Chocolate Chip vs. Oatmeal Chocolate Chip

This post is in response to you... yes you, Mr. or Ms. "Oatmeal Chocolate Chip is better."
I am setting out to fix you. You may think you love the gritty grinding feel and flavor of the oatmeal CCC (chocolate chip cookie), but you don't really. You are a young girl in love with a rebel.

"Oooh, this texture, this feel, this moment! It's so different, it's so unique!"
What you fail to realize in your drunken stupor is that staple foods are staple foods for a reason. Ranch is THE best dressing, not some silly fruit-flavored vinaigrette. The traditional and wonderful tollhouse chocolate chip cookie is THE best cookie, before it is contaminated by oats.

Now I am not saying that oatmeal CCCs are horrible or evil... that would be like saying Star Wars is not a good movie because C3P0 is annoying. You deal with the fact there is something strange, because the product, at its core, is amazing.

If I walked up to you and said, "which cookie would you like? CCC or Oatsy CCC?" You might be tempted to go for the oatsy. It's a whim, a fling, a silly romantic idea that anything could possibly take CCC's place. Is it so wrong that you want something more? No, it's not... I'm not saying it's like putting mustard on your pancakes. But if you say that you like Oatmeal CCCs better than traditional then it's equivalent to liking strawberry jam on your pancakes more than maple syrup. It's sweet, it's silly, it's great grand and glorious, but it's not the best.

The best is like home. The best is like a blanket and a fireplace while you snuggle your wife and look at the falling snow. The best is what you spend your day to day life doing. The best is the traditional chocolate chip cookie.
If you had to slaughter CCC or it's annoying second cousin Oatsy CCC, and remove it from this planet for all time, you know in your heart you would sacrifice oatsy. CCC might not thrill you, he might not rip your mouth up with his wildness (or cardboard texture) but he is home. Don't pretend you like oatsy better just because you like to have a little bit of variety in your life. Don't pretend that you wish Chips Ahoy! made an oatmeal variety. (Maybe they do, but it doesn't usually make the shelf). Embrace the fact that you don't need oatmeal. Free yourself from the cankerous pain that is caused by your love-affair with old oatsy. Throw yourself into the warm loving arms of the oat-free chocolate chip cookie.

Addition to last post

My brilliant Wife made some very good arguments in opposition of the 12th grade axing.

I just wanted to clarify that I understand there are many drawbacks, but my post concerns some of the benefits of cutting the program. I believe that public education is amazing in some places, and terrible in others. I do think 17 year -olds could benefit from new approaches and creativity that they don't currently see in the 12th grade.

The 60 million dollars in savings is not one of the benefits that I focused on, as it only represents about $1,200 per student. The financial motivation is rather silly in the first place. That 60 million dollars would just be spent ineffectively in some other area. If they are going to waste it, it might as well be wasted on our children :)

K through 11? You Betcha! Get rid of that senior year.

So maybe most people have already heard about this story.

A few lawmakers in Utah want to get rid of the 12th grade all together as a way of saving 60 million bucks a year. It appears they've backed off the proposal and now seek to make the 12th grade "optional."

Here are some of the concerns with the proposal:

• 17 is too young for the "real world"
• The education system is already bad. We need more, not less.
• Many High School students are heavily involved in extra-curricular activities in their senior year. They learn a lot from these activities and would miss out on a lot of learning experiences.

I'm sure there are many other concerns.

Here's why it's a good idea.

(I know my knowledge may be a bit out-dated, so feel free to fill me in)

1: The system would adjust.

It's not as though a "senior year" would disappear. It would just move up one grade. It's likely that high schools would take on an extra grade. In Utah, most high schools house grades 10-12. They could just change and house grades 9-11. The curriculum could move forward, and extracurriculars would be more available to 11th graders. "But who cares, they would still miss out on that year." See the next point.

2: Senior year is often the least demanding.

I elected to take some difficult classes my senior year, but I was only required to take English 12 and then a bunch of electives. One friend of mine took English, band, choir, orchestra, TA, independent study, student government, and foods. Do some kids do more than this? I think most everyone does more than this, but the difficult classes are optional. One of my friends took college courses (paid for by the state as public education) for half of his time during 11th and 12th grade. Many students Take A.P. classes and take tests for college credit. See the next point.

3: There are other options.

What will kids do if they don't have access to these difficult, or ridiculous, senior year classes?
Start college early

Get a job (and start college if they want)

Go to a prep school

Go to a private high school

I've railed against public and secondary education several times. I like to draw attention to the fact that Math 1010 in college is 8TH GRADE MATH.

"No no no, 1010 is college algebra, 8th grade math is high school algebra!"

What?! It's algebra. I started on math 1050 in college, and it was exactly the same as algebra 2 (which I took in 10th grade.) High school students are academically capable of college level classes when they are 17. The first year of college is basically just a repeat of college classes.

English 1010: took it in 10th grade.

Math 1010: took it in 8th.

Biology 1010: took it in 9th (My concurrent enrollment AP BIO class in 12th grade gave me graded credit for 1050 and 1100.)

Western Civ: pretty much took this in 7th grade, but also again in 11th grade.

Do you disagree?

I do realize that there are significant social problems associated with younger kids going to college. See Next Point

4: Going to college early or taking a break might actually prevent bad freshman-year decisions.

Some kids ship off to far away places for college. But they don't have to right away. Parent's who don't believe their children are ready could have them attend a prep school or a local college/university while the child is still living at home.

There's evidence that 17 year olds are not that much different from 18 year olds. College freshman get in a lot of trouble because of irresponsible decisions, especially related to alcohol. Freshmen often make bad financial decisions, and are particularly susceptible to credit card debt.

So would 17 year olds be much worse? The ability to engage in consequential thought (making decisions with the true consequences in mind) develops last in the juvenile brain. However the evidence suggests that even though there is a huge difference between a 14 year-old and a 16 year-old, there is a much smaller difference between a 16 year-old and a 18 year-old.

Psychology and physiology aside, the responsibility to determine whether a child is ready to go to college would be left to the child and her parents. "You're not ready to go to UCLA yet, live with us and go to Utah Valley for a year." Then parents could stay better involved in their children's lives as the child adjusts to the stresses and decisions of college life.

Some students may also benefit from taking a break from school. Work in the real world for 6 months or a year before you decide what direction you want to go in school. Save up some money before you go in order to reduce debt. Both of those could pay off in a big way

Also, student abilities at graduation vary across the board. Private schools could provide a specially tailored prep year that could help children prepare for college. Your child could be particularly strong in reading and writing, but weak in math. This may be a product of their talent level or the quality of education they received. Children could go to a private school that helps expand their strengths or overcome their weaknesses.

These schools could be cheaper than college, and students could still take AP tests or concurrent enrollment. If a big school like UCLA felt that 17 year-olds were not ready for college life, they would encourage their applicants to spend the first year after high school working, attending community college, or going to a prep school.

So I guess the question is, how does a senior year in a public high school prepare you for college?

One year older?

Maybe it makes a difference, but each child is unique and parents should have the responsibility.

Extra Curricular?

Why couldn't super seniors still participate? Students could be involved in music and athletics despite not attending other classes.

Academic achievement?

Why couldn't they get that 12th grade academic instruction at a college and actually get credit for it?

When it comes to youth, people are terrified to sacrifice in the short term for the long term good. I think this is a sacrifice that makes sense.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.