Order Form - Denny International Middle School: Fill & Download for Free

According to Article Published on hackerrank:Which countries have the best programmers in the world?Many would assume it’s the United States. After all, the United States is the home of programming luminaries such as Bill Gates, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and Donald Knuth. But then again, India is known as the fastest growing concentration of programmers in the world and the hackers from Russia are apparently pretty effective. Is there any way to determine which country is best?China and Russia score as the most talented developers. Chinese programmers outscore all other countries in mathematics, functional programming, and data structures challenges, while Russians dominate in algorithms, the most popular and most competitive arena. While the United States and India provide the majority of competitors on HackerRank, they only manage to rank 28th and 31st.The following table shows the proportion of completed tests that come from each domain.The most popular domain by far is algorithms, with nearly 40% all developers competing. This domain includes challenges on sorting data, dynamic programming, and searching for keywords and other logic-based tasks. For algorithms tests, developers can use whichever language they choose, which may partially explain why it’s so popular. Algorithms are also crucial for coding interviews, so it could explain why more coders would practice algorithm challenges. At a distant second and third, Java and data structures coming in at about 10% each. Distributed systems and security are our least popular tests, though we still receive thousands of completed challenges in those areas.In order to find out, They looked at each country’s average score across all domains, and standardized the scores for each domain (by subtracting the mean from each score and then dividing by the standard deviation; also known as a z-score) before finding the average. This allows us to make an apples-to-apple comparison of individual scores across different domains, even if some domains are more challenging than others. Then converted these z-scores into a 1-100 scale for easy interpretation.This data is restricted to the 50 countries with the most developers on HackerRank. Here’s what we found:Since China scored the highest, Chinese developers sit at the top of the list with a score of 100. But China only won by a hair. Russia scored 99.9 out of 100, while Poland and Switzerland round out the top rankings with scores near 98. Pakistan scores only 57.4 out of 100 on the index.The two countries that contribute the greatest number of developers, India and the United States don’t place in the top half. India ranks 31st, with an overall score of 76 and the United States falls in at 28th, with a score of 78.Though China outperformed everyone else on average, they didn’t dominate across the board. Which country produces the best developers in particular skill areas? Let’s take a look at the top countries in each domain.China did quite well in a number of domains. Chinese developers beat out the competition in data structures, mathematics, and functional programming. On the other hand, Russia dominates in algorithms, the domain with the most popular challenges. Coming next, Poland and China nearly tie for second and third place, respectively.What explains the different performance levels of different countries across domains? One possible explanation is that Russians are just more likely to participate in algorithms and therefore get more practice in that domain, while Chinese developers are disproportionately drawn to data structures.Software engineer Shimi Zhang is one such programmer who ranked among the top 10 programmers in our Functional Programming domain. He hails from China’s city of Chongqing, and moved to the US just two years ago to get his master’s in computer science before coming to work at HackerRank.On the greatness of Chinese programmers, from top-rankedChinese competitive programmer Shimi Zhang:In universities and colleges, education resources are relatively fewer in comparison with many other countries, so students have less choices in their paths to programming. Many great students end up obsessed with competitive programming since it’s one of the few paths.China even has a big population of students who started programming in middle school and high school. They’re trying to solve some hard challenges only few people in this world can solve.They even host national programming contests for young programmers, like NOIp (national olympiad in informatics in provinces) and NOI (national olympiad in informatics). And after CTSC (China Team Selection Contest), 4 geniuses go to IOI (international olympiad in informatics), and at least 3 have won a gold medal this year. This has been the trend for nearly 10 years.It’s an even greater achievement considering a special rule: if you had won a gold medal once, you won’t be selected for future IOI team, that means, most IOI team member from China won gold medal with their first try.Next up, Hackerrank also compared how the developers in each country split their time up amongst different challenge types and then compared these domain preferences to those of the average HackerRank user. This allowed us to figure out which countries are more likely than the rest to take a test in a particular domain—and which countries are less likely than the rest.As the table above shows, China participated in mathematics competitions at a much higher rate than would be expected given the average developer’s preferences. This might help explain how they were able to secure the top rank in that domain. Likewise, Czech developers showed an outsized preference for shell competitions, a domain in which they ranked number one.But beyond these two examples, there seems to be little relationship between a country’s preference for a particular challenge type and its performance in that domain. We also wanted to know whether countries have specific preferences when it comes to programming languages. Are Indians more interested in C++? Do Mexicans code in Ruby?The following chart breaks down the proportion of tests taken in each language by country.In general, developers of different nationalities participate in Java challenges more than tests in any other programming language (with a few notable exceptions like Malaysia and Pakistan, where users prefer C++, and Taiwan, where Python is king). Sri Lanka comes in at number one in its preference for Java. India, which supplies a big portion of HackerRank developers, ranks 8th.***While Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nigeria are currently toward the bottom of the hacker rankings, they can look to Switzerland’s steadfast developers for inspiration. When a HackerRank developer gives up on a challenge before making any progress, they earn a score of zero. Switzerland has the lowest percentage of nil scoring users, which make Swiss coders the Most Tenacious Programmers in the World.***Every day, developers around the world compete with each other to become the next Gates or Knuth.If we held a hacking Olympics today, our data suggests that China would win the gold, Russia would take home a silver, and Poland would nab the bronze. Though they certainly deserve credit for making a showing, the United States and India have some work ahead of them before they make it into the top 25.

