<p>The OP has not been back… possible ■■■■■? Although an interesting conversation anyway. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>+1</p>
<p>Even if this person were a ■■■■■, in a hypothetical situation, I would say that a 14 year old should not be held back from going to grad school. Real talent like that is rare, and the younger the brain, the more capable it is of learning and thinking (scientific research proves this). Let him/her go on to grad school, get a PhD, and 10 years from now be doing incredible research in that field. </p>
<p>Though, if the OP were a ■■■■■, I have to admit that I’m slightly disappointed.</p>
<p>Arizona State would be a good fit - Go devils!</p>
<p>Holding back a student like this is a bad idea. Taking a year off between college and a PhD is not the best idea. The student might forget some material, and most importantly lose contact with his advisors. Recommendation letters are one of the most important factors for PhD admission.</p>
<p>Gifted people are different. You should not assume that because a normal 14 year old is not ready, this guy isn’t.</p>
<p>Many, many (maybe most?) grad students “take time off” between undergrad and PhD programs, usually to gain additional research experience. I didn’t personally, but I can say that there are pros and cons to both routes, and that many (most?) faculty recommend taking time off unless someone has exceptional research experience (e.g., peer-reviewed publications) coming out of undergrad.</p>
<p>^That’s only true of experimental fields, where it is common to take time off to do research for a year. In theoretical fields, you are better off continuing to grad school, especially since you may not have enough classwork to make meaningful contributions in research yet (I mean beyond getting your name on publications, which is common as an undergrad.)</p>
<p>Even in experimental fields, it is rare for people to recommend taking time off between undergrad and grad school. People do it to (1) earn money, and (2) bolster their publication record.</p>
<p>We knew of a gifted student who went through the UW program mentioned in one of these posts. By age 17 he was in grad school on the east coast. While he thrived intellectually, he was quite lonely because he was hoping for the “college experience” that his peers were experiencing. Instead he discovered that there isn’t the social bonding in grad school that you find in college. He ended up moving back to the west coast to be closer to the friends he had made at UW. Face it, a teenager needs a social life, not matter how brilliant they are. I’d keep this in mind when choosing a grad school program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is taking grad classes and doing research while still an undergrad at his current university being “held back” rather than a good way to learn more in his field and further ensure success as a top graduate?</p>
<p>I have a hard time believing that this thread isn’t fictional. A kid in that position would have a lot of advice and a lot of attention already.</p>
<p>But it can happen: [Sho</a> Yano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sho_Yano]Sho”>Sho Yano - Wikipedia). This boy graduated from Loyola University - Chicago at 12 and started an MD/PhD program at the University of Chicago. He received his PhD at 18 and his MD at 21 (which was the minimum age at which he could be licensed to treat patients, Doogie Howser notwithstanding). His sister followed a similar path, but instead of going to graduate school is getting a second bachelor’s in violin performance from the JHU conservatory.</p>
<p>I agree, JHS. Someone with a child in this position wouldn’t be coming here for advice.
And a gifted college senior of any age has undoubtedly already found advisors and mentors to help him with this process. If he already has recs from profs, as the OP states, he’s already plugged in.</p>
<p><a href=“I%20mean%20beyond%20getting%20your%20name%20on%20publications,%20which%20is%20common%20as%20an%20undergrad.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm… That is FAR from common. The only field I can think of where that is even vaguely kind of common is bio, and it’s still a definite minority of UG research assistants who end up with any journal article authorship at graduation.</p>
<p>I have a friend who received his Ph.D. degree at 24. He was socially active in school, but his friends are all much older than him and he is not married. All girls in the same environment are just too old for him.</p>
<p>If I am mom, I’ll try everything to keep the kid in college for another years to get another undergraduate degree for the good of his future 60 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had an undergrad classmate who also got his PhD at 24, was socially active, and despite his markedly advanced intellect/academic capabilities…was able to make friends of all ages like myself. </p>
<p>He ended up getting married not too long after getting the terminal degree after landing a nice tenure-track position at a well-respected university. His spouse is around his age and their relationship is happy and on a solid foundation.</p>
<p>^ I know, people are different. But I see the risk and the risk is high. (some friends’ kids skip several grades and most of them have some social issues. One of them repeat a year just because he was tired of losing contact with past friends. I refused to let my child skip grades. I believe analytical skills can be mature at early age but social skills and exposure of literalture need time to build up.)</p>
<p>You and I were giving examples of people received Ph.D. at 24, OP’s son may get his Ph.D. at 18, you know. Huge risk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering I’ve known kids who started undergrad as young as 10, I feel this really depends on the individual kid and parents shouldn’t make default assumptions that all/most kids who are several years advanced will become social misfits and have hard times making friends at similar ages. </p>
