most kids don't. Which is why it seems to me that "setting kids free", in the sense of giving them significant latitude for self-direction in their activities and education, is a great principle. The key problem of education is motivation. Most kids are smart and fast learners, the only difficulty in getting them to learn is to get them interested (even better: passionate). The only way that can happen is by giving them choice, freedom. The opportunity to exercise free will. Let's guide kids, not force them to sit and listen passively (they won't).
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  I'm all for making school more fun. But self-direction? Don't forget: these are children. Most (and certainly enough) of them won't have any natural inclination to learn even reading, writing and math. The whole point of having schools is to give an external sense of direction. I think schools need to be optimized and tuned, but please, please stop these extreme experiments.
  - Lalakh 12y ago
    Having worked with much younger children for several years, I can assure you that most children start of with a natural inclination to learn how to read & understand math, just maybe not in the structured 'worksheet' type approach you see in some schools. A child that enjoys baking becomes naturally motivated to learn how to understand recipes, a child that is interested in computers & games wants to learn how to recognise the symbols that start their favourite game. It is all about finding the right motivation. For the even the most reluctant writers it can be about building up the necessary physical skills using less obvious means- lego, clay, eye droppers in the water area. Then instead of practising writing we are making road signs for our car game or writing a list of things to take on our outing. The point is when young children are given a supportive, no pressure approach that acknowledges & responds to their interests they do have a natural inclination to learn those skills and others. They just need adults that know how to facilitate & scaffold that learning. What is more important- that a child knows how to read by 4 or a child who learns at their own pace, and is far more likely to become someone who loves reading for pleasure?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JDDunn9 12y ago
Seriously? If unschooling were so great 3rd world countries would be dominating the world. Creativity is domain specific. Walking around the woods won't help you be creative in solving math/engineering/science problems. You need a strong background in the subject, and to see how other people solved similar problems. I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. Who's going to hire someone who's educational experience is walking around the woods unsupervised?
- Hytosys 12y ago
  >I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. For what it's worth, your opponent's argument shares the very same sentiment. After all, the schools in question all offer little appreciation for self-directed specialization.
- kennywinker 12y ago
  I think you're wrong on a bunch of points. The reason developing countries aren't "dominating the world" is because of a bunch of things, and the life of a kid from a developing country is very far from the life of an unschooled kid in the west. Unschooled kids (and I know a lot of them) in the west are usually fairly privileges. If not economically (which definitely isn't always the case) then they are privileged to have intelligent and thoughtful parents who have the time, energy and interest to try to nurture a love of learning in them. I also think you're wrong in regards to creativity. Creativity isn't domain specific, but being able to apply your creativity does take a lot of domain knowledge. You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head. There are plenty of opportunities for unschooled kids to enter the mainstream education system, if they need certification of some kind to work in their field of interest. I know a good number of unschooled kids who became biologists, computer scientists, etc. by going to college/university when it became relevant.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    > You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head. I hear this a lot, and don't think it's at all true. It's pretty difficult to get to phd-level background in an area without having some thoughts no one else has explored yet. In fact I'm not sure it's even possible.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
samirmenon 12y ago
This actually seems astoundingly misguided and dangerous. One of the unique, defining qualities of humanity is an ability to build on the knowledge and experiences of generations before us. Why throw all of the knowledge of the past 5,000 years of human civilization out? When will they learn math, or science, or history? How can you become a lawyer, doctor, or engineer without learning these subjects? Can they really be postponed until college?
- nilved 12y ago
  No, you're fully missing the point of the article. The problem is people's one-to-one connection between schools and education. No such connection exists. A school is not the only place to get an education, and for many people no education occurs there. You can learn math, science or history on your own accord and in a way that is suited to how you learn.
  - samirmenon 12y ago
    Absolutely nothing in the article implies that this father is attempting to expose his children to books or other resources (the internet, perhaps?) about math, science, or history.
    - tprice7 12y ago
      It looks like there was a misunderstanding here. It's ambiguous from your original post whether you oppose unschooling in general or the specific approach of the author of this article. It's clear now that you meant the latter and as someone who generally supports unschooling, I do see your point. If I had kids to unschool, I would try to encourage them towards more intellectual pursuits. And if they were anything like I was as a kid, they would enthusiastically take part without coercion (unless I required them to conform to a rigid educational program, in which case coercion would be required frequently).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- 12y ago
