Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

Absolutely! But I'm not sure if it was worth the 4 years of tuition ;)

One of PGs essays discusses similar ideas (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html). I agree that segregating teenagers may actually be harming their development instead of aiding it.

The problem is specialisation and aptitude. First part of the problem: Underlying most modern education is the idea that each individual is suited to a different profession, and that both the individual and society benefit when people are allowed to pursue that specific profession.

Second part of the problem: there are more specialisations, professions, then ever before. How many basic professions can you think of? Farmer, sailor, doctor, ... There are hundreds or thousands. And every one has hundreds or thousands of specialisations. In some professions these change on a yearly basis.

Thus education becomes a search problem, and like all search problems the key is scaling: how do you find the ideal speciality for each of the millions of students? Modern education takes an iterative approach, where students learn the absolute basics of everything, then learn a little more of a slightly narrower subset. The early iterations (i.e. school) are long and concentrate on building up foundations for later choices. The later iterations (i.e. early jobs) are shorter and concentrate on quickly narrowing down huge numbers of possible specialisations.

Reality (young brain needs real world) vs. Idealism (direct each person to an ideal profession). The trick is how to compress the spectrum - incorporate reality into a system built on an ideal.

Very few, true.

I almost feel as if we need a return to a semi-apprentice model - for high schoolers, at least:

For some of the day, you take classes teaching you theories, history, and so forth. For the rest of the day, you work an apprenticeship at a company. You don't get paid for it; the employer doesn't get that much work out of you; but you apply concepts that you're learning in your classes to what you're doing at your apprenticeship.

Don't like your apprenticeship (the line of work, the subjects, et cetera), change it. But your classes stay largely the same. If you stay at the same apprenticeship throughout school, you likely have a paid position (or, part-way through, a part-time paid position) as soon as you graduate. The employer could decide to subsidize your higher education, if you need it. But this model should work well enough that most of what you need to be entry level at that position is taught to you by the time you graduate. The rest just rounds you out.

It worked well enough for the "makers" of the 17th century: why would it not work well for the "makers" of the 21st? Not only computer programming, but numerical analysis, musicianship, and so on and so forth would work fine for this. Some professions that absolutely require a higher degree (nuclear engineer; architect - though that's arguable, and already uses an apprenticeship system; structural engineer (doubt you could learn all that math in high school); etc). Even such a thing as research assistant would work well as an apprenticeship.

Note, of course, that there's no geographical limit on what a student could take an apprenticeship on, with todays communications advances.

I'd be interested to see a study of people, like my folks, who were in their teens in the 60's and 70's. Up north where my family is from, you generally left school at 16, got an apprenticeship with a company like Caterpillar, or hit the coal mines or shipyards. There was no coddling, no indeterminate hiatus from responsibility, and it seems to have produced a generally successful group of people who rank amongst the top contributors to a variety of industries the world over, some of the largest and most successful companies ever brought to light having come from people within this generation. Something else I find interesting, and something I see in my own age group (30-40), is that a lot of the South Africans who were forced to undergo conscription into the armed forces seem to have a deeper level of self-discipline, which you'd expect from a military experience of the kind that they were subjected to. I'm not saying that you require a drill instructor to develop self-discipline, but it did have the advantage of forcing you to take responsibility for your assigned tasks, even if only to avoid a run and indeterminate PT to sooth the ruffled feathers of your shouty DI.

"The trick is how to compress the spectrum - incorporate reality into a system built on an ideal."

It's actually much, much simpler than that. Schools simply don't give a damn about teaching students about anything- their primary purpose is just to keep the kids in one place all day long. So give the sufficiently motivated/intelligent kids, who have proven that they don't need to be kept in one place all day long, an opt-out option.