Colin Wants To Go To South Africa
The article revolves around Colin's university prohibiting him from enrolling in a class that would take place in South Africa over the summer, due to his young age. The University reasons that a boy at such a young age may be at higher risk of something undesirable happening while in South Africa than a typical college student, and therefore would be a liability.
I wanted to bring this article to attention because it captures an interesting phenomena: when people control other people's opportunities on the basis of liability (or some other indirect reason). Colin Carlson is being denied a rich and fruitful opportunity to travel abroad with other students because the University is concerned that they may be financially responsible for Colin if something unfortunate happens to him while in South Africa. The University is unwilling to take that risk.
It is interesting where the University has drawn the line on which risks to take. Intuitively, it seems pretty risky to allow a 13-year-old boy to enroll in a university to begin with, for various reasons. And although Colin has proven to be a wonderful student, and has probably exceeded many peoples' expectations for him as an undergraduate, the folks in charge will not invest in a further risk that would enrich this young boy's life and mind even further. The same group of people that will not allow Colin to participate in the summer class in South Africa, however, did recommend to Colin that he apply for grants that are not related with the University, which would enable Colin to go alone to either Kenya or Tanzania.
This article got me thinking about how many restrictions we place on other people, such as our children or students, for reasons that have less to do with concern for the well being of others than with concern about ourselves. In Colin's case, the University's concern has little to do with Colin other than his age, but rather their concern revolves around their own well-being concerning their reputation and their financial status.
Another example, aside from Colin's, could be how parents will allow their children to choose their own clothes for the day, but then after seeing what the child has picked out, will decide that it is best if they, the parents, pick the child's clothes, or at least modify their outfit with a matching shirt/pants/etc. What is troubling about the child/parent situation, is that the parent invests confidence in the child, and gives the child a sense of personal autonomy, but then takes that all away by disagreeing with the outfit their child has put on.
Seemingly, what drives a parent to ultimately step in with their 'better judgment' is a fear of sending their child out into public, and having people judge either themselves, the parent, or their child, based on the outfit they are wearing. Once again, as in Colin's case, the authority figure is making their decision based on what they personally feel, rather than basing their decision on the feelings of the one in their care. Just as the child obviously would like to wear the outfit he/she chose for the day, just as Colin would like to study abroad in South Africa.
In both instances, there is a feeling of trust and responsibility violated in the one being restricted. UConn allowed Colin to attend the University in the first place, and the parent of the child agreed for the kid to choose their clothes for the day. But then there is a line drawn that says, well, we can only allow you to do so much, because we wouldn't want you to tarnish our reputation, or bring about some negative consequence on us.
The message this sort of activity puts forth is that children are not as capable or responsible as adults, and thus sets children on a different playing field than adults. Some feel that children ought to be held to different standards than adults. I disagree, however, as I'm sure many people in support of democratically educating do as well.
If we are going to invest confidence in our children's judgment and lifestyles, and we wish to hold them as equals to us adults, then we cannot grant and then take away their autonomy for the sake of our own well being. Instead, we ought to think things through before we offer opportunities to young people, and then follow through with our decisions, allowing them to make decisions, go on adventures, and learn from their experiences.
Colin thought he was a full on undergraduate student at UConn, has now found that he is not considered the same as the other students, and considers that an injustice and a civil rights issue. A 13-year-old boy is considering himself to be a victim of a civil rights injustice. That alone shows how 'grown up' even a child can be.
I know that when I get offered something, and then have it taken away for some reason not directly related to my abilities, I am upset and hurt. Who is to say that these young people don't feel the same way? They have memories, and cognition, and thought processes like all us adults do. It is important that we recognize them as thoughtful people, just as we do adults, if we want to bridge the gap between the social standards of child and adult.
Posted in Philosophy of Education on Mar 31, 2010 - 12:18 PM
Recently I stumbled upon an interesting article on NPR's website entitled, Age May Be Barrier For 13-Year-Old College Student. The story tells about a 13-year-old boy who maintains a 3.9 GPA at the University of Connecticut. The boy, named Colin Carlson, is a double major and seems to be deeply motivated in his studies, which include environmental studies and evolutionary biology.The article revolves around Colin's university prohibiting him from enrolling in a class that would take place in South Africa over the summer, due to his young age. The University reasons that a boy at such a young age may be at higher risk of something undesirable happening while in South Africa than a typical college student, and therefore would be a liability.