nether 12y ago
Isn't it better to keep your kid inside and teach him to code?
tatterdemalion 12y ago
I don't understand how, on a site called "Hacker News," so many people seem oblivious to how damaging the primary educational system is to young peoples' minds and methods of thought. Unschooling doesn't mean not teaching children: that's what happens in schools.
- samirmenon 12y ago
  Is the elementary educational system truly "damaging" to young minds? I think of my elementary education (which, mind you, was only 6 years ago) as perhaps boring or tedious in some areas (like math, for me), while also exciting and rewarding in others (science, learning to make friends, deal with gossip, etc). I certainly don't think I have a very 'damaged' method of thought now because of my elementary education. I think that, on the whole, it was not at all damaging; in fact, it was important to my development as a child.
  - indlebe 12y ago
    Private school, well off neighbourhood?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - samirmenon 12y ago
      Public school, but fairly wealthy. What's your point?
      - learc83 12y ago
        Since schools are primarily funded locally, your experience is likely vastly different from someone who went to school in a less affluent area.
  - kevinmchugh 12y ago
    I'd guess that HN users are typically people who performed well academically. I certainly did. Think about the kids in class who couldn't sit still, couldn't stop talking. Oftentimes they ended up with an ADD or ADHD diagnosis and a prescription. Being told that you act abnormally and need medicine to stop you from being you is understandably damaging.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. That may be true, but it omits a control group -- a comparison with people who don't attend school. It therefore lacks a scientific basis for comparison. Therefore it's not a "case against abandoning conventional schooling", it is a case where meaningful science is required to inform public policy. > Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions. Some argue that the ADHD epidemic results from the very unnatural conditions in schools, conditions that are barely tolerable to otherwise normal children, and the ADHD diagnosis unjustly shifts responsibility from the oppressive school and educational system to the children. I'm certainly not saying this is the only explanation, just that no clear conclusion can be made on present evidence.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a "control group" with exactly zero time in school, but plenty of datapoints, and the "dosage effect" is undeniable. That is scientific enough. "Some argue [about cause of ADHD]" reveals that you just quote the scientific method if you want to argue a point, and don't really understand it. ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine. "Present evidence" includes ADHD being a consistent syndrome in Neuroanatomy, EEG, fMRI, genetic studies, and psychological testing. There are even successful treatments for it. The most important factor in ADHD is genetic, other factors include early injuries, environmental toxins, alcohol exposure in the womb, low birth weights - very clear evidence that there are causes for ADHD that a school system can't be changed to prevent. What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases?
deckiedan 12y ago
I was "home educated" - the typically British middle ground. Not "home school" (school at home) and not unschooling. But self-educated / family educated at home, for the whole of highschool level. We'd just moved country, and didn't want to jump into a new school system straight away. It worked pretty well for us. I spent a lot of time learning to program and play music, I joined a local drama group, played in the church band, the town marching band, and taught myself to juggle. My brother did loads of piano, singing, and IT stuff. He's now working as the IT and music teacher at a local private school (after having gone on to do his BA and MA in Theology, as well as a teacher-training certificate), and I'm working as in a non-profit doing all kinds of things. We decided, my brother, my parents, and I, to use a curriculum for a few years, which allowed us to get International Baccalaureate equivalents, which was useful for my brother with going on to Uni, but useless to me. We learned a lot of useful stuff though. I learned all the sine / cosine stuff around age 10, as I was trying to write a computer game and needed to move things around circles, so asked my mum about it, who asked her friends on the home-educating-parents email list, and eventually someone helped. (This being in the late 90s). I wanted to learn it, so I did. I can still remember everything I need to know about those because it was interesting to me at the time. I never learned to spell at school. I was awful, always in the lowest group in class. Until I wasn't doing spelling tests, and just writing on my own at home on the computer, and kept getting annoyed at the little red squiggle under half my words. My brain eventually learned it was quicker and less distracting to my writing to learn the correct spellings rather than having to go back and correct them. I do think a certain amount of "education" is required for a sensible life. Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, etc. But once you've learned to read, and if you've had a love of books instilled into you, you'll probably pick up most stuff you really want to learn along the way. And there's no real reason to force any of those skills at any particular age. My brother learned to read at about 3 and a half, as I was learning in kindergarten, he decided to too. I have another friend who simply wasn't interested, and didn't learn until about 8 and a half. But then he learned to read and write in about 2 months flat. Kids are all different. Public education was a brilliant, wonderful institution to help move millions of families out of poverty and enforced unskilled labour. But once you've moved a society out of that state, education needs to be much less of a "life support" type system, and become more of a individualised therapy / explorative / personal journey.