It is important to remember that libertarians are much lower on narcissism than are authoritarians (See <0058>), so there is a gigantic difference between an individual libertarian’s personal views about something, and his opinion about whether state violence should be used to impose his view on people who simply disagree with him.What that means for this domain, is that you will find libertarians who urge child labor and other who decry child labor. But generally — whatever their individual personal views are of child labor — few serious libertarians will urge that [state] violence be committed against children, parents, and/or employers for voluntary, consensual labor, even if the person laboring is a child.[Footnote 1]Defending Child Labor in ‘Developed’ CountriesSo, let’s start out with the easy case — a country whose citizens produce so much wealth, and which has such sufficient charitable donations, that there is no starvation/death consequence should a child be violently prohibited from laboring.A paternalistic, narcissistic authoritarian would decide that, because he cannot imagine any “real” need for child labor, therefore, no child labor is at all ever justified. Instead, he thinks that the child should engage only in frolicking, when not laboring in their government-approved studies of course. He then narcissistically generalizes his personal preference to everyone else in the world, demanding a law that uses government violence to prevent children from voluntarily working.Libertarians must constantly remind such arrogant paternalists that the natural differences across hundreds of millions of diverse families means that the paternalist’s preference for his own family may not match the preferences of other families. An authoritarian’s inability to imagine people who are different from him does not justify violence.Our brains are limited, and so even the brightest narcissistic, paternalistic authoritarian cannot image the range of desires, goals, preferences, trade-offs, etc. that exist when we’re talking about a billion human beings, 99.999999% of whom the authoritarian has never met. Undaunted, the narcissistic authoritarian nonetheless imagines that he is so smart that he knows best what a billion other people ought to do for their children.Really?!Why Rich People Might Support Child LaborSo, in this wealthy, abundant society, can you and I imagine family situations that are beyond this paternalist authoritarian’s ability to imagine?I know I can, because we organized our child’s education around child labor, even though we are wealthy, smart, and our child need not work at all until she was an adult.We specifically rejected government toy schooling and instead sought for our daughter to learn in the real world by serving real people doing real things. Our daughter had her own businesses at age 10. By 12 she was working regularly for someone else. By 14 she was working for pay. By 16 she was designing and running her own classes. By 18 she was a principal employee, opening and closing studios by herself and managing students and selling to parents. (See <0308 >, <0415>)We regularly and unguiltily violated child labor laws in order to prepare our daughter as best as we could to be a wealth creator.And our main frustration was that too often what we wanted to do to give our daughter an even bigger leg up, was illegal, and while we were okay with breaking such unethical laws, we could not convince employers to risk their futures.For example, I was part of an alternative school startup, and one of our goals was to allow students to intern at local businesses. We could not accomplish this due to the obstacles of government laws “protecting” children.Why Poor People in an Abundant Society Might Support Child LaborWell, let’s say that our arrogant, paternalistic, narcissistic authoritarian admits that for “someone like you”, with your degrees and IQ and wealth and success and studied reasons, child labor “might” make sense (and I guess I should thank him, as this is awfully magnanimous of him to allow us to raise our child as we see fit!!), but, he would imply that for the vast majority of the unwashed people (like minorities and such!), why, they’re too stupid to be allowed to make such decisions for themselves.And here is where their paternalism rears its ugly, narrow-minded, racist, classist head.Let me tell you, were we a poor black family living in the projects, and I had made it through all the other paternalistic authoritarian laws to still remain the male head of my family (a big assumption here!! See <0640>), I would be even more driven to circumvent child labor laws so that I could train my child to become a wealth creator.Government schools suck for the vast majority of children in their stated goal of making the child successful in life. And for the poorest of the poor, these schools really suck.Government’s model of how people escape poverty is through, you might not be surprised, government. You sit in your government chair in your government building repeating back government lessons from your government teachers. And if you cow enough to them, they will give you enough certifications that you might eventually escape that environment to go to another set of schools, for whose academic rigor you are likely unprepared. But in the low probability case that you make it out of those, then you enter a work force to work for the