<p>Haven’t found that to be an issue from what I’ve seen…and when it was…it was mainly due to the individual’s personality which could also manifest itself in non academically accelerated kids. </p>
<p>If anything, I think the greater risk is parents who have such stereotyped fears of gifted kids’ social skills to the point they end up holding their kids back too much by not allowing acceleration or keeping them back another year or two. </p>
<p>For most gifted kids I’ve observed who experienced similar attitudes…especially in our society where K-12 teaching…especially in non-magnet public schools is geared towards the LCD student*, it’s an excruciatingly torturous experience. </p>
<p>For them, they’ve only found relief once they were accelerated and were finally with their intellectual peers whether through skipping grades, gaining entrance to an academically rigorous/gifted magnet/private school, or even going directly to undergrad/grad school. </p>
<p>For kids advanced enough to be eligible to attend PhD programs, holding them back would be the equivalent of imprisoning someone functioning at the undergrad level in an elementary school/kindergarten class. I don’t know about you…but I’d certainly would find that to be a miserable experience even as a HS kid. </p>
<p>One of the reasons why putting a kid into a PhD program is that there’s no K-12 school here in the US…nor many undergrad colleges which could provide the level of academic rigor, environment, and intellectual stimulation such an advanced student would need. </p>
<p>This isn’t that surprising considering our society has a disturbing tendency to stereotype those who are extremely advanced academically/intellectually as “social misfits” rather than folks who should be valued and whose capabilities/talents should be cultivated to their greatest potential. </p>
<p>I also believe that our society, on average, overemphasizes the importance of social skills with peers and fail to realize most students will learn to adjust and be fine once they are in the “real world”. Moreover, I find it disturbing that emphasis fails to effectively teach many folks how to make friends or otherwise socialize easily with folks of wide age ranges and backgrounds. Never understood why anyone would narrow their friendship circles to folks around their age…and yet, it’s pretty commonplace from what I’ve seen. </p>
<ul>
<li>Everyone I knew who taught in US K-12 non-magnet public schools has complained about this and yet…were hamstrung by state/local curriculum boards and parents who didn’t want their kids to be “overworked”. And parents/college professors wonder why there’s been an increasing need for remedial courses/programs in college in areas such as late elementary school math(i.e. multiplying/dividing fractions).</li>
</ul>
<p>Blah blah blah.</p>
<p>Cobrat, I found your posting very interesting. The issue of how far ahead to let my kids get academically a constant when I raised my kids (now in college and grad school). I went so far as to let my eldest go to a top 20 closer to home rather than a top 5 (splitting hairs here, I know). In the end, it didn’t really matter where I sent them—they found all their course work very easy and as a result were able to socialize and grow emotionally. Their happiness and sense of well being is priceless. What’s the rush, after all? Hurry up and get a job? </p>
<p>We kept our kids several years ahead in language and math at home, supplementing their advanced course work in public schools. And…as far as graduate schools go, it doesn’t really matter what colleges they attend. The best graduate schools look at resumes, lab skills, publishing, recs—not UG or age, accepting from state Us and top private colleges. In the end, talent make the difference. The ability to synthesize information/ideas and create new ones is the talent that delineates a significant academicians from other profs—this talent is distinct from analytical skills and scores/giftedness.</p>
<p>Cobrat,</p>
<p>"parents shouldn’t make default assumptions that all/most kids who are several years advanced will become social misfits and have hard times making friends at similar ages.
"</p>
<p>What are you talking about? These kids wanted to make friends of their own age, but there were few if not none in their enviroment. In your opinion a 10 year old in college will not have hard times making friends with 10-year-olds in his college? Are you suggesting there are 50 10-year-olds in one college? The fact is they see all 18-year-olds+ but don’t find their 10+ age group. These extremely gifted kids whose parents allow them to grow up sooner find themselves lonely socially - not because they didn’t try, they tried hard but there are just not enough kids of their age around.</p>
<p>Maybe I am selfish but I like to have my kids in my house as long as possible because I know once they are in college they are out of the house forever.</p>
<p>Getting a PhD at 24 doesn’t seem that outside the norm to me. I can think of several friends who did this, all well adjusted, all married. </p>
<p>To get a PhD at 24 someone might have gone to college at 16 (not that outside the norm) and graduated in three years (not that outside the norm) and finished the PhD in 5 years (really not that outside the norm in many fields)</p>
<p>Someone in a PhD program, and later as a new professor, will probably be socializing with people older and much older for many years… until that person is the older one:)</p>
<p>I really don’t buy into this idea that accelerated and/or really smart kids have social problems.</p>
<p>"One of the reasons why putting a kid into a PhD program is that there’s no K-12 school here in the US…nor many undergrad colleges which could provide the level of academic rigor, environment, and intellectual stimulation such an advanced student would need.
"</p>
<p>And Cobrat, I have to add that my D took college courses in town starting 9th grade and she was happy while she was the top of those classes. Many of my friends sent their kids to other colleagues labs to work during summer and that was a good way to release kids energy and satisfy their curiosity. It is not necessary to put them full time to college when they are still young.</p>