mjhouse 12y ago
Except I did this (almost exactly this) when I was a kid, and it left holes in my education that you could drive a bus through.
xexers 12y ago
The author implies that self directly learning is always better than classroom. I can think of examples where this is not true. For example, I know dozens of people who were never formally taught how to touch type on a computer keyboard. Most of them simply learned to type on their own by using the keyboard. They often type with 2 fingers on each hand (index and middle). They get to a level that they feel is "good enough" which is usually about 20-30 words per minute. However, with that approach, they will NEVER get up to 60-100 words per minute which you can easily do if you were taught to properly touch type. I often feel these people are hindered by the way they learned how to type. I often prefer to learn from experts, which sometimes means forgoing learning how to do it myself and simply being taught the "right way". I know seeing the words "the right way" may make some people cringe, but there are a lot of things in this world to which that expression applies. If the kids want to challenge that after they have learned the "right way", be my guest... and I hope you find a better way. my $0.02
- judk 12y ago
  Eh, not really. Most computer-typing professionals (programmers etc) learned touch typing by natural practice. People who don't type much and never practice don't get fast. School definitely not required even for intense practice.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    A person can go a lifetime as a typing cripple. It takes work to get out of bad habits and into good ones. And its a delay-gratification process - you're screwed up for a week or so as you deconstruct your typing reflexes. OR, they can take a class or buy a learn-to-type book, bite the bullet and study/practice.
  - xexers 12y ago
    I work in the software development field and I'd say only 50% of the QA & Dev people use touch typing... and I've worked in 4 different companies.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Agreed. The most valuable class I ever took was high-school typing. In my profession I see folks resist revisiting/improving code, because it takes them so damn long to type anything.
ryanmarsh 12y ago
We homeschool our children and for a year we tried unschooling. My wife's cousins were all unschooled. There is definitely merit to the approach, although done right (unschooling) it can be much harder for the parent than it looks. Done wrong it can set your children up for a fantastic career barely making ends meet. So at it's worse it's no worse than compulsory public education. We're much bigger fans of alt-schooling (or home schooling as it were). We've settled on a curriculum of the classics and are part of a home schooling group organized around said curriculum. The kids meet weekly and one of the parents facilitates each year, each "grade" level. Even though there is a "tutor" (facilitator) it requires significant parental involvement. The most unsettling aspect to alt-schooling in general are the ridiculous things that people say to you. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is so much they know that just isn't so. It is utterly fruitless to debate the benefits of alt-schooling with people who have not been outside the box. You cannot know how rich, valuable, and academically positive alt-schooling is on average. So you ask questions like, "what about socialization" as if it's a good thing to be in an asylum run by the inmates, or "what about college" as if Harvard doesn't want someone who studied latin from age 7. I digress. To be fair I feel the need to share my background. I'm a high-school dropout. I subsequently aced the GED, along with the others who took the test with me. I did high school at a "blue ribbon" public school. Everything before that was at a small church-supported private school. We were by no means wealthy, and tuition was as cheap as it could have possibly been. Still my parents both had to work so that we could go. In the private school we did Algebra in the sixth grade, I read at a post-high school reading level in the third grade. It was intellectually stimulating and a wonderful nurturing environment. When I got to public school I found a prison for the mind. The teachers, while seemingly more educated seemed either not to care or to be overwhelmed with things other than teaching. The latter must have been as soul crushing for them as corporate work. It was soul crushing for me to be there. At first I began to advance ahead of my peers. I started taking advanced classes and realized that they were just more of the same mediocrity. At 16 I got a job programming and at 17 I dropped out. The rest, as they say, is history. I now manage a team of over a hundred programmers. I have a passionate hatred of the public education system. I didn't wind up digging ditches and I believe that it is 100% because of my early education experience in that humble little school that was not unlike a homeschool club. I'm not debating the merits of your public education experience. I'm not saying you wasted your time or didn't come out ok. I'm not saying you aren't a good person or your teachers weren't either. I'm saying it can be better and it's amazing how little effort it can require. Life will not fall apart if you don't take AP Math and join the Key Club. We've all been told the same lie, work hard in school so you can get good grades so you can go to a good college so you can get a good job so you can work hard so you can become CEO. Alt-schooling can instead prepare one well for the world where "humans need not apply".

