13 year old prodigies, and all that

[Benesha]

I'll admit I don't have any evidence that would indicate that a school would be legally held liable if something were to happen to a student while abroad. However, I can very well imagine that somewhere, someone would attempt to hold them liable for the safety of their student. In the US, I've seen schools sued for all sorts of things that they have far less control over - illegal acts by passersby, loss of utilities due to issues off campus, and more.

That said, there is a certain responsibility that is expected from a school when making a program of study available, particularly study abroad. A school would be deemed irresponsible if they were to offer study abroad in, say, an active war zone. Aside from the legal aspect, there is also a social aspect. Nobody wants to be the school that sent a 13 year old prodigy to his death in South Africa. Whether or not the school was responsible in any way, the media and public opinion would damn them. And that kind of bad PR is definitely a liability!

 

[Checkmite]

What is it that you feel reflects badly on his maturity? The part where he pursues established channels and traditional mechanisms to seek redress for legitimate grievances, or the part where he offers reasonable solutions in an effort to address the stated concerns of the school?

Neither; the part where when those methods did not achieve the desired results, he threw a tantrum and had his mother file a lawsuit.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think this is a fair assessment of someone you have not met.

Of course it's a fair assessment. In fact, it's the only possible assessment of someone I have not met.

It's possible that if I were to meet this child, and I were gifted with remarkable insight into people's personalities, and I were on top of that possessed of a keen intellect and a sound judgement, I might wisely conclude that this child were worthy of all kinds of things customarily reserved for more mature people.

But I haven't met the child, and I'm not sure I'm suitably qualified to judge him even if I did meet him. So I believe that it is appropriate--and fair--to observe the social custom of denying to children the things reserved for adults.

And the University has the same problem. It has to craft a policy that is generally both responsible and fair, that does not overly allow for favoritism, and can be reasonably well applied even by administrators who are not always guaranteed to be insightful and wise in their judgments.

 

[mike3]

But I haven't met the child, and I'm not sure I'm suitably qualified to judge him even if I did meet him. So I believe that it is appropriate--and fair--to observe the social custom of denying to children the things reserved for adults.

Without meeting him, and without being able to judge, and not even being in control why should you "observe" this custom and how can you even do that when you have absolutely no control over him or his university or whatever?

And also, how is your post the only "real" assessment that can be made... how can the only "real" assessment be that he has no talent (and I'm curious to know how more "talent" can appear as they get older -- I thought talent was something you were born with)?

 

[quadraginta]

Neither; the part where when those methods did not achieve the desired results, he threw a tantrum and had his mother file a lawsuit.

What tantrum?

If he was over eighteen and pursued legal channels to seek redress would it still be a "tantrum"?

 

[mike3]

One of the more delightful characters on the electric tv box is Sheldon Cooper, on "The Big Bang Theory".
He's the archtype of the early bloomer.. knows everything, but has zero common sense and no social skills at all.

What about a hypothetical someone who at that age "knows everything" (obviously exaggerate) and does have some more common sense?

I also found this article, now:
http://articles.courant.com/2010-04...08_1_ecology-mr-carlson-study-in-south-africa

Quote: "Professors praise his academic talents, his maturity and his ability to get along easily with others. He's proved he can handle university life." Make of that what you will. Can these claims be verified or rebuked?

 

[quadraginta]

Without meeting him, and without being able to judge, and not even being in control why should you "observe" this custom and how can you even do that when you have absolutely no control over him or his university or whatever?

And also, how is your post the only "real" assessment that can be made... how can the only "real" assessment be that he has no talent (and I'm curious to know how more "talent" can appear as they get older -- I thought talent was something you were born with)?

I think what he's trying to say is that bratty kids don't deserve the same respect as grown-ups. With age comes honor. Achievement need not apply.

Just in case there's some confusion. "Bratty" means they don't know their place. It's very rude for a kid to go around succeeding like that at things that some adults never do manage to get right. Very disrespectful.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What tantrum?

Suing for not getting the class he wanted.

If he was over eighteen and pursued legal channels to seek redress would it still be a "tantrum"?

Yes.

I had many disputes with teachers and admin that actually had an impact on my GPA, graduation date, and interview schedules. Some were resolved favorably for me and some were not. I never considered suing. My parents would not have supported that action and I would not support it for my kids.

Sometimes the ref is wrong and you play on. That's life.

 

[theprestige]

Without meeting him, and without being able to judge, and not even being in control why should you "observe" this custom and how can you even do that when you have absolutely no control over him or his university or whatever?

I think it's a good custom. I think it forms a sound basis for a general policy regarding the age at which a student is eligible for certain optional programs. To the extent that the university is observing this custom, I agree with their decision to do so.

And also, how is your post the only "real" assessment that can be made... how can the only "real" assessment be that he has no talent (and I'm curious to know how more "talent" can appear as they get older -- I thought talent was something you were born with)?

"No-talent assclown" is a figure of speech. I'm sure the kid is quite talented. I'm also sure that a talented thirteen year-old is still only thirteen years old

I think what he's trying to say is that bratty kids don't deserve the same respect as grown-ups. With age comes honor. Achievement need not apply.

Of course kids--bratty or otherwise--deserve the same respect as grownups. That doesn't mean they deserve all the same privileges, or should be entrusted with all the same responsibilities as grownups.

Achievement in one area does not equate to experience and maturity in all areas of adulthood.

Just in case there's some confusion. "Bratty" means they don't know their place. It's very rude for a kid to go around succeeding like that at things that some adults never do manage to get right. Very disrespectful.

If your claim is that this thirteen year-old--or any thirteen year-old--is succeeding at having 26 years of life experience and socialization, and is succeeding at having the vicissitudes of puberty in their past instead of in their future, please present some supporting evidence.

As far as some adults not succeeding at being experienced and mature individuals? As far as I'm concerned, this is simply an argument in favor of raising the legal minimum age for things, and canceling the South Africa trip for the rest of the class as well.

 

[Checkmite]

What tantrum?

If he was over eighteen and pursued legal channels to seek redress would it still be a "tantrum"?

To paraphrase another poster who answered already: yes.

 

[Buckaroo]

Still think the kid needs a wedgie.