<p>If something were pithy you read at 12 or 13, I would include that.
A great advantage of home schooling is that you can read multiple Shakespeare plays at 12, if it resonates with you.
My daughter read everything Dickens had published by 16. That was her. She was into character and plot. And of course Dickens had written his stuff to be page-turners. Which of course they are. The depth of language was just absorbed as part of the ride.
Just as infants learn English because it is a path to accessing what they want. Have you ever heard of a native born two or three year old who has to be taught English? Not likely. Just something that happens to a curious mind (most everybody who isn’t maimed is that way) along the way.
My problem with the home school Common Application is that it supposes that home school kids do what kids in school do. Even more sinister, I’m guessing that the folks who created this think that home schoolers OUGHT to do what people in school do.
Regarding college admissions, I would argue that folks emphasize what they were able to do because they didn’t have to go to school rather than how they were able to fit into school categories.
Re: the narrower question above. My kids submitted what they had done with no time frames whatsoever. What does it matter? The colleges they applied to had no idea whether they they studied Geometry or Shakespeare at 12 or 18. No distinctions that Princeton, Dartmouth, Amherst and Williams gave a **** about, judging from their admissions results.</p>