174 points by saadmalik01 12y ago

If you hunt them for sport from childhood, the survivors get wily indeed.

> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. > I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a year or so later than is expected. I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. > I want them to remain free of social pressures to look, act, or think any way but that which feels most natural to them. Awesome how the author takes his past issues of "social pressures" and maps them onto his kids. Wonder if he ever realized that "social pressures" are one of the most natural things a child learns. This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life.

learc83 12y ago
>I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. Edit: see my comment further down this reply chain for links to evidence.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. That's horrifying. Can't wait for the rest of us to have to clean up their experiment.
  - learc83 12y ago
    What are you basing that on? There is evidence that not teaching children to read until age 6 or 7 has an overall net benefit. Many countries ranked very well for education, don't start formal education until age 7 (Finland and Sweden for instance). The children in these countries are taught to read later than in the US, but they do just as well or better on reading tests later in life. Children in the US weren't taught to read until first grade a few generations ago. Hell, when I was in kindergarten, 25 years ago, we spent the whole year learning the alphabet--now kids are expected to know the alphabet by the time they enter kindergarten. There is no evidence that this is beneficial and plenty that it is harmful.
    - crucifiction 12y ago
      Care to cite some of this evidence? I was just reading about this and found zero evidence its somehow harmful and only anecdotal evidence that it is not beneficial and "evens out" later.
      - pyre 12y ago
        Do you have evidence that teaching a child to read at 7 years of age is a significant detriment to their overall learning? Do you feel like the parent post that not teaching them to read at 4 years old is 'child abuse?'
      - quizzas 12y ago
        some references to start you off re the benefits of the Finnish system where formal education starts at age 7: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-finland-where-school-starts-at-age-7 http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-lea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
      - learc83 12y ago
        Children in New Zealand who began learning to read at age 7 had better reading comprehension than those that started at age 5 by the time they were 10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612000397 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612... Children in Germany who started school at age 7 performed better on standardized tests than those who started at age 6. http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf
droithomme 12y ago
> Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages The author's father worked for the state department of education and his mother was a substitute teacher. What evidence do you have that they are rich as you claim? > I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse Child abuse is a serious accusation. Please state the evidence you have that there is child abuse and the steps you have taken to report your personal knowledge of the situation to the state authorities.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  I absolutely disagree that this type of "home schooling" should be legal. I do believe it is child abuse. These people should be treated just any parent that does not enroll their child in school. And I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. It's true that these parents are likely sick and need mental health treatment. Maybe I should have more sympathy for them, but I think about the poor kids and about how lucky I was to have parents who cared more about their children than some crazy ideology.
  - learc83 12y ago
    >I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. I can almost guarantee that these kids will turn out better with their parents than if they are raised in state custody. Outcomes are far far worse for foster kids than for unschooled kids. Where do you draw the line. What about parents who don't pay attention to their kids, sit them in front of the tv and provide no education or emotional support other than putting them on the bus in the morning? These kids can read and write, there are many kids in public school who can't. There are way more kids living in bad school districts with uninvolved parents who spend less than the 2 hours a month studying that these kids do.
  - konstruktor 12y ago
    I find absolutely no reason to believe those people have any sort of psychological problems. The guy writes eloquently and coherently. The arguments he makes are rational, albeit, in my opinion, not compelling. The question is: How much freedom do parents have to influence their children's upbringing. This is clearly a political issue, and seems to have been settled in the US in a way that gives parents a lot of choice. To label somebody who actually uses these liberties as mentally ill is absolutely disgusting.
barry-cotter 12y ago
>This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life. If you actually believe these children are being abused I'm sure that you can call CPS on their parents. If not, the only way you could make a "joke" in worse taste would be to imply paedophilia. >Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. "Everyone we know who unschools, in fact, has chosen autonomy over affluence. Hell, some years we’re barely above the poverty line." Doesn't sound like they're living like rich kids. Nor are they living like paupers. They own their farm and they're not even using as many public services as a normal family with two children would.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > They own their farm > barely above the poverty line. Doesn't really add up. Any guesses on how much a farm in Vermont costs? It's not cheap. Big hunch the money for that farm came from someone else. Most likely an inheritance.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    An asset is not necessarily liquid; also plenty have people have negative net worthy.
pyre 12y ago
> I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse What does it say about you if you feel that this is child abuse, but do nothing? Also, by claiming that this is child abuse, you are grouping it with things like sexual and physical abuse. Are you sure that you are attempting to make such a strong statement?
- hueving 12y ago
  No, a fairer grouping would be with refusing to let your child attend a school, read books, or use the Internet.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  The other reply to this talking about depriving your child of an education etc, is exactly what I would say. And absolutely, yes I feel that this is definitely child abuse.
  - pyre 12y ago
    Then, are the Amish 'abusing' their children? What about the Inuit[1]? [1] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/sixties-scoop.html http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-pol...
pdonis 12y ago
> with zero concern for the the world around them How do you figure that?
pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's parents in real life. The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are crippled socially. It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on. I doubt that. To me a more plausible and equally good explanation is that schools are primarily places where parents can drop their kids off for half of the day to be able to go to work. Homeschooling requires someone to stay at home and do the schooling, which is becoming less and less affordable for most of the people.
  - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
    Yeah.... no. I know people who were more than financially able to do this, and the kids still ended up messed up. To reiterate, if you actually haven't seen this first-hand, it's best to keep your mouth shut. Confirmation bias only makes this whole thing worse.
- nekopa 12y ago
  I've met plenty of homeschooled people/parents. What on earth do you mean by socially crippled? If anything, these people have been the most socially apt people I've met. Maybe that is because I value different social traits than you do.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  If by 'socially crippled' you mean unscarred by bullies, unbored by mass indoctrination lectures, and untutored in vandalism and cheating, then sure.
Lalakh 12y ago
> I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. If you met two 10 year olds, one learnt to read at age 4 the other at age 8- do you think you could tell the difference? Would it really matter? Actually more than likely it would- the one who learnt at age 8 is more likely to read for pleasure. An overly formal approach in the early years can be counter productive, and often damaging. Not to mention the fact that all the time spent at age 3-4 learning to read, is time missed doing the stuff they should be: learning social skills, problem solving, independence... See some of the vast amount of research on this by reading the section on reading for pleasure pages 16-19 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/121.pdf http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c...
- ejstronge 12y ago
  Thanks for linking to an article that at least mentions research - it's easy to go off of general feelings in conversations like this. I just want to point out, however, that pages 16-19 do not conclude that children who learn at 8 years old have a greater pleasure than children who learn at 4. The conclusion, which isn't a hard one to agree with, is that teachers should find ways to make reading more exciting.
  - Lalakh 12y ago
    Agreed- just think it is worth pointing out that there is no proven advantage in teaching children to read early,that there can actually be some concerns with teaching reading at an early age, and that there are also no disadvantages to learning to read later. These are worth a read to: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-too-young-should-schooling-start-at-age-7.html#.U_C5H7w7Ybg http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-... http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html
joelhooks 12y ago
I've got 4 kids, 16-7, none of which have ever been to school. The only thing we require them to do is read and learn. The subjects don't matter. The oldest likes philosophy and science. My 12 year old enjoys video production and 3d animation. My 9 year old really loves comic books and cooking. My 7 year old loves crafts and writing adventure stories. We unschooled when I was making $10/h. They all have big groups of friends, with an incredible level of diversity. They spend a lot of time with them, and enjoy unstructured, uninterrupted play. Beyond that, they all love organized sports, field trips, traveling when we want. The older children always have the option of going to school, and choose not to. With regards to learning to read. Our oldest was reading at 4, one read at 9, and the other two around 5/6. It doesn't matter. Your fear and ignorance is understandable. It's "radical", and certainly not for everybody. The suggestion of "child abuse" is silly, and totally unfounded. I've actually met many of these "clowns", and can attest from experience that you're not only wrong, but out of line. Experiencing life with our children is wonderful.

