Can skipping school be good?

I mostly skipped class when I was sick or studying on my own for exams, i.e., either I could not go to school or I was doing something I believed to be more important. I took the GRE Subject Test in Mathematics at the end of highschool to prove that I could do it. This is a test for college graduates with a major in Math. I scored 860 (62%) out of 990, a score with which I would have been admitted to some graduate schools. However, towards the end of high school I have also sometimes skipped school with friends. This was in part because we had some uninterested/ing teachers, and in part because it was fun to do what was not allowed.

Are we right in valuing attendance so much? No! No! No! Our educational system fails our children by assigning a zero or sometimes negative value to their time.  Schools are not there to keep children busy, but to teach them new and wonderful things and to make them interested in learning.

So should children skip school? Yes, but in a controlled way. Both the parents and the school should, in principle, always know where the child is because until college children are underage. However, I think it should be ok for children to skip school for short periods of time. OK, you can skip school if your parents agree with that, but then you have to catch up with what was taught in class on your own. If it's allowed, it is not going to be considered so cool. 

It is ridiculous when skipping school is confined to two days per semester, which require petitioning to some weird entity like the city hall. School is not a prison system, and turning it into one can only cause rebellion. We want to prevent children from skipping school to get high on drugs without paralysing their thought process. Students should have more freedom of choice because when they graduate they have to be able to manage their time and their lives effectively. If they do not graduate, the decisions will be even harder to make. 

Travelling is good. Children (and adults) learn from their own experiences better than from books. So, traveling should be encouraged within some limit - just like graduate students are encouraged to go to one or two conferences every year, children should be encouraged to travel with their families to see new places when it is possible. Conferences often happen during the semester and involve skipping class. The timing is not important, it is important that they go to these meetings, talk to people and learn new things. There are projects that can be assigned to the child about the learning he does when he is away, and these can be presented in class to make studying more interesting for everyone.

What was the most important part of my education? Since I remember my mother paid attention to our opinion and respected us, and in turn we have always respected her - even as teenagers. She did, however, make a point of always trying to know where we were. Placing some level of trust in children is something very important that most parents and educational systems fail to do.

Did I ever skip school while I was growing up? Yes, sometimes. I mostly stayed home when I was sick or when I wanted to study on my own. However, I distinctly remember that our French teacher, whose class was scheduled after two hours of classes that were not happening, remarked on how much Jeni's hair grew since the last time he saw us. Jeni, Alina and I were almost always together. So, it must have been that none of us attended French for a while. Instead of learning French, we saw James Bond movies and two other movies that had just come out. One other time we went to a park near our school instead of to class. There we sat on swings and prepared for the class after the one we were skipping. We were noted as absent in red by our Romanian Literature professor. Romanian was my favourite class from high school and I still skipped it. We also went to the opera several times - this was with the approval of our chemistry teacher who sold the tickets and allowed only the kids who attended the opera to skip her class the day of the play. I remember the movies and the plays we saw, and the trips to the park better than I remember the times I sat in class.

There were also classes that I skipped because the teachers were not interested in teaching and would rather send us home, but then everyone skipped.  However, I do not count these incidents so much as skipping school - more as poor management:  the school could not find teachers who were interested in teaching whatever subject they were supposed to be teaching. This was not surprising since salaries were very low, and the bribes for positions were a way of survival. We did have some really good teachers from my parents' generation. It was mostly the new hires who did not care about teaching and let us go home instead, but they gave us good grades, which ended up counting for admission to some universities.

I did not travel much until I left home for college, but this was because my family did not have the money or the time to travel. 

Did I ever drink alcohol or smoke in high school? No. I did have many classmates who enjoyed both. I had a few really good friends. However, none of my close friends smoke or drank on a regular basis, and so I was not under too much pressure to drink and smoke myself. While I agree that drinking socially is OK,  I still don't drink or smoke. I sometimes have a glass of Champagne at occasions, e.g., when a student graduates.

From right to left: Jeni, Alina, Adriana, below: me & my great aunt

Over the big break, we used to go to a nearby store and buy whole-grain black bread to share, and then to the post office to mail applications for US schools. My best friends from highschool with whom I used to skip school are Alina (who has a Masters in Mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania and is now a highschool teacher herself at a top US highschool) and Jenica (holds a PhD from the University of Notre Dame in bioinformatics, and performs research in genetics at the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia). My other friends from high school have stayed in Timisoara. However, they all have good jobs, and families that they are very proud of.

David is 7!

Tasting the cake.

Framed drawings by David and Edward.

