Subscribe to this Blog
Today's Blogs
    The Checkup:

College at Age 16

At the end of October, New Hampshire announced plans for "new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school," according to Time.

Other states may follow New Hampshire's lead, Time reports. New Hampshire, while lauding the cost savings of the plan, points to the dozens of industrialized countries that expect students to be ready for college at age 16 and the fact that those students regularly outperform American teenagers in academics. Meanwhile, critics worry that such a plan exacerbates the socioeconomic gap of students. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, tells Time.

The move to graduate some 16-year-olds early is lauded by the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association. New Hampshire has been working on personalized education for six years, says NEA New Hampshire President Rhonda Wesolowski. Some students will complete the high school requirements early, she says. They can then take a state test that shows what they've learned and graduate. New Hampshire is currently assessing what tests it will give those students.

The main concern of early graduation, Wesolowski says, is whether the child is socially mature enough to graduate from high school and move onto community college. Letting students take those college courses is highly successful, she says, and lets them save on college costs. "Glomming on to that some students can graduate at 16 is missing the point that the program is geared to personalized education for every child, every school system," Wesolowski says.

In addition to personalizing education, such programs as this one in New Hampshire and a pilot program in Boston are aimed at reducing or eliminating the need for students to take college-level remedial courses. About one-third of college students nationwide take remedial courses in math, writing and/or reading.

What do you think? Are 16-year-olds ready socially and academically for community college? Is that any different than taking two full years of AP courses, which many high-achieving teens are doing now?

By Stacey Garfinkle |  December 2, 2008; 7:44 AM ET  | Category:  Schools , Teens
Previous: Melamine, Girl Scouts, Cheating Teens and a Sports Test | Next: Public Restroom 101


"Are 16-year-olds ready socially and academically for community college?"

Each student is an individual.

Posted by: jezebel3 | December 2, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Socially ready? What about financially ready? This NH plan sounds like a big scam to me. "Graduate" kids 2 years early and save tax money that would be spent on the last 2 years of high school- while sticking it to the parents to pay community college tuition. What NH should be doing is offering college-level courses for the advanced kids while they're in public high school.

Posted by: bubba777 | December 2, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

If the college kids are still doing what I was doing then nope. Do you want your 16 year old daughter hanging out with 20 year old men? I think school, including college, is as much about developing socially as it is about academics. It is difficult to succeed without both.

Posted by: moxiemom1 | December 2, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I think that this could be a really wonderful plan for students who might not otherwise be interested in school-- Encouraging them to do well for 2 years in order to pursue a career of their choosing. Perhaps it will prevent kids from dropping out before they get a diploma. Most of the kids I know who didn't complete school quit as seniors.

I graduated from high school early and it did me a world of good. It looks good on my resume and enabled me not to feel bored or stifled in an environment that wasn't suited for me.

Posted by: BetsyGinDC | December 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

i graduated from high school at 16 and was fine. i think it really depends on the individual child and the maturity level that the child possesses. i was also exposed to some college classes while still in high school on account of the AP curriculum at my school, so being in a college lecture environment with older students was not as big of a shock to me. of course, when i went to one of the big 10 schools for college, it was a shock, but that is a shock whether you are 16 or 18 in terms of class size, overwhelming extra curricular activities, living on your own, etc.

maybe allowing students to take community college classes while still socially interacting with their peers in high school might be a better plan to help with adjustment. not sure how many schools offer this though.

Posted by: sp1103sd | December 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I think the NH plan is a great idea, but it's far from anything creative or new. Even back in my day, every student was well aware they could drop out of high school at age 16, take the high school equivalency exam known as the GED, and attend the state community college. I took some classes there myself when I was 16 and didn't have to get a GED before they accepted me.

It doesn't sound like there is much of a difference with the NH plan than what was available when I was 16.