socrates1998 12y ago

There are a lot of things I like about this, but I am do see some issues. I think the boys are learning a lot of very interesting skills, but I think they would struggle a lot with becoming lawyers and doctors like the author claims. My biggest concern would be their reading skills, and later, their advanced math skills. He says they read fine, but reading is something that must be done almost every day for years to get to a highly literate point. Literacy and reading comprehension are essential skills to navigating the modern world. I am just not sure what kind of jobs or careers they will be prepared for later on. I mean, it sounds great and I would love to have done a lot of this stuff as a kid, but I just see issues if the parents don't really stay on top of it. If you grow up hunting, fishing and farming, you don't exactly prepare yourself to be a doctor, lawyer or engineer. On the other hand, if you have the reading and maths skills, you can still be a hunter/fisher/farmer.

learc83 12y ago
>He says they read fine, but reading is something that must be done almost every day for years to get to a highly literate point. Literacy and reading comprehension are essential skills to navigating the modern world. Almost all of my reading was done on my own time. School work was a detriment to the reading ability of me and my siblings. I read for fun, and by forcing me to spend time reading things I didn't want to, I spent less time reading overall.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  Without doubt, school was an impediment to my reading. My favorite class in high school was US History. I had an interest in the subject, so I already knew everything that was being taught in class... so I read a book instead. The teacher called on me repeatedly during the first week or two because he saw I wasn't paying attention. I asked him to repeat the question, then answered it correctly every time. Then, he stopped asking me questions and let me read my book in peace. Then there was the time that my health teacher called my parents - and my girlfriend's parents - in for a conference. Turns out, when a 15-year-old boy knows the difference between a vagina and a urethra, he must be having sex in the janitor's closet or something. The fact that when I was curious about the mechanics of sex I went to the library and checked out anatomy textbooks apparently never crossed his mind.

rdtsc 12y ago

> Everything I learned felt abstract and standardized. It was a conditional knowledge that existed in separation from the richly textured world just beyond the school’s plate-glass windows, which, for all their transparency, felt like the bars of a prison cell. Tell that story to a kid in Africa who has to walk miles to get to school and the school might not have electricity or water and so on. They would say "So, you're telling me, you have free transportation to school, teachers, computers in ever classroom, air conditioned rooms, and you choose let your children learn to carve 'beautiful long bows' instead?" Sorry that is how I feel. I can't shake the feeling that this is elitist. Like the article puts (as if pre-emptively trying to defend against a counter argument) this is like living some "Jeffersonian fantasies" -- that is exactly what I see here. At the end of the day they are dooming these children to live in an isolated sheltered bubble. Which would have worked great in early settler days. Not today. Today unless they keep in that bubble they will be controlled and owned by those that understand how compounding interest rate works, how computers works, how the legal system works, how lobbying works, how quarks work, how genes work and so on. Now with that said, it is their right to do it and it is nice to have that choice. This is what makes it great to live in this country. I personally think they are a little bit crazy for doing what they are doing.

