Why is redshirting so rare if it's so advantageous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

You are so hung up on the age thing no explanation would ever be enough. You do you, and seethe that kids older than yours sometimes do better. You obviously don’t know most kids or how they think.

I don't think that poster had kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

You are so hung up on the age thing no explanation would ever be enough. You do you, and seethe that kids older than yours sometimes do better. You obviously don’t know most kids or how they think.

I don't think that poster had kids.

I'm sure you're correct, but it's bizarre how obsessed this person is with a topic that has no bearing on their own life, just a bored troll most likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

You are so hung up on the age thing no explanation would ever be enough. You do you, and seethe that kids older than yours sometimes do better. You obviously don’t know most kids or how they think.

I don't think that poster had kids.

I'm sure you're correct, but it's bizarre how obsessed this person is with a topic that has no bearing on their own life, just a bored troll most likely.

But it does have a bearing on some of the kids of my friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

You are so hung up on the age thing no explanation would ever be enough. You do you, and seethe that kids older than yours sometimes do better. You obviously don’t know most kids or how they think.

I don't think that poster had kids.

I'm sure you're correct, but it's bizarre how obsessed this person is with a topic that has no bearing on their own life, just a bored troll most likely.

But it does have a bearing on some of the kids of my friends.

No it doesn’t, troll. Get a life.

[Anonymous]

Because being a high achiever isn't the only desirable thing in life. For instance, sympathy from others can also feel good, and it's a lot easier to get sympathy and be doted on when you're the youngest in a group than when you're the oldest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

You are so hung up on the age thing no explanation would ever be enough. You do you, and seethe that kids older than yours sometimes do better. You obviously don’t know most kids or how they think.

I don't think that poster had kids.

I'm sure you're correct, but it's bizarre how obsessed this person is with a topic that has no bearing on their own life, just a bored troll most likely.

DCUMs anti-redshirt posters are all bizarre. As a group they are really, really weird. I don't think they are exactly trolls, just extremely socially stunted. This PP is just one of a very weird group and they always come across as very strange when they post.

Idk why they are so weird but they are. It's a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

Who is to say a kid does better "solely" because they are older? How would anyone know that? Should the kids who have tutors have no satisfaction if they do well because clearly the only reason is because they have tutors? Or involved parents? Or a safe home? When are people allowed to be satisfied with winning? Is there a checklist that helps one determine whether satisfaction is allowed? Or is it only the very youngest who are ever allowed to "win" and feel good about it, regardless of whatever factors may have been involved in their success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

Who is to say a kid does better "solely" because they are older? How would anyone know that? Should the kids who have tutors have no satisfaction if they do well because clearly the only reason is because they have tutors? Or involved parents? Or a safe home? When are people allowed to be satisfied with winning? Is there a checklist that helps one determine whether satisfaction is allowed? Or is it only the very youngest who are ever allowed to "win" and feel good about it, regardless of whatever factors may have been involved in their success?

I think the important thing is for redshirted kids to admit that their success is due to them being older, not smarter. For instance, I started college a few days shy of my 19th birthday, which is quite a bit older than most people are when they start college. Now the college I went to had one of the lowest 4-year graduation rates in the country(less than 25%), and even lower for the major I was pursuing. However, I did manage to graduate in 4 years, and with a unit of graduate credit. But I'd be a fool to think that this was because I was smarter than the other students at my college. I am fully aware that I only defied the graduation statistics because I was older upon and entering college and had had an extra year to mature. I can say without a doubt that had I not been redshirted, I would've been among those who had either taken longer than 4 years or dropped out altogether. The extra year I got did me wonders and I am grateful for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

Who is to say a kid does better "solely" because they are older? How would anyone know that? Should the kids who have tutors have no satisfaction if they do well because clearly the only reason is because they have tutors? Or involved parents? Or a safe home? When are people allowed to be satisfied with winning? Is there a checklist that helps one determine whether satisfaction is allowed? Or is it only the very youngest who are ever allowed to "win" and feel good about it, regardless of whatever factors may have been involved in their success?

I think the important thing is for redshirted kids to admit that their success is due to them being older, not smarter. For instance, I started college a few days shy of my 19th birthday, which is quite a bit older than most people are when they start college. Now the college I went to had one of the lowest 4-year graduation rates in the country(less than 25%), and even lower for the major I was pursuing. However, I did manage to graduate in 4 years, and with a unit of graduate credit. But I'd be a fool to think that this was because I was smarter than the other students at my college. I am fully aware that I only defied the graduation statistics because I was older upon and entering college and had had an extra year to mature. I can say without a doubt that had I not been redshirted, I would've been among those who had either taken longer than 4 years or dropped out altogether. The extra year I got did me wonders and I am grateful for it.

Maybe sometimes they are smarter. And sometimes they aren’t. But regardless, who exactly do these kids need to admit anything to? They owe no explanations of their successes or failures to anyone. MYOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

Who is to say a kid does better "solely" because they are older? How would anyone know that? Should the kids who have tutors have no satisfaction if they do well because clearly the only reason is because they have tutors? Or involved parents? Or a safe home? When are people allowed to be satisfied with winning? Is there a checklist that helps one determine whether satisfaction is allowed? Or is it only the very youngest who are ever allowed to "win" and feel good about it, regardless of whatever factors may have been involved in their success?