Man, but more often in some government, bureaucratic job. (Got to keep people waiting at the Deparmet of Motor Vehicles, you know.)What if government, because they rely on coerced theft of wealth rather than on creating wealth, doesn’t have a clue about how to create wealth? What if wealth is created outside of government bureaucracies and requires a mentality that government can never understand and thus could never ever teach a child?Why would I put my child in that environment and pretend that he will learn how to create wealth?I would do everything I could to get my child to learn about real work and about how to really create wealth. As early as I could and for as much time as I could.I would find employer mentors for him to teach him how to figure out what people want, how to find those things, and how to match needs with service. My own daughter is expert in serving customers and in providing value, but a poor black kid needs to know this even more, and so I would start my black son earlier and have him work even more.I am not saying (like the authoritarian would) that all children should learn how to be small business owners.But I am saying that the arrogant, racist, paternalist authoritarian needs to back off from my child, because he doesn’t have a clue as what my child needs to be successful, and, as it’s my child, I’m going to make the callWhy Poor Families in Poor Countries Might Support Child LaborNow, most of the hand-wringing of the paternalist class has to do with using government violence to stop voluntary child labor in poor countries. And much of this has to do with the false government history they were abused with in government schools.The government myth is that we would all be forcing our children to labor (while we presumably eat bonbons) if it were not for our progressive champions righteously employing the violence of government to stop us selfish parents from abusing our children.So many good libertarian historians and economists have disabused this myth, and I include a few, short references in the comments section below if you still believe this self-serving authoritarian claptrap.But let me go to the bottom line — if families are starving, then not allowing children to labor, and thus to eat, is killing the child. Think of it this way, if a child is alone on an island and because you care so much for him, you demand that he swing under the trees rather than go out and gather bananas to eat, you are killing that child.Child labor naturally diminishes as wealth increases, especially child labor that is only for survival, rather than for development of market skills.Misattributing the outcome (diminished child labor) with an after-the-fact government law (anti-child labor laws) rather than the real cause (increased wealth), will kill poor children.Government cannot save children — the creation of wealth saves children.(And we libertarians will explain until we’re blue in the face that government does not create a lick of wealth; to the contrary, it can only destroy wealth, but that is a different argument..,)So Many People, So Many PreferencesSo, some parents may support child labor because they want their child to live. Some parents may support child labor because they want their child to learn how to become a powerful wealth creator.And some parents may reject child labor because they would rather have their child starve to death than to ever work for a capitalistic pig. And other parents might reject child labor because they believe that only by forcing their child to involuntarily labor for the government in government schools to learn government lessons can their child ever really learn how to create (read: steal) wealth.And there will be lots of other reasons across billions of people…And so, we may find individual libertarians on either side of this disagreement over how to best prepare their unique child for an unknowable future.But what we libertarians will urge the nonlibertarians who are worried enough about their imagination of other families’ situations that they are thinking of using government violence against them, is to have a bit of humility that you may not know what is best for billions of other families whose situation and goals and preferences you can not possibly ever know.Heck, you may not even know what is best for your own child. Why not explore that, and let your example speak to other families? It’s certainly more honoring than pretending that you know what is best them, and then imposing it on them by pulling out the government gun.Footnote 1: Given the ever-present strawmen, let me note here for those who might otherwise fall for such sophistry that libertarians, even more so than authoritarians, would oppose — violently if necessary — any involuntary, nonconsensual, violently-imposed labor, whether on an adult or a child.My comments above relate only to the situation where the child, the parent, and the employer all consent, where the labor is voluntary, and the means are peaceful.What we are examining are those cases where some third party buttinsky decides that he knows better than the parent, the child, and the employer, and he feels justified in violating universal human ethics by threatening (state) violence to prevent the child from using her body how she chooses.See Related:0696: What would our future look like without public education?0875: What is your opinion on unpaid internships?0667: What are some alternative school concepts?0415: At what age should a child be considered an adult?0308: Should a teen accept a job at lower than minimum wage?0699: Why would an employer hire a middle school dropout?0991: If high school taught economics, would there be fewer socialist in America?0058: Are libertarians or authoritarians more narcissistic?0640: Why should the Libertarian Party replace the Democratic Party?0845: How to make a living doing what you love?0411: How can I be successful even when starting at lower than minimum wage?0755: How has psychology changed acceptable parenting?0228: How would a libertarian society reduce the cost of higher education so one could get a job?0860: What do entrepreneurs just "get" that other people don't?