wyager 12y ago
>Tell that story to a kid in Africa who has to walk miles to get to school and the school might not have electricity or water and so on. They would say "So, you're telling me, you have free transportation to school, teachers, computers in ever classroom, air conditioned rooms, and you choose let your children learn to carve 'beautiful long bows' instead?" This is a bit of a false dichotomy. You can learn pretty much whatever you want without being locked in a brutalist concrete box with no windows with dozens of other restless children. Honestly, I think I would have learned way more (and way faster) if I had just avoided elementary school and was given the latitude to study at my own pace (and maybe do some outdoorsy stuff like that mentioned in the OP). It wasn't until middle school that "normal" schooling (being locked in a room for hour-long sessions) became even remotely useful to me. Of course, a lot of this is about finding a learning style that works; there is no universal learning style that is good for everyone. Which is why I agree with >it is their right to do it and it is nice to have that choice.

fchollet 12y ago

The fundamental problem with the elementary school system in the west is that kids are given no room for self-direction whatsoever; school for them is de facto a part-time prison or "labor" camp. As a result they are trained by association to dread to that which the system purports to champion: learning, culture, reading, knowledge, even any demonstration of intelligence. It takes a combination of luck, will and positive external influences (good parents, a mentor) to overcome that. But most kids don't. Which is why it seems to me that "setting kids free", in the sense of giving them significant latitude for self-direction in their activities and education, is a great principle. The key problem of education is motivation. Most kids are smart and fast learners, the only difficulty in getting them to learn is to get them interested (even better: passionate). The only way that can happen is by giving them choice, freedom. The opportunity to exercise free will. Let's guide kids, not force them to sit and listen passively (they won't).

bayesianhorse 12y ago
I'm all for making school more fun. But self-direction? Don't forget: these are children. Most (and certainly enough) of them won't have any natural inclination to learn even reading, writing and math. The whole point of having schools is to give an external sense of direction. I think schools need to be optimized and tuned, but please, please stop these extreme experiments.
- Lalakh 12y ago
  Having worked with much younger children for several years, I can assure you that most children start of with a natural inclination to learn how to read & understand math, just maybe not in the structured 'worksheet' type approach you see in some schools. A child that enjoys baking becomes naturally motivated to learn how to understand recipes, a child that is interested in computers & games wants to learn how to recognise the symbols that start their favourite game. It is all about finding the right motivation. For the even the most reluctant writers it can be about building up the necessary physical skills using less obvious means- lego, clay, eye droppers in the water area. Then instead of practising writing we are making road signs for our car game or writing a list of things to take on our outing. The point is when young children are given a supportive, no pressure approach that acknowledges & responds to their interests they do have a natural inclination to learn those skills and others. They just need adults that know how to facilitate & scaffold that learning. What is more important- that a child knows how to read by 4 or a child who learns at their own pace, and is far more likely to become someone who loves reading for pleasure?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

JDDunn9 12y ago

Seriously? If unschooling were so great 3rd world countries would be dominating the world. Creativity is domain specific. Walking around the woods won't help you be creative in solving math/engineering/science problems. You need a strong background in the subject, and to see how other people solved similar problems. I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. Who's going to hire someone who's educational experience is walking around the woods unsupervised?

Hytosys 12y ago
>I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. For what it's worth, your opponent's argument shares the very same sentiment. After all, the schools in question all offer little appreciation for self-directed specialization.
kennywinker 12y ago
I think you're wrong on a bunch of points. The reason developing countries aren't "dominating the world" is because of a bunch of things, and the life of a kid from a developing country is very far from the life of an unschooled kid in the west. Unschooled kids (and I know a lot of them) in the west are usually fairly privileges. If not economically (which definitely isn't always the case) then they are privileged to have intelligent and thoughtful parents who have the time, energy and interest to try to nurture a love of learning in them. I also think you're wrong in regards to creativity. Creativity isn't domain specific, but being able to apply your creativity does take a lot of domain knowledge. You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head. There are plenty of opportunities for unschooled kids to enter the mainstream education system, if they need certification of some kind to work in their field of interest. I know a good number of unschooled kids who became biologists, computer scientists, etc. by going to college/university when it became relevant.
- nmrm 12y ago
  > You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head. I hear this a lot, and don't think it's at all true. It's pretty difficult to get to phd-level background in an area without having some thoughts no one else has explored yet. In fact I'm not sure it's even possible.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

samirmenon 12y ago

This actually seems astoundingly misguided and dangerous. One of the unique, defining qualities of humanity is an ability to build on the knowledge and experiences of generations before us. Why throw all of the knowledge of the past 5,000 years of human civilization out? When will they learn math, or science, or history? How can you become a lawyer, doctor, or engineer without learning these subjects? Can they really be postponed until college?