I think the important thing is for redshirted kids to admit that their success is due to them being older, not smarter. For instance, I started college a few days shy of my 19th birthday, which is quite a bit older than most people are when they start college. Now the college I went to had one of the lowest 4-year graduation rates in the country(less than 25%), and even lower for the major I was pursuing. However, I did manage to graduate in 4 years, and with a unit of graduate credit. But I'd be a fool to think that this was because I was smarter than the other students at my college. I am fully aware that I only defied the graduation statistics because I was older upon and entering college and had had an extra year to mature. I can say without a doubt that had I not been redshirted, I would've been among those who had either taken longer than 4 years or dropped out altogether. The extra year I got did me wonders and I am grateful for it.

Maybe sometimes they are smarter. And sometimes they aren’t. But regardless, who exactly do these kids need to admit anything to? They owe no explanations of their successes or failures to anyone. MYOB.

totally agree -- you cannot say a redshirted kid is "only" successful due to their age. some kids are actually smarter than others. I don't think age completely factors in. Maturity may be correlated to age but intelligence is innate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

I don't think age correlates exactly with how well you do in school, besides most red-shirted kids are only weeks older than the cut off. So this doesn't make any sense. My kid was held back and is below average at school.

Who is to say a kid does better "solely" because they are older? How would anyone know that? Should the kids who have tutors have no satisfaction if they do well because clearly the only reason is because they have tutors? Or involved parents? Or a safe home? When are people allowed to be satisfied with winning? Is there a checklist that helps one determine whether satisfaction is allowed? Or is it only the very youngest who are ever allowed to "win" and feel good about it, regardless of whatever factors may have been involved in their success?

I think the important thing is for redshirted kids to admit that their success is due to them being older, not smarter. For instance, I started college a few days shy of my 19th birthday, which is quite a bit older than most people are when they start college. Now the college I went to had one of the lowest 4-year graduation rates in the country(less than 25%), and even lower for the major I was pursuing. However, I did manage to graduate in 4 years, and with a unit of graduate credit. But I'd be a fool to think that this was because I was smarter than the other students at my college. I am fully aware that I only defied the graduation statistics because I was older upon and entering college and had had an extra year to mature. I can say without a doubt that had I not been redshirted, I would've been among those who had either taken longer than 4 years or dropped out altogether. The extra year I got did me wonders and I am grateful for it.

You adorable little weirdo. Keep posting!

[Anonymous]

Have not remotely read this entire thread, but if being older is so important, why do northern states with later cutoff dates still outperform the southern states? I grew up in a district where the cutoff was and is Dec. 1 and you really only “held back” kids with October/November birthdays. Whereas my SIL in Georgia said kids with June birthdays were considered “sending early” despite a Sept. 1 cutoff date. Both of her kids started kindergarten at 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m redshirting my July daughter

Ditto. She's 4 and my youngest child and she's not happy about that. She's always the youngest in the class too and she's more immature. Another year of childhood seems like a great gift to give her.

She isn't less mature. You are not comparing her to her actual peers and kids a year younger. You are doing it for her, not you. You aren't giving her an extra year of childhood. You are taking away a year of being an adult and forcing them to continue being a child.

It's not robbing them of a year of adulthood, it's making sure they are as ready and a prepared as they can be to get the most out of their education. It's not a race.

I agree that education isn't a race. You know how you sometimes hear about a 12-or-13-year-old heading off to college? It's the parents of those kids who view education as a race, not the parents of the kids starting college a few weeks shy of their 18th birthdays.

So, if I have a late August vs. late September child/birthday, what exactly is the difference between a month? You may be robbing them of a year of adulthood by forcing them to be kids an extra year when they are 18/adults.

Maybe this is why so many 20somethings are refusing to grow and and get into "adulting" because they weren't allowed to be kids in the first place. Or their parents rushed them through school as soon as possible for no particular reason.

+1

It's also probably why so many people are dropping out of college or taking longer than 4 years to graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know some people refuse to believe it, but the older kids end up doing better in school. It's not surprising that people who can swing redshirting do it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/18/544483397/oldest-kids-in-class-do-better-even-through-college

Why has the subject of pressure not come up once in regards to this? What you say is true. Since older kids usually do better, this means that if a kid is redshirted, they'll be expected to excel. So if, for some weird reason, an older kid does worse, it'll be a lot more embarrassing for them than had they been on the young end. It's always embarrassing to perform poorly, but it's still much less embarrassing to perform poorly when you were expected to excel than it is to perform poorly when you were expected to perform poorly. Conversely, it's much more impressive to excel when you were expected to perform poorly than it is to excel when you were expected to excel. I just think parents should consider how much pressure their kid would be under if they redshirted. There's no room to exceed expectations in school when you're the oldest.