I wanted to bring this article to attention because it captures an interesting phenomena: when people control other people's opportunities on the basis of liability (or some other indirect reason). Colin Carlson is being denied a rich and fruitful opportunity to travel abroad with other students because the University is concerned that they may be financially responsible for Colin if something unfortunate happens to him while in South Africa. The University is unwilling to take that risk.
It is interesting where the University has drawn the line on which risks to take. Intuitively, it seems pretty risky to allow a 13-year-old boy to enroll in a university to begin with, for various reasons. And although Colin has proven to be a wonderful student, and has probably exceeded many peoples' expectations for him as an undergraduate, the folks in charge will not invest in a further risk that would enrich this young boy's life and mind even further. The same group of people that will not allow Colin to participate in the summer class in South Africa, however, did recommend to Colin that he apply for grants that are not related with the University, which would enable Colin to go alone to either Kenya or Tanzania.
This article got me thinking about how many restrictions we place on other people, such as our children or students, for reasons that have less to do with concern for the well being of others than with concern about ourselves. In Colin's case, the University's concern has little to do with Colin other than his age, but rather their concern revolves around their own well-being concerning their reputation and their financial status.
Another example, aside from Colin's, could be how parents will allow their children to choose their own clothes for the day, but then after seeing what the child has picked out, will decide that it is best if they, the parents, pick the child's clothes, or at least modify their outfit with a matching shirt/pants/etc. What is troubling about the child/parent situation, is that the parent invests confidence in the child, and gives the child a sense of personal autonomy, but then takes that all away by disagreeing with the outfit their child has put on.
Seemingly, what drives a parent to ultimately step in with their 'better judgment' is a fear of sending their child out into public, and having people judge either themselves, the parent, or their child, based on the outfit they are wearing. Once again, as in Colin's case, the authority figure is making their decision based on what they personally feel, rather than basing their decision on the feelings of the one in their care. Just as the child obviously would like to wear the outfit he/she chose for the day, just as Colin would like to study abroad in South Africa.
In both instances, there is a feeling of trust and responsibility violated in the one being restricted. UConn allowed Colin to attend the University in the first place, and the parent of the child agreed for the kid to choose their clothes for the day. But then there is a line drawn that says, well, we can only allow you to do so much, because we wouldn't want you to tarnish our reputation, or bring about some negative consequence on us.
The message this sort of activity puts forth is that children are not as capable or responsible as adults, and thus sets children on a different playing field than adults. Some feel that children ought to be held to different standards than adults. I disagree, however, as I'm sure many people in support of democratically educating do as well.
If we are going to invest confidence in our children's judgment and lifestyles, and we wish to hold them as equals to us adults, then we cannot grant and then take away their autonomy for the sake of our own well being. Instead, we ought to think things through before we offer opportunities to young people, and then follow through with our decisions, allowing them to make decisions, go on adventures, and learn from their experiences.
Colin thought he was a full on undergraduate student at UConn, has now found that he is not considered the same as the other students, and considers that an injustice and a civil rights issue. A 13-year-old boy is considering himself to be a victim of a civil rights injustice. That alone shows how 'grown up' even a child can be.
I know that when I get offered something, and then have it taken away for some reason not directly related to my abilities, I am upset and hurt. Who is to say that these young people don't feel the same way? They have memories, and cognition, and thought processes like all us adults do. It is important that we recognize them as thoughtful people, just as we do adults, if we want to bridge the gap between the social standards of child and adult.
Tags for this entry:
change,
youth-adult relationships,
autonomy,
partnership,
childhood,
adulthood
Sara Schmidt
Apr 08, 2010 - 12:57 AM
Colin is a student at the university. He pays his tuition, attends classes, and fulfills his duties as a student; he should be able to partake in any other student activities as well. This is, as you say, Shawn, an example of the university covering its own bases instead of working in the best interest of a student.