→ More essays on <Schooling and Indoctrination> by Dennis→ Return to the <Table of Contents> for Dennis’ Libertarian Essays<, Indoc, Parenting, RunBus, Poverty,>

So, the OP would like to know how a homeschooling parent can help his child to become more sociable?I can answer from my experiencesconsulting parents about schooling alternatives, including homeschooling,homeschooling my child, and interacting with numerous homeschooling communities, andStarting up alternative schooling options, some of which served homeschoolers.Are Homeschoolers Sociable?Three weeks ago, my wife had an interesting interaction with an acquaintance who was remarking how mature, confident, and well-spoken our daughter (now 19) is. My wife mentioned that she had homeschooled.“Oh, that explains it!” the acquaintance concluded.My wife told me this while laughing because this is 180 degrees from the incessant questioning and worried looks we had received from everyone about how we would ever be able to “socialize” Vivian, if we continued to insist on homeschooling her.What is the Default Level of “Sociable”?The acquaintance’s strong reaction to Vivian’s unique social skills has not been uncommon. Most acquaintances remark how social she is — relative to other young people they have experienced. And we think this is because she was not cookie-cuttered by government schooling.If I were to exaggerate the median government “socialized” child, it would be eyes down, mumbling, uncomfortable, disinterested, dispassionate, quiet. As an adult interested in child empowerment, what I see being produced by government schooling distresses me.I believe this lack of social grace is due in large part to inherent characteristics of government schooling:Bad Fit: Government force-fits one type of schooling onto all the children, even though it may fit well only 10% of the children.The other 90% will naturally feel varying senses of dis-ease every school day throughout their entire childhood, and they will carry that lack of ease with them for the rest of their lives.It is important to note that this lack-of-ease is not a fault of your child, but is instead due to the government as monopoly schooling provider.Lack of Variety Social Interactions: Government schooling removes the child from social interaction. The child is isolated from the community, placed into an artificial environment, and thus the child has fewer opportunities to learn how to interact naturally with members of the real community.With a variety of agesIn a variety of situationsAround a variety of life activities and purposesNo Social Time: Not only does government schooling not teach social interaction, there is relatively little time for socializing — three minutes between classes, a 20 minute break for lunch, and a truncated playground.For the rest of their time in school the children are actually punished for social interactions.After school, dull and repetitive homework further remove government children from social interactions with peers, parents, and the community at large.Bullying: Government schooling is intrinsically a bullying relationship. The government bullies parents to pay whether it helps their child or not. It bullies children to attend what to many children feels like a prison. It bullies children throughout the day, controlling their movement, their attention, their interests, and even their biological functioning.The bullying amongst classmates simply reflects the inherent government bullying of the institution, with the irony being that the government school tells you that it can remedy bullying. No, it is the model of the bulling. {See <0549>}Hierarchal vs. Equal: Government schooling primarily teaches submission to authority. Children are taught to shut-up, walk in lines, sit quietly, obey without question, attend their master’s every word, substitute their interests for the bells’ dictates. A process more dulling is hard to imagine.To me, it is a wonder that so many children escape such a soul-crushing experience with any unique personality and spark left.If you look at almost any child before they are forced to attend school, they are a learning machine. They are excited about life and they greedily absorb everything they possible can about the world around them. They are curious about people.But then, our rulers tell parents that it is time to turn their child over to the state. And in just a few years, that excitement for living, that exploration of learning, has disappeared. What was an excited, charming, engaging little human being is acting like a sullen, oppressed prisoner, lashing out at parents and withdrawing from other adults.Do you