And sure, 16 year olds are mature enough to attend college. It's not a question of "Would you let your 16-year old daughter hang around 20 year old men" any more than "Would you let your 14 year old daughter hang around 18 year old men" as it exist in the high school environment already. Also, I think there is this huge misconception that attending a high school is necessary for the socialization of adolescents. Just because you went to the prom doesn't make you more mature than those who had better things to do.

Posted by: WhackyWeasel | December 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

For kids who are ready, I don't see it as a problem and community colleges draw a very interesting mix of students. Four-year state schools often present worse environments, speaking from personal experience!

I'm all for personalizing education (though I see less of it here in NH than the NEA does, but then my district never signed onto the state's Follow the Child initiative either)

Schools are locally conrolled and vary HUGELY in this state. For a smart kid in a school district with limited options, this could be a great deal.

Posted by: annenh | December 2, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Depends on the kid. This could be a good idea.

I know of a couple of kids who dropped out of high school, took the GED and went on to college early. The NH plan just means they'd "graduate" high school early rather than having to play the GED game.

Also, a number of private high schools - including the school DS attends - allow advanced students to take classes at local colleges. The school isn't big enough to offer advanced classes that only 3 or 4 kids are ready for, and local community colleges (and even 4-year colleges) will allow younger students to register for and take a couple of classes. The only issues are paying for them (in DS' case, the high school has an agreement to pay tuition; parents have to buy the books) and fitting them into the child's schedule.

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | December 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

moxiemom - as far as "letting your 16 year old daughter hang out with 20 year old men," it comes down to the situation and parental supervision. If she's just taking classes at the local college while living at home, I don't see a problem. She's around 20 year old men while working at the grocery store anyway. It's my job to provide parental supervision and I'll do that whether we're talking work, high school or a college class.

Now, moving across country to live full time on a college campus where no supervision is possible - that's a different story, and my answer is "NO." (YMMV)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | December 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I started college at the University of Virginia at age 15 and turned 16 a couple of weeks later. Not only did I graduate with distinction in a science discipline, I was well-prepared for undergraduate academic studies. I had attended private school and was not discriminated against because I completed my studies faster than most of my fellow American age peers who were in public school. I played two varsity sports when I arrived and went on to attend both graduate school and medical school.

My parents were decidedly upper middle class and had no problems with me attending university early. My fellow classmates at UVa did know or didn't care about my age. In short, these cases should be evaluated based on the individual student rather than attempting to make sweeping generalizations. Certainly, I was an exception in maturity when I began my undergraduate studies but I suspect that other students will be able to function in this capacity too.

Posted by: nb3c | December 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Funny this comes up today. I actually did graduate high school at 16 with a normal diploma. I just took more class work during the three years I attended high school. I did HS in three years (not two years as the article suggested). I had started highschool a year younger because I never attended kindergarten.

I don't think it is a bad idea. The only real deficit in my education is writing. Mostly because I am very lazy and took mostly math and science classes. But I attribute that deficit to my own doing (not graduating early).

As far as the maturity issue, it really all depends on the child/young adult. I did not just leave HS and take college courses. I actually left home and went to NYC for a year. I took college courses and rented an apartment with a friend for two years. Of course the money for school and the apartment came from my parents. I did have a part time job for all my personal expenses.

It did not hurt me academically to go to college early. It also did not help or hurt me professionally. You work for such a long time (30 years or so). So an additional two years does not make a huge difference in one person's life.

The biggest drawback was my teenage relationship with my parents. Because I moved out and was in college, I essentially assumed I was an adult. So I had no parental guidance at all by age 16. I also missed two years of living with my brothers. It does seem weird to think I hardly knew my brothers by age 20.

I also had a 24 year old boyfriend when I was 16. Think about that one. Do I want my son or daughter dating someone that much older then them? Not really.

But overall, I found the college atmosphere very stimulating. I also loved being in NY an being young in NYC.

Posted by: foamgnome | December 2, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

When my sister was in high school, she graduated a semester early, getting the requirements out of the way - it wasn't really difficult to do, given the lax requirements (and this was a top 10 high school, in the US - I believe it's now in the top 20). A friend of mine left high school after her junior year, got into college where she'd be able to get college credit and also a high school diploma.