nilved 12y ago
No, you're fully missing the point of the article. The problem is people's one-to-one connection between schools and education. No such connection exists. A school is not the only place to get an education, and for many people no education occurs there. You can learn math, science or history on your own accord and in a way that is suited to how you learn.
- samirmenon 12y ago
  Absolutely nothing in the article implies that this father is attempting to expose his children to books or other resources (the internet, perhaps?) about math, science, or history.
  - tprice7 12y ago
    It looks like there was a misunderstanding here. It's ambiguous from your original post whether you oppose unschooling in general or the specific approach of the author of this article. It's clear now that you meant the latter and as someone who generally supports unschooling, I do see your point. If I had kids to unschool, I would try to encourage them towards more intellectual pursuits. And if they were anything like I was as a kid, they would enthusiastically take part without coercion (unless I required them to conform to a rigid educational program, in which case coercion would be required frequently).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
12y ago

nether 12y ago

Isn't it better to keep your kid inside and teach him to code?

tatterdemalion 12y ago

I don't understand how, on a site called "Hacker News," so many people seem oblivious to how damaging the primary educational system is to young peoples' minds and methods of thought. Unschooling doesn't mean not teaching children: that's what happens in schools.

samirmenon 12y ago
Is the elementary educational system truly "damaging" to young minds? I think of my elementary education (which, mind you, was only 6 years ago) as perhaps boring or tedious in some areas (like math, for me), while also exciting and rewarding in others (science, learning to make friends, deal with gossip, etc). I certainly don't think I have a very 'damaged' method of thought now because of my elementary education. I think that, on the whole, it was not at all damaging; in fact, it was important to my development as a child.
- indlebe 12y ago
  Private school, well off neighbourhood?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - samirmenon 12y ago
    Public school, but fairly wealthy. What's your point?
    - learc83 12y ago
      Since schools are primarily funded locally, your experience is likely vastly different from someone who went to school in a less affluent area.
- kevinmchugh 12y ago
  I'd guess that HN users are typically people who performed well academically. I certainly did. Think about the kids in class who couldn't sit still, couldn't stop talking. Oftentimes they ended up with an ADD or ADHD diagnosis and a prescription. Being told that you act abnormally and need medicine to stop you from being you is understandably damaging.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.

lutusp 12y ago
> The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. That may be true, but it omits a control group -- a comparison with people who don't attend school. It therefore lacks a scientific basis for comparison. Therefore it's not a "case against abandoning conventional schooling", it is a case where meaningful science is required to inform public policy. > Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions. Some argue that the ADHD epidemic results from the very unnatural conditions in schools, conditions that are barely tolerable to otherwise normal children, and the ADHD diagnosis unjustly shifts responsibility from the oppressive school and educational system to the children. I'm certainly not saying this is the only explanation, just that no clear conclusion can be made on present evidence.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a "control group" with exactly zero time in school, but plenty of datapoints, and the "dosage effect" is undeniable. That is scientific enough. "Some argue [about cause of ADHD]" reveals that you just quote the scientific method if you want to argue a point, and don't really understand it. ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine. "Present evidence" includes ADHD being a consistent syndrome in Neuroanatomy, EEG, fMRI, genetic studies, and psychological testing. There are even successful treatments for it. The most important factor in ADHD is genetic, other factors include early injuries, environmental toxins, alcohol exposure in the womb, low birth weights - very clear evidence that there are causes for ADHD that a school system can't be changed to prevent. What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases?

deckiedan 12y ago

I was "home educated" - the typically British middle ground. Not "home school" (school at home) and not unschooling. But self-educated / family educated at home, for the whole of highschool level. We'd just moved country, and didn't want to jump into a new school system straight away. It worked pretty well for us. I spent a lot of time learning to program and play music, I joined a local drama group, played in the church band, the town marching band, and taught myself to juggle. My brother did loads of piano, singing, and IT stuff. He's now working as the IT and music teacher at a local private school (after having gone on to do his BA and MA in Theology, as well as a teacher-training certificate), and I'm working as in a non-profit doing all kinds of things. We decided, my brother, my parents, and I, to use a curriculum for a few years, which allowed us to get International Baccalaureate equivalents, which was useful for my brother with going on to Uni, but useless to me. We learned a lot of useful stuff though. I learned all the sine / cosine stuff around age 10, as I was trying to write a computer game and needed to move things around circles, so asked my mum about it, who asked her friends on the home-educating-parents email list, and eventually someone helped. (This being in the late 90s). I wanted to learn it, so I did. I can still remember everything I need to know about those because it was interesting to me at the time. I never learned to spell at school. I was awful, always in the lowest group in class. Until I wasn't doing spelling tests, and just writing on my own at home on the computer, and kept getting annoyed at the little red squiggle under half my words. My brain eventually learned it was quicker and less distracting to my writing to learn the correct spellings rather than having to go back and correct them. I do think a certain amount of "education" is required for a sensible life. Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, etc. But once you've learned to read, and if you've had a love of books instilled into you, you'll probably pick up most stuff you really want to learn along the way. And there's no real reason to force any of those skills at any particular age. My brother learned to read at about 3 and a half, as I was learning in kindergarten, he decided to too. I have another friend who simply wasn't interested, and didn't learn until about 8 and a half. But then he learned to read and write in about 2 months flat. Kids are all different. Public education was a brilliant, wonderful institution to help move millions of families out of poverty and enforced unskilled labour. But once you've moved a society out of that state, education needs to be much less of a "life support" type system, and become more of a individualised therapy / explorative / personal journey.

