The Guinea Pig Generation

There is a lot to unpack there.

So lets start with leaving home and school at 16. In 1918 there was the so called Fisher Act that raised the school leaving age to 14. But there was a section that said if you were 14 - 18 you would have to do compulsory part time schooling alongside part time work. It was never implemented but it was planed and put in law. You see in the industrial revolution teenagers and even pre teen children worked to support the family. Families couldn't support their children with out this on their wages. It's why things like free meals at school were considered important. Society had 3 problems and wasn't sure how to solve them.

1. Work conditions were inhumain for children (they were also inhumain for adults but people cared more about the kids).
2. Families felt they needed the income from their teens to feed their kids.
3. Society needed more educated people and education was really the only way to escape poverty.

So forcing teens to study but leaving them some time for work was a compromise for 2 and 3 and banning work and making school compulsory and free was the compromise for 1 and 3 for pre teen children. That is what was supposed to happen. But then WW1 happened and this was all considered too expensive. What happened instead was that the school leaving age would be raised once to 15 and then again to 16. By the 90s you had a legal obligation to 'maintain' your child till 16 or 19 if they were in full time education. In fact for a period in the 80s 16-17 year olds in care homes in full time work had to pay contributions to the council in place of their parents. So this weird situation seems to have existed through out much of the 20th century where you were responsible for a 16-18 year old unmarried child of yours but not always finically responsible.

For most of the late 20th century 16-17 year olds were effectively pseudo adults in the eyes of the law. In those days poor parents often did 'kick out' their kids and tell them to get jobs although its not at all clear if they were legally allowed to force this on their kids, especially if they could get into a collage. Rich parents typically encouraged their kids to continue school and supported them financially. But as economic conditions improved more and more parents preferred to let their kids finish school till the government recently felt comfortable forcing the poorest to do this as well.

But now they have exactly the same issue with universities. Who is going to pay to feed and house the students who don't work? And I have to say I'm seeing a trend in universities where undergrad students are being infantilised by their universities and student unions more and more. Universities are becoming more and more school like with staff chasing students with attendance lists and disapplinory hearings. Paradoxically since now most of them 'pay' for it themselves you might think why not let them goof off; they are adults and can ruin their lives with their own money if they want. Except it isn't their money it comes from the government who then bleeds them dry from years to come. So once again its the government, by insisting that universities operate like educational sausage machines, that is driving the infantilisation of young adults.

There has been an 'experiment' in funding and compelling education going on since the early 20th century and it's been artificially pushing the age of what society thinks of as an adults upwards. Initially because the government wanted to push the cost of supporting students on to parents and later because it chose to push the cost on to students future selves. So we now have this weird situation where 'children' are having and raising babies with each other at 14 but don't really get treated like adults till they are 18 or in some cases even 21. The discrepancy between biology and society can only be stretched so far before something snaps.

There is a lot to unpack there.

So lets start with leaving home and school at 16. In 1918 there was the so called Fisher Act that raised the school leaving age to 14. But there was a section that said if you were 14 - 18 you would have to do compulsory part time schooling alongside part time work. It was never implemented but it was planed and put in law. You see in the industrial revolution teenagers and even pre teen children worked to support the family. Families couldn't support their children with out this on their wages. It's why things like free meals at school were considered important. Society had 3 problems and wasn't sure how to solve them.

1. Work conditions were inhumain for children (they were also inhumain for adults but people cared more about the kids).
2. Families felt they needed the income from their teens to feed their kids.
3. Society needed more educated people and education was really the only way to escape poverty.

So forcing teens to study but leaving them some time for work was a compromise for 2 and 3 and banning work and making school compulsory and free was the compromise for 1 and 3 for pre teen children. That is what was supposed to happen. But then WW1 happened and this was all considered too expensive. What happened instead was that the school leaving age would be raised once to 15 and then again to 16. By the 90s you had a legal obligation to 'maintain' your child till 16 or 19 if they were in full time education. In fact for a period in the 80s 16-17 year olds in care homes in full time work had to pay contributions to the council in place of their parents. So this weird situation seems to have existed through out much of the 20th century where you were responsible for a 16-18 year old unmarried child of yours but not always finically responsible.

For most of the late 20th century 16-17 year olds were effectively pseudo adults in the eyes of the law. In those days poor parents often did 'kick out' their kids and tell them to get jobs although its not at all clear if they were legally allowed to force this on their kids, especially if they could get into a collage. Rich parents typically encouraged their kids to continue school and supported them financially. But as economic conditions improved more and more parents preferred to let their kids finish school till the government recently felt comfortable forcing the poorest to do this as well.

But now they have exactly the same issue with universities. Who is going to pay to feed and house the students who don't work? And I have to say I'm seeing a trend in universities where undergrad students are being infantilised by their universities and student unions more and more. Universities are becoming more and more school like with staff chasing students with attendance lists and disapplinory hearings. Paradoxically since now most of them 'pay' for it themselves you might think why not let them goof off; they are adults and can ruin their lives with their own money if they want. Except it isn't their money it comes from the government who then bleeds them dry from years to come. So once again its the government, by insisting that universities operate like educational sausage machines, that is driving the infantilisation of young adults.

There has been an 'experiment' in funding and compelling education going on since the early 20th century and it's been artificially pushing the age of what society thinks of as an adults upwards. Initially because the government wanted to push the cost of supporting students on to parents and later because it chose to push the cost on to students future selves. So we now have this weird situation where 'children' are having and raising babies with each other at 14 but don't really get treated like adults till they are 18 or in some cases even 21. The discrepancy between biology and society can only be stretched so far before something snaps.

Andrew Carnegie, and Bill Gates' Grandad, pushed that agenda; in the United States. The rest of the world followed suit.

It's about cradle-to-grave dependency.