It's not for everyone, but for some I think it might be a good idea. I have a few questions, though, as I don't know the laws. Isn't it mandatory for kids to be in school until they are 18? What if they don't go on to college? Do they just get a job at 16? Or is this only for those children who are seen as college material? Those who wouldn't want to go to college would seem to be candidates as well, though, as they'd be able to graduate and start working two years earlier.

Would one have to become an emancipated minor if they weren't living with their parents?

My high school had an 'alternative' high school where some students would go if they needed more attention, or couldn't fit into the high school environment (as 98% of students went on to some type of college, it was extremely competitive). It is a huge success. Unfortunately, that is highly unusual in other types of districts, so one of their answers seems to be a type of program like this. It's probably not a bad idea - but I thought that a student could come up with his/her own curriculum if he/she wanted (i.e., taking the classes at community college allowing them to use that for high school credit).

Oh, another question - it was brought up before, I think...does the school system pay for the classes? Or is it just a way to get students out of the system to 'save' money (which we all know wouldn't be 'saved' - they'd figure out a way to spend it)?

Posted by: atlmom1234 | December 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I don't see why students can't be ready for university/college at age 16. At 17 when I was in my final year of high school, I also look a course at the local university. It was a real confidence booster that I could handle university level courses.

Posted by: Billie_R | December 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I graduated from high school in three years instead of four and started college at 17. College was 4 hours from home and I lived in the dorms with all the other kids. It was a no-brainer for me. I was bored in HS and ready for the change. I am really happy that I chose the route I did. While, I wasn't a goody-two shoes with a perfect GPA, I did well in school (3.7 GPA) and kept out of trouble for the most STDs, pregnancies, or arrests ;)

Posted by: cyprissa | December 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"no STDs, pregnancies, or arrests"

Wow Cyprissa! Now that's what I call setting the bar REAL high!

Posted by: WhackyWeasel | December 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

atlmom: I don't think you have to stay in school till 18. You always have the option of dropping out at 16 (with or without a GED or diploma).

It does seem like it is one way to save money for the states. But like I said, this isn't really new. I don't think they will get a lot of takers-therefore they won't save a huge amount of money.

It seems like the states should really be focused on keeping the bottom of the class from dropping out.

Posted by: foamgnome | December 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

The "lauding the cost savings" strikes me as suspicious. I second bubba777's observation that the parents will probably be stuck with community college costs.

As someone who harbors second thoughts about his own choice of college and major thirty years later, I question the wisdom of making that decision at an even younger age. My father started college at 15 in 1928. He felt he wasn't ready and made me promise not to ever do that to my own children.

For some individuals, early college can and does work well. I worry about institutionalizing it to the extent that the process starts to pull in kids who would be better served by two more years of high school.

Posted by: wistlo | December 2, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The concept of beginning college after 2 years of high school is not new. Simon's Rock College of Bard is a school specifically for early entrants to postsecondary education. My daughter started there after 10th grade and graduated with a degree in biology/chemistry. The only drawback to having a BA at the age of 19 was finding a peer group. She took 2 years off to join VISTA and then went to graduate school. By then, the age difference didn't matter as much. The early entry was exactly what she needed but it's not for every kid!

Posted by: onlyanobserver | December 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Most states only require a person to be in school until his/her 16th birthday, not 18. After all, a large number of students graduate from high school when they're 17 (that is, those whose 18th birthday is later in the year than graduation).

When I was in high school in Louisiana, there was an explicit program where any public high school student could skip his/her senior year of high school and attend college instead. Once the student completed 30 semester hours, the high school diploma was granted. You could go back to your high school and march in the commencement ceremony with all your former classmates if you wanted to. If Fred's around, maybe he knows if that program still exists.