wonder what happened?Government apologists will assure you that this is just the “natural process” of growing up, and unrelated entirely to their takeover of your child.Are they right?How to Home Teach SociabilitySo, let’s say that we didn’t turn our child over to our rulers, and instead we continued that parent-child mutual exploration of an exciting world that had seemed so promising. And — at least for this question — let’s focus on developing sociableness.Remember, we start with an already, very excited, very engaged child, who has not yet been turned into a bureaucratic drone. We want to expand that engagement and interest in others, and to start to teach her some alternative tools for interacting with a variety of people. How might we do this if we’re homeschooling?Now, each parent will have different opportunities around their town, and will be more or less comfortable with various ideas. Let me outline a few things that we did, and you can choose, expand, and customize as you see fit. :)OutingsMy daughter used to joke about her friends in the government school whose highlight of the year would be going on a <whisper> “class trip”. She went on such trips multiple times a week!The class would spend inordinate amounts of time preparing, permission slipping, transporting, and being escorted through (usually while yelled at, or while causing bedlam) one of the places to which Vivian and I regularly went. It was a shock to see one of these groups herded by.My daughter regularly went to museums, art studios, aquariums, etc. But we had no bother, no overhead. And once there, she would explore however and whatever she wanted, for as long as she wanted.While the government children would maybe raise a hand after the lecture, but would be quickly marched out while yelled at, my daughter would choose which lectures to go to, and talk happily with the presenter for a half hour or so aftwards, petting the spider and even going ‘back stage’. She would take friends and they would be free to explore whatever they chose, and talk to each other throughout. And no one would be hushing them and demanding that they leave this place and instead go to that place, or sit around with their fingers on their lips and wait for the rest of the class. And they didn’t cause trouble because it wasn’t like they were suddenly freed — they were always free, so their freedom wasn’t a big shock.They would confidently talk to officials, to other patrons, and to each other. And every such interaction was learning to be social — not in an artificial environment, not as a mob of 25 listening to one authority, but in a natural one-to-one, how children have always learned, until our government started institutionalizing them.Even during our outdoor adventures — hikes, horseshoe digs, butterfly catches — she would meet people and engage with them and talk with them as naturally as can be.Homeschooling outings are very free-form, and without artificial constraints on socializing.Homeschooling ParentsFor some reason I forgot to lead with this, but the adult-to-child ratio in homeschooling is very high. Where government schooling gets excited with a ratio of 1:20 (adult to child) but often will suffer 1:30, homeschooling is more like 1:1.3.So, a homeschooler will engage socially with supervising adult about 15 to 23 times more than will a government-schooled child.In the government school situation, the child is mostly learning his social skills from the other children! And do you know who doesn’t yet know social skills? Why should we expect that putting 25 kids together will teach adult social skills, rather than proliferating poor skills?The homeschooling parents your child is engaging person-to-person are actively teaching and modeling social skills. This is not the arbitrary authoritarian submission taught by government teachers; this is the socializing that we want our child to engage with all people.Outside CommunityA big part of Vivian’s social engagement came about by going out into the community and talking with people of a variety of ages and occupations. She became an integral part of the community.She would go to all my appointments. She would happily chat with the people. (They don’t get to see kids, usually, and when they do, the kids are going crazy because they are so rarely free.) Vivian made several friends in the community who looked forward to seeing her and would spend special time with her.I also consciously introduced her to strangers, to ask about their jobs and their lives. In this way, she learned why and how people worked, and she learned how to ask questions about the lives of other people.And did I mention neighbors? People who lived nearby who were home and she could visit on her own. Again, these were adults, who taught her adult level skills, while her peers were flinging boogers out of boredom whenever the teacher’s back was turned.Finally a homeschooler can explore nooks and crannies during the day. Vivian played games with the old people in nursing homes and chatted about their lives and looked at their pictures. She played her trumpet for various communitiesHomeSchool EventsI recommend joining the numerous homeschooling groups. There might be groups formed around acting, around outings, around community-led classes, or around a foreign language.Some of our favorites were programs like “Monday Funday”, during which homeschoolers would gather and