When I was in school, our behaviour was always blamed on our first seven years at home (known in Romanian as "cei sapte ani de acasa"). This period is now over for David. He turned 7 last month!

A typical conversation between David and Edward:

Edward enters the room. David is holding a toy while finishing his homework.
Edward: "I want that toy!"

On Rollerblades

In a former prison in Martinique

David: "I will give it to you if you tell me who is the smartest person in the world."
Edward: "OK, David. You are the smartest person in the world!"
David passes the toy to Edward, puts his pencil down and says:
"Edward, NOW, the smartest person in the world can read AND write! Isn't that amazing?".

I suppose when I first learned to read and write I must have thought it was quite amazing, too.

A little later Edward comes by with a candle: "I have a candle! Who wants to buy a candle?" he asks.
David: "I do. I do!"  (he is looking for distraction from his homework)
Edward: "I don't sell to smart people."

I find some of their conversations particularly funny. Now I understand why parents quote their children.

Lighting up the candles on his cake.

Learning the history of Martinique

David is a typical 7 year old with lots of energy. He loves rollerblading, swimming, drawing, playing with electronics, wax, candles, is fascinated by fire, etc.   He spends most of his daytime playing outside, and in the evening he does some extra writing or math, and he falls asleep while he is being read to. He enjoys Pippi Longstocking, and various science books starting from genetics to astronomy to lots of books about animals, fish and snails. He can also add numbers in his head pretty well.

Were my teachers right with the first seven years? Are they the most important in a child's life?

On an old cannon.

The brain's ability to change and adapt as a result of experience,

David's first volcano is hidden in fog.

i.e., the plasticity of the brain, is much higher for children than adults. This means that children learn easier than adults and the information acquired shapes their thinking at a deeper level than what they learn later on.
They learn languages easier and can recuperate from various forms of trauma faster than adults.

While the neuroplasticity level decreases as children grow, I do not think there is a scientifically proved threshold at exactly the age of seven.  At 6-7 children start school. Assuming that they did not attend pre-school & day-care & kindergarten before that, which most children do attend, starting school is a traumatic experience since it involves obeying a rigid program that confines children to chairs for several hours a day. If they do attend kindergarten and day-care, then it's wrong to assume the first seven years were spent at home. Before school, I only occasionally attended kindergarten and skipped school significantly afterwards - so the statement was factual in my case.

Conclusion. In the end, I think it's good to view every year of a persons' life as important and as different - each year holding its own beauty and surprises. I still believe that children are rightfully named bundles of joy. They do add a lot of trouble to the joy they bring, but the trouble keeps our lives interesting. I am glad that David had a happy birthday, and I hope that he will continue to be a very happy little boy for many years to come.

Random thoughts

In the past I have consistently chosen work over most other things. I also chose to have a family to whom I have always been very close to, and I have always lived in beautiful areas - although I have never chosen a position based on location so far.  I have a reasonable level of tolerance, but I have often felt that most members of my family and I were genetically designed to get along.

 The risk I consistently take is that of doing many things. While most people dislike leaving their comfort zone unnecessarily, I repeatedly ignore my comfort zone and my fears, which are always there. I am, of course, afraid of failing, of being too superficial, of choosing the wrong paths too often, and of doing too many things that will not be worthwhile in the end. I do make an effort to finish most of the things I start even if it sometimes takes me a long time - always way longer than I think it should take. All this is against what I have been taught in school. Society wants us to be in the same box doing the same things all our lives. Change is most often seen as a failure to continue in the same direction. My colleagues who switched to industry after having a PhD (and perhaps one or two postdocs) are seen as people who failed to stay in the wonderful academic system by the people who stayed in the academia. The people who stayed in the academia are probably seen as failures by those who left because most of what we do does not have direct, immediate impact on the world. Most articles we write reach a very small community. More often than not this community is just too small to be worth the one or two or several years of work invested. Also, we are always at work, but make a lot less money.

But is it better to stay in the same field forever even after one's productivity drops or to be open to reinventing oneself and have the courage to change careers? How much does the reinventing process reduce the risk of Alzheimer and other problems later in life? Is it worth it?  Every subfield has its own jargon and its own little world, and I have tried hard to not be stuck in local minima for too long. However, it's hard to leave many little worlds behind - and in time it gets harder and more tiring to start over. How many people can start something entirely new, and finish it at a level that is worth the time and potentially the money invested? Is our society right in forcing people to be in the same box doing the same things all their lives? 