(Sorry, can't help myself. Snide aside to nb3c: you played two varsity sports at UVa, starting while 15/16 years old? Then you went on to grad school and med school? Hmm, shouldn't be too hard to google you. Mr. Jefferson's college should have lots of data about two-sport athletes (those are rare) who are underage (those are even rarer) who then went to med school (not much more common). That is, if you aren't making the whole story up.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | December 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

and I think, also, the idea that everyone needs to go to college has not served our children well. We seem to be telling them that there is only one path to everything, when in reality, there is not. If students would like to graduate early, then start working, this would work well, too. Again, as mentioned above - it's not completely impossible to graduate early now - it's just not discussed as much, it mostly has to be initiated by the student. Which is not a bad thing - that would show that the student was mature and show that they knew what they wanted.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | December 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Oh, please. This is a scam on students to redirect superior but needy students who would otherwise enter four-year state colleges on scholarship at age 18 into the less expensive community college system. A student who is capable of finishing high school two years (or even a year) early is not a community college candidate. These students should be in AP and IB high school classes with their peers--not in community college with 30-year-old GED holders.

Posted by: Fran5 | December 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

That is, if you aren't making the whole story up.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | December 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Who cares, Hall Monitor? I want to know more about the 16 year old girl & her 24 year old boyfriend!!! Wow!

Posted by: jezebel3 | December 2, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Who cares, Hall Monitor? I want to know more about the 16 year old girl & her 24 year old boyfriend!!! Wow!

Posted by: jezebel3 | December 2, 2008 11:44 AM
Jezebel: There really isn't much to tell. I was slightly mature in some areas and he was very immature in many other ways.

I always had an attraction to older men. Not sure why. I actually ended up marrying in my peer group around age 30. So maybe the men finally caught up to me. :)

Anyway, it isn't really an exciting story to tell. He was a nice guy who was an English major in graduate school when I met him in the library of all places. Nice guy. Did not keep in touch after two years.

My next boyfriend was a med student when I was 18. So the trend continued. I was actually engaged to him for a short while.

Posted by: foamgnome | December 2, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I realize that the Boy Scouts are kind of "out" these days, but in my experience, if a boy was going to make Eagle, he did it fast and early. We shouldn't hold those kids back just because they're only 16.

Kids who are academically able should move on to the next level. They can date and socialize later.

Posted by: RedBird27 | December 2, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

What's the rush? Why does any school system need a program to graduate students early? Those who are up to it are already doing so on their own anyway.

Most 18 year-olds aren't ready for college, so why are we pushing 16 year-olds? If you don't believe this, just check the stats for most colleges' graduation rates--a majority of today's Freshmen do not graduate in 4 years.

Posted by: pwkickice | December 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

foamgnome, the secret minx! Love it! Who knew! Hope the baby is well and dear daughter is adapting well. I know my son was pretty disappointed in the baby when we brought her home. He thought he was getting a person to play with, not a boring old baby.

Posted by: moxiemom1 | December 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that kids 15-16 are at all ready for college, emotionally. Scholastically, they might be intelligent, but they could also be severely behind in the social skills. I remember there was one kid at MI State U about 20 years ago who was into D & D, and was 14 at the time. Unfortunately, he was found in the college tunnels, dead, after playing D & D with older college students.

Posted by: Alex511 | December 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Jezebel got it right in the very first comment: "Each student is an individual."

I could clog up the blog with anecdotes about h.s. friends, cousins, etc. who graduated early, or dropped out, and then went to CC or to four year colleges/universities and did well.

Then there's the other side of the coin - I wasn't ready for the responsibilities of college and being on my own at 18, and I know other people who also blew it on their first attempt at a college education.

I think the best answer is flexibility. If a 16-y-o is ready for college, we should get out of their way and let them go for it. If an 18/19/20 year old needs more time to grow up first, we need to give them time and space to mature, and an alternate path to higher education if/when they decide they're ready. And for those who simply aren't college material (or don't want to go), we need to accept that they belong in the "real world" and make their transition from student to worker as smoooth and efficient as it can be.