mjhouse 12y ago

Except I did this (almost exactly this) when I was a kid, and it left holes in my education that you could drive a bus through.

xexers 12y ago

The author implies that self directly learning is always better than classroom. I can think of examples where this is not true. For example, I know dozens of people who were never formally taught how to touch type on a computer keyboard. Most of them simply learned to type on their own by using the keyboard. They often type with 2 fingers on each hand (index and middle). They get to a level that they feel is "good enough" which is usually about 20-30 words per minute. However, with that approach, they will NEVER get up to 60-100 words per minute which you can easily do if you were taught to properly touch type. I often feel these people are hindered by the way they learned how to type. I often prefer to learn from experts, which sometimes means forgoing learning how to do it myself and simply being taught the "right way". I know seeing the words "the right way" may make some people cringe, but there are a lot of things in this world to which that expression applies. If the kids want to challenge that after they have learned the "right way", be my guest... and I hope you find a better way. my $0.02

judk 12y ago
Eh, not really. Most computer-typing professionals (programmers etc) learned touch typing by natural practice. People who don't type much and never practice don't get fast. School definitely not required even for intense practice.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  A person can go a lifetime as a typing cripple. It takes work to get out of bad habits and into good ones. And its a delay-gratification process - you're screwed up for a week or so as you deconstruct your typing reflexes. OR, they can take a class or buy a learn-to-type book, bite the bullet and study/practice.
- xexers 12y ago
  I work in the software development field and I'd say only 50% of the QA & Dev people use touch typing... and I've worked in 4 different companies.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Agreed. The most valuable class I ever took was high-school typing. In my profession I see folks resist revisiting/improving code, because it takes them so damn long to type anything.

ryanmarsh 12y ago

We homeschool our children and for a year we tried unschooling. My wife's cousins were all unschooled. There is definitely merit to the approach, although done right (unschooling) it can be much harder for the parent than it looks. Done wrong it can set your children up for a fantastic career barely making ends meet. So at it's worse it's no worse than compulsory public education. We're much bigger fans of alt-schooling (or home schooling as it were). We've settled on a curriculum of the classics and are part of a home schooling group organized around said curriculum. The kids meet weekly and one of the parents facilitates each year, each "grade" level. Even though there is a "tutor" (facilitator) it requires significant parental involvement. The most unsettling aspect to alt-schooling in general are the ridiculous things that people say to you. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is so much they know that just isn't so. It is utterly fruitless to debate the benefits of alt-schooling with people who have not been outside the box. You cannot know how rich, valuable, and academically positive alt-schooling is on average. So you ask questions like, "what about socialization" as if it's a good thing to be in an asylum run by the inmates, or "what about college" as if Harvard doesn't want someone who studied latin from age 7. I digress. To be fair I feel the need to share my background. I'm a high-school dropout. I subsequently aced the GED, along with the others who took the test with me. I did high school at a "blue ribbon" public school. Everything before that was at a small church-supported private school. We were by no means wealthy, and tuition was as cheap as it could have possibly been. Still my parents both had to work so that we could go. In the private school we did Algebra in the sixth grade, I read at a post-high school reading level in the third grade. It was intellectually stimulating and a wonderful nurturing environment. When I got to public school I found a prison for the mind. The teachers, while seemingly more educated seemed either not to care or to be overwhelmed with things other than teaching. The latter must have been as soul crushing for them as corporate work. It was soul crushing for me to be there. At first I began to advance ahead of my peers. I started taking advanced classes and realized that they were just more of the same mediocrity. At 16 I got a job programming and at 17 I dropped out. The rest, as they say, is history. I now manage a team of over a hundred programmers. I have a passionate hatred of the public education system. I didn't wind up digging ditches and I believe that it is 100% because of my early education experience in that humble little school that was not unlike a homeschool club. I'm not debating the merits of your public education experience. I'm not saying you wasted your time or didn't come out ok. I'm not saying you aren't a good person or your teachers weren't either. I'm saying it can be better and it's amazing how little effort it can require. Life will not fall apart if you don't take AP Math and join the Key Club. We've all been told the same lie, work hard in school so you can get good grades so you can go to a good college so you can get a good job so you can work hard so you can become CEO. Alt-schooling can instead prepare one well for the world where "humans need not apply".