different parents would lead activities or teach classes or skills, and the kids could engage and play.Again, the freedom of homeschooling meant that our child had the luxury of hours of unstructured socializing — with adults and with children.DiscriminationPart of learning to be social with others is learning to avoid people who are not good friend material.In government schools, your child is forced into classes with some children who are mean or rude or socially unacceptable. You don’t have that problem with homeschooling.Your child can pick and choose with whom she interacts. And if someone is mean, she doesn't have to suffer them. No one subjugates her, because she is not forced to be with anyone who would. And she learns that social interactions are something to be chosen; good friends are to be cherished; and some people are not worth hanging with.TripsOne of the great benefits of homeschooling is that your child is not chained to a school program for most of the year. That means not just a trip in the off-season to Cancun while the other children are stuck in classes, but it means a day-trip to a conference or convention, or going to an out-of-state amusement park. My daughter especially liked going to dog shows, where we would spend the whole day talking to adults and petting their dogs.But she took other trips. For example, we traveled to visit relatives with whom Vivian could visit for long periods of time. We took French immersion vacations in Quebec and Guadaloupe (as rewards for finishing large portions of work.)And if something came up, we could leave that day to experience it.Classes for HomeschoolersOne interesting development was that institutions started creating special classes just for homeschoolers. My daughter’s favorite was a marine biology series put on by the New England Aquarium.Now, classes for homeschoolers, especially when not taught by government teachers, are a special thing to see. The kids are all excited about learning. They are there to explore. Because they chose the program.And the docents, experts, interns, scientists, etc., who teach these classes love homeschoolers, because homeschoolers are excited about what excites the teacher. And this real engagement — between adult and child — is a wonder to watch and only a wish in the forced relationships of government schooling.Another development, which I helped create, was “schools” for homeschoolers. (See <0667>). Vivian joined one that was basically a hang out for homeschoolers, where they met, engaged, and planned. There might be 2–4 organized classes at any time, which the homeschoolers could take if they were interested. And they also could go and travel off on their own.Traveling on OwnA major goal for me was to teach my daughter how to travel safely on her own. Thus, Vivian was given a lot more travel experiences. I had her navigating Penn Station on her own when she was 5. (One time she returned with a policeman who thought she was a lost child. She had tried to disabuse him, but he needed to see it for himself.)We played a game called “Find Your Ally” where we would sit in Boston’s South Station and I would query her, “You’re in trouble. Whom do you go to ask for help.” and she would pick someone out of the crowd and we would talk about why that person might be a good choice.All of these engagements required that she be aware of her surroundings and be able to engage with strangers. We reaped the benefits throughout her life. The time her mother dropped her off to visit a friend, but the family wasn’t home, and Vivian simply walked down the street, found a man working outside another home, confidently asked for his cell phone, and called her mother to pick her back up. She was 7. We did “homeschool exchange programs”, where she visited a distant friend (in NC) for a couple of weeks, and then they both came up to our house (in Boston) for two weeks.She flew on her own to visit other relatives and friends before age 10.Part of her “requirement” to become 10 years-old was a 13 hour train trip on her own from Boston to Lynchburg, VA. Her task was to meet people and talked with them. After visiting her grandparents, she came back on the train, on her own.By 12, she was taking the train into Boston by herself and walking the half mile from South Station to the Aquarium. At 16, she traveled to England and to Czech Republic on her own to visit friends (including changing planes on her own at one of the world’s busiest airports, London’s Heathrow). At 17, she spent the summer in Nice on her own, taking classes during the morning and walking (and taking the bus) around the city with classmates and on her own. At 19, she traveled to Paris and to France’s Basque coast on her own.Of course, learning how to travel on her own regularly was enabled by not being stuck inside the walls of an institution.Personal GrowthOne of our secrets has been personal growth workshops. Vivian took part in a variety of children’s workshops, where they practiced social skills and understanding their emotions, and listening to others, and being empathetic. She was well known in these communities and was eventually allowed to take part in adult workshops while still a middle teen.JobsAnd one of the big areas that we used was employment. Unfortunately the government barred Vivian from useful work. They believe that children and teens are not useful, competent human beings, and should be prevented