Posted by: SueMc | December 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I celebrated my 17th birthday as a freshman at an Ivy League university. It was relatively easy for me to graduate high school in 3 years. All I had to do is take no study halls and double up on English classes--English was the only subject area where my state required 4 years of credit to graduate.

I had a very rocky first 2 years of college. That changed during my junior year, when I discovered, just before I turned 19, that I had to read the materials prior to class and attend class on a regular basis to do well.

However, I don't think you can attribute my poor performance my first two years to my age. When I attended my 20th high school reunion, I discovered that all the kids who had been in honors classes with me had nearly the same experience. It took them a few years of college to realize that their high school study habits were inadequate. Most of them were 18 and 19 when they started college. We were all used to getting good grades with relatively little effort.

Some kids aren't ready to be in college at 16 and 17. Some aren't ready at 20. Study habits and maturity are more important than calendar age.

The NH plan sounds as if it may be a godsend for someone who wants a technical career and is bored and frustrated enough with their HS curriculum to drop out. And it will be a nightmare for kids who are just not ready for the freedom of college if they're pushed into attending early.

Posted by: SolontheGreat | December 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

moxiemom OT: son is wonderful. He is chubby, healthy and very easy baby.

Funny enough, my daughter adores him. She loves to hold him, feed him and is always very protective. She does get a little jealous but overall, she is very pleased with our addition.

Of course, he can't fight for his own rights yet. Part 2 will be when he grabs some of the toys away.

Posted by: foamgnome | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Having started college just shy of my 16th birthday, I believe that it depends on the kid. Any mischief that I got into at college was an extension of what I was already doing in high school, and was likely less than it would have been because I needed to buckle down and actually work for the first time in my life. All in all, it was a positive experience for me.

Posted by: LAM1 | December 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Leaving high school early is and has been an option for those who are capable of college-level work. Late in 1957, my English teacher at Oyster River High School in Durham, NH, Ms. Deborah Estaver, suggested that three of us skip our last year of high school and go to university. We did. I to Stanford, another to UNH and the third to Harvard. Two of us ultimately obtained PhDs. I am now a research professor at U. Cal. San Diego. The second is director of human resources at Univ. of Arkansas. The third did not finish at Harvard and was reported to have become a navy flier.
In my day, NH high schools provided technical training for those not intending to attend a 4-yr college. They should continue to do so.

Posted by: lzholland | December 2, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I mostly agree with Solon and the others who say it depends on the kid, that some can handle it and most cannot. However, it's just another way we're forcing kids to grow up faster. Can you imagine the pressure some high achieving parents will apply to their kids to finish high school and get through college faster? And for what? To work earlier -- and longer. Isn't there more to life? I'm not advocating for giving kids a free pass, but maybe a little balance.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | December 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"but maybe a little balance."

Sorry, that blog ended. This is "On Parenting."

(Good thing it ended, if you saw LMS' advice to Michelle Obama on CNN's web site last week.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | December 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Our kids cannot compete in the global workplace because we coddle them way too much. Many US parents want 20 year-old infants. In Europe 16 year olds are expected to be acting like adults.

I attended the local junior college for my last year of high school, I graduated a year early and went to a University for what would have been my senior year of high school. I had no problems with 25 year old men or missing class because I was too drunk to move.

Its all about expectations. Many parents do not have any expectations for their children or if they do it boils down to don't get arrested and don't bring home a baby. I had expectations that I would get an education an move on from the 'ell hole life I had as a child/teenager.

As for costs, all the college/university classes were free until I "offically" would have graduated from high school. So again, it was in my best interests to finish as much as I could whilst it was free.

My boyfriend now is 7 years older so that would have put him at 23 when I started college. Yep, that would have been about right if I would have had time to think about dating.

Posted by: skramsv | December 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"I had no problems with 25 year old men or missing class because I was too drunk to move."