I do not have good answers to every one of these questions because the answers depend on the situations they are applied to.  I have always tried to be optimistic and to believe in the people around me. I think that, in time, the rapid transfer of information will completely reform our educational system, the way we work and the way we think. It is likely that this new system will allow change more readily, and perhaps even be able to simulate potential outcomes and come up with optimum solutions. I hope that we will not have to wait for people born before computers (at 31 I am part of the older generation) to die or retire before our educational system and the work place become more fluid because changes are exciting and I want to see them happen.

Could I work in a field that is not in the academia? I do not want to work in a bank, in programming, industry or consulting. All these jobs seems too hard, too boring, and often too far away from anything that feels real. Physics does model reality after all. However, I often wish I lived on a farm (with some help for the various responsibilities) where my children could learn more from experiencing the life around them vs. mostly from books, and that this farm was located in a warmer place than Zurich or central Pennsylvania. I could be a high-tech farmer who controls his tractors from home. But then I dislike monocultures, using insecticides, and killing animals. So, I do not think I will ever be very productive as a farmer.

Temper tantrums

I remember throwing temper tantrums when I was little. I have learned to control my temper and I expect most children do the same in time.  However, I am surprised by the attitude I see among parents who are told they are not supposed to shorten the tantrum of their child, and that it's good to let them cry, to put themselves to sleep, etc.  I agree that it makes children easier to manage on a short term basis, but as a parent I worry more about long-term consequences than about my short-term well being. My instinct tells me it's wrong to let a child cry or let him be unhappy if I can help it, and I see no reason to ignore this instinct. 

Is it good to ignore an angry child - especially in the first few years before they can communicate well? does it make them feel unwanted? unloved? what if the tantrum happens because they are sick or tired or hungry and cannot communicate that to me? is it not 'my job' as a parent to try figure out what is wrong vs. just ignore my child? 

What do I do then? 

I first try tell or show them something interesting that draws their attention.  Its success depends on how well my imagination/brain functions at the time, and of how willing they are to accept an alternative solution. The latter part depends on the cause of the temper tantrum. Also, I dislike lying - so what I tell my child is usually something that I think is true.

I try to remember there are times when it does not matter who is right or who is wrong. This is often hard to do. For example, it is very annoying if children do not eat when the food ready. However, this may just mean they are not hungry enough now and prefer to eat in an hour from now, which is unpleasant but not the end of the world.

I sometimes compromise, sometimes distract them with things they can do that are useful (most children love to help) or just try prevent tantrums by avoiding things that are known to obviously cause them like a trip to the store. If I was in the store, and Edward wanted a particular object I would get it if I did not have a strong objection against it. If I object, which is more often than not the case, we discuss my objection and I try to persuade him that I am right. Sometimes we end up buying a different object that I think is more useful/fun. It helps to get them involved in the shopping, e.g., the child/children put(s) the fruits and vegetables in the cart.

 Should this happen?  I think it's normal to want things, and to go through a negotiation process to get some of the things we want. I  did not ask my parents for toys at their age because I was more interested in observing live things like chickens or dogs and also because there weren't many toys available in Communist Romania. Here we rent. There are plenty of tempting toys and we don't have pets so far. We are lucky that the stores in Switzerland have repetitive and unimaginative enough merchandise that by now (we've been here for two years) we have had most of the toys they wanted from the grocery store. They only have a few toys that stay the same all year round. So, visiting the store is less complicated now.

From time to time I bribe my son (I am not proud of this, but it sometimes works). e.g., IF you stop crying now you will get a candy. It only works if they do not usually get candy and so I try to do this only rarely.

Once they are older, sending them to their room can work. I have tried this a few times.

I try hard to keep calm and behave as the adult. This is bound to be very hard at times. My mother always tells the Robert be calm joke: A man walks on the street pushing a crying child in a stroller and repeating "Robert be calm. Robert be calm. Robert be calm. Robert be calm". An outraged woman stops and tells him "How can you ask a child so young to be calm? He cannot understand you." The man replies: "Madame, I am Robert".

Needless to say I am not an authority in parenting and never will be. These are just some observations. In general, I try to behave naturally around children and not stress them out or myself too much.

I believe that temper tantrums are related to being stubborn, a bit of a perfectionist, and also that in those moments the child sees only what he wants while everything else disappears. When someone is angry or upset (adult or child) their whole "horizon" collapses to a point of interest or distress and they miss seeing anything else. One cannot easily stop this horizon shrinking. OK, sometimes, it is best to wait for the moment to pass mostly on its own. However, I think it's never good to argue in such moments whether the angry person is an adult or a child or to try to teach them who is the boss lesson. Discussions should be had a little later on when everybody has calmed down.