from anything that smacks of usefulness to other human beings — instead, stuck inside artificial environments doing artificial work for people who don’t care.But Admiral Farragut captained his first ship at age 13. And Benjamin Franklin was running the printing press at age 10. And so, because our family is not all that into government, we ignored those fools.Vivian found useful, but unpaid, employment helping out other people locally. For example, she took part in a tagging program for butterfly migration with a local science group. She helped at nursing homes and she helped caring for babies.By age 10, she had her own business, walking dogs and mother helping.By 12 she had a regular unpaid job teaching karate. By 14 she was being paid. By 16, she was spending more hours than the owners, and was opening and closing the dojos. She was a favorite of parents and children and adult learners.One thing we learned was that Vivian was a natural saleswoman. She was so engaged and would listen to people, and her natural enthusiasm — not banged out of her — was infectious. Her karate boss always made sure that Vivian met with any prospective students and their parents in order to sell them on the program. (The director of her homeschool “school” did the same thing, making her the School Ambassador.)Her ParentsOh, and I should mention that we had gobs and gobs more time with our daughter than government-school parents can have. So, she learned social graces (and built her vocabulary) with us.Lots MoreI wanted to give you an idea of the range of things that are available to homeschoolers to teach your child to expand their natural sociability and to learn more refined skills, especially modeled by adult peersPlease feel free to add other ideas in the Comments section..But I know a “Weird” Homeschooler!!Now, I want to address the concern of some parents who have met a homeschooler whom they think is “weird’ and “awkward”, and they make the mistake of thinking that homeschooling was the proximate cause of the weirdness. And because they don’t want a “weird” child, they would never homeschool!First, one can only teach up to a child’s potential. We are all born on this earth with certain natural abilities and constraints. I hope that I have shown you that, whatever potential your child might have to be socially graceful can be more closely achieved through conscious homeschooling than by turning your child over to a Lord of the Flies, authoritarian, artificial environment and simply hoping that they learn.Second, the children who first homeschooled were disproportionately those children who did not fit into the one-size-fits-few government program. Their lack of fit was for a variety of reasons (for us, it was a higher value for freedom than for submission), but one of those reasons is simply that they were already much more unusual (“weird”) that the other children and thus the lack of fit was much more obvious (especially as it usually led to bullying.). Some of these children are dealing with an inherited, not learned, trait (e.g., Aspergers.)Now, can homeschooling cure an Aspergers lack of emotional affect? No, but neither can government schooling. And I would argue that a conscious, loving homeschooling parent will have many more opportunities to teach such a child more social skills than the child will have stuck in a government institution.Third, I’ve assumed that the homeschooling parent is engaged with the child, wants the child to develop these skills, will research methods, and will invest time to consciously expose the child. The vast majority of homeschooling parents are of this kind, while the more disinterested parents will simply turn their child over to the State and celebrate their ‘freedom’.But that doesn’t mean that all homeschooling parents are conscious. Nor does it mean that all homeschooling parents prioritize social skills (e.g., there are homeschooling parents who prioritize “classical training”, which requires much more focused, in-the-seat work than government schools).But, without knowing any specifics about the bureaucrat, the parent, or the child, I personally would bet my money on the homeschooling parent to give their child more social skills over the long run than the government bureaucrat.Soif your child is someone who is excited and engaged in the world, who has passions and interests, and who loves you, andif you are someone who loves your child and wants the absolute best for them and realizes that no one is going to care more for your child than you do, and you are fine investing your time today so that you don’t have to suffer heartbreaking problems in the futureI would suggest you investigate seriously homeschooling.See Related:0696: What would our future look like without public education?0583: Why do people disrespect government teachers?0667: What are some alternative school concepts?0824: Do you consider private education unethical?0474: Does it takes a village to raise a child?1007: Are young boys are being medicated for what is in fact typical male behavior?0549: What is the solution to bullying in schools?1020: What do libertarians think about child labor?0697: What is the biggest obstacle to education reform?1072: How can I empathize more with people?→ More essays on <Schooling and Indoctrination> by Dennis→ Return to the <Table of Contents> for Dennis’ Libertarian Essays<, Indoc, Growth, Parenting, Dennis,>