<p>The most important part of kenf1234’s post is this:</p>
<p>“This is my opinion.”</p>
<p>Note that there is NO <em>research</em> that I have seen that supports his suppositions and that again, I am interested (not even merely open to, but interested) in seeing evidence on his side. I want to reiterate this point as I also feel it is an important one to stress. Those who are anti-early college time and again are going by their <em>opinion</em>, often based on anecdotal evidence if anything more than “gut feeling” and they are certainly welcome to their opinions, but it should be realized that’s exactly what they are - opinions. That and $5 today will buy one a cup of coffee. It’s not really all too helpful in deciding what path would be better for a child. About 20 years ago, people had much the same “notions” about homeschooling (indeed, even with lots of research dispelling the myths, many go on to judge it as a bad choice) and for much the same reason - small sample size at the time and lots of people who had actually read any <em>research</em> on what they spoke (in part due to their being very little done yet to read, but in larger part because the people spewing the criticism wanted their children going the typical route, had gone the typical route themselves, and honestly didn’t want to have to consider if they could have gone a better route or if their children could have). Being that homeschooling is not the norm (not even today - I believe still only 2% of school-aged children are homeschooled in America), I can’t help but think the large majority of parents who go this route have researched the options rather carefully and tend to be thus better educated than those who merely feel “Traditional education was good enough for me, so it is good enough for my child.”</p>
<p>But let’s say there was research to support the notion that early college was actually having more negative results than positive ones. Does this necessarily mean nobody should go the early college route? Not necessarily as certain paths work better for the minority than the majority (which is also why it’s fine for parents to still have their children in a traditional school despite evidence showing homeschooling has more favorable results when it comes to the person’s academic success as measured by standardized exams and college GPA and retention rate in college, career success in terms of things like percentage who are on welfare as adults and who own businesses and such, who have children out of wedlock, who need mental health visits, etc.).</p>
<p>Now I agree with kenf that there are likely lots (I would say thousands) of 13-year-olds each year who could skip middle and high school and go directly to a CC - and I’d add even a 4-year-university (I’m away from home and don’t have talent search data handy, but am thinking thousands of kids score in 4-year-university SAT zone at age 12 each year and even if they scored a bit lower, a 950 out of 1600 SAT score at 12 shows a higher intellect than the <em>average</em> college student has; not average ton ten college, mind you, but average for all 4-year-universities in the USA). However, I disagree that most of those would earn perfect grades there. I know a bunch of kids who started CC early (and also college) and many if not most don’t have perfect grades, and this is with kids who are not just the “moderated gifted”, but even “profoundly gifted” set. But does that mean they should wait till they can get perfect grades to go to college? I seriously doubt it. We don’t make 18-year-olds wait till they can get perfect grades to attend college (most would never get to attend if we did), so why should younger people be held to “perfection” here (or anywhere)?</p>
<p>I also agree with kenf that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Our son asked to start college at 6, and it’s conceivable that he indeed could have done just fine or better at age 6 in college based on his testing at 7 and how he has done in college and graduate school (as bookends here, he was in the top 1% of the 300+ registered pre-med bio course section in a school that had more students in Harvard’s Med School class that fall than any other college except for Harvard itself, and nobody in the 200+ registered other section of the course that semester had a higher score than he and this was his very first college course just after he turned 9, so he didn’t even have much test taking experience nor did he had the pre-reqs of a year of high school chem and a year of high school bio, and as the other book end, he just got his master of science at MIT at age 16 with a “perfect” 5.0 out of a possible 5.0). But we “held him back” from starting college three years, and went cautiously even then. Similarly, he likely could have been admitted to graduate school at 13 (being that he was admitted at 14 and hadn’t done any research or classes in the year between finishing college and starting grad school), but we again convinced him to wait a year between college and graduate school (and feel the consulting work and travel and such he did during that year was perhaps more “educational” than any formal education and so are glad he had those experiences). He also could be getting a driver’s license now, but he is in Boston and using public transportation makes more sense than paying to buy, maintain, fuel, park, insure, etc. a car at this time, so he could be waiting years before he bothers to get a driver’s license (my own parents were in their 20’s before they got their licenses, at least 22 and 28, as they lived in NYC and similarly had public transportation making more sense for them; never hurt them any to wait). One has to look at the <em>big</em> picture as best they can (as nobody will see the entire picture no matter how hard they try) and make choices.</p>
<p>What specifically are the WAY more downside risk than upside benefit, if anyone cares to elaborate?</p>