You sound like my Brit friend, Kate, who didn't attend a single class her second year at University because she was "pissed all the time".

So I guess you can compete globally.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | December 2, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse


Having been a "savant" myself who was forced to endure the torture of boring high school classes and the liberating, religious-like transformation of college, I think it's a crime against humanity if smart kids do NOT go to college, and as soon as possible.

But they damn well better lower the age of consent to 16 (as well as the drinking age), or this awful puritan society is setting itself up for having to enforce another unnecessary, self-imposed contradiction.

"You know that the kids sent to college early are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it."

a) Why would well-to-do families not permit their kids to go to college early?

b) There will be next to NO
genius kids from low-income, less-educated families. For the one or two mutants (that's what being really smart makes you), of COURSE their parents would want them to go to college as soon as possible! Do you expect the parents to say "No college for you! You have to stay in the 'hood and deal drugs"?

"Low-income, less-educated families" is a code word for "black". The fact that they have to use a code word is a tip-off that they're imposing another contradiction on everyone. This time the contradiction is "black kids are every bit as smart as white and Asian kids", which is demonstrably and manifestly PC BS.

Being "real smart" is not all it's cracked up to be. I was the computer science department semester valedictorian, and the horror of the way people in the "real world" treat each other has driven me to live in a cave in the woods (well, a tent). I hacked into the power grid and wireless internet, and I'm happier than I've ever been since I was thrown out of the City of the Children by my mother, who found out I was continuing in college, taking graduate-level classes instead of graduating.

-- faye kane, homeless brain
See more of my smartmouth opinions (and pix of me and my cave) at

Posted by: FayeKane_HomelessSmartypants | December 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Uh, Faye, *your* biases are showing.

I live in Oakland, CA. People with a lot of money and education live in the Oakland hills. People with less live in the "flatlands", and the closer one gets to the Bay and Port of Oakland, the lower the average incomes. But both "hills" and "flatland" neighborhoods have people in the entire range of humanity's colors, from Finland-blond to Ethiopian-black.

Around here, "[l]ow-income, less-educated families" is code for low-income, less-educated families of any color or ethnicity - usually immigrant, but sometimes they're just off the farm (i.e from the central valley of the state).

Of course, the rest of the country, like the rest of the world, hasn't achieved the level of diversity that California, and especially the SF Bay Area has - but if we all keep working on it, I'm sure we can catch you up in time.

Posted by: SueMc | December 2, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

As a 15 year old HS graduate I can offer the following perspective:
16 years old very rarely are socially ready to mingle in a 17-20 age range group.
Rather than thinning course offerings by offering college level courses at the HS level it is wise to cluster that educational opportunity at the JC or college level where teachers are qualified and experienced to teach the subject matter.
I would presume that the state would fund the dollars that would have been spent to allow the student to finish HS to the JC selected and any difference in cost would be borne by the student.
Education is all about challenging ones self to attain as much information and debate about the matter being learned, and the challenge for many is not suitable at the HS level.

Posted by: gee3 | December 3, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Lots of kids are academically ready for college at 16, but that's not the real issue here. By graduate kids at 16, the state is transferring the cost of educating those kids from the K-12 school systems (taxpayer funded) to the universities, and more and more of that funding burden falls on the shoulders of parents as state contributions to publicly-funded universities drop.

In addition, not only do we let high schools off the hook on providing top-quality education for our kids in their high school years, we also shift public funding away from academically talented students and towards remedial students. (Who needs AP courses when juniors and seniors are in college?)

Follow the money, people.

Posted by: mom22 | December 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I went to UMBC where there is a special program just to highlight and allow for younger prodigies to have accelerated educations. It was fairly common to have teenagers in our classes and a few preteen kids with their parents in tow.

The issue isn't whether the kids can handle college, it's whether teens can handle the non-college issues of college life. Most of them can, just not the way their parents would like and could easily pretend if they had the cloakings which high school allows.

Posted by: EmeraldEAD | December 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company