Addressing homeschool stereotypes tends to be about as effective as explaining to a child why the sky isn’t really blue. It is a matter of perception rather than fact, and our own perceptions about the world rarely allow themselves to be challenged by anything as annoying as actual reality. I understand this is parody. And I can take a joke. Really, I can. But I’m still not quite sure what to make of this little bit of ridicule aimed at the Christian homeschooling community:
I cannot believe Harvard rejected my application!…
Let’s rundown my qualifications: First, I was the valedictorian of the Alexander family class of 2008, with an impressive 3.4 GPA. Second, I was the President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Alexander Family Student Council as elected unanimously by my Mom, Dad, and little sister… Phat Phree
OK, that is probably enough to get the point. Stereotypes generally say more about those who hold and further them than they do about the targeted groups, but I have one question.
Mom, a library card and a bible put together a makeshift education at the kitchen table and colleges still seem to prefer that to what is coming out of the public schools? Stanford actually tracks homeschool applications, flagging them with a special code so the admissions officers can take a closer look at them.
It’s [intellectual vitality] hard to define, but they swear they know it when they see it. It’s the spark, the passion, that sets the truly exceptional student–the one driven to pursue independent research and explore difficult concepts from a very early age–apart from your typical bright kid. Stanford wants students who have it.
Looking very closely at homeschoolers is one way to get more of those special minds, the admission office has discovered. As Reider explains it: “Homeschooled students may have a potential advantage over others in this, since they have consciously chosen and pursued an independent course of study.” Stanford Magazine
Stanford’s acceptance rate for homeschooled applicants is actually nearly twice that of the traditional applicant pool. But they are not alone in looking out for homeschooled students.
“We find that homeschoolers do extremely well here,” said Tom Schaefer, dean of admissions at Duquesne University. “Many receive scholarships.”
“They’re some of our strongest candidates,” said Mike Steidel, director of admissions at Carnegie Mellon, which accepts five to 10 homeschooled students a year.
Many admissions officers contacted for this article said that although they receive relatively few applications from homeschoolers, the acceptance rate of those who do apply is high. Post Gazette
See what mom’s signature on your diploma can do for you?
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Homeschooling Blogroll
Looks like Stanford spots that ‘homeschooled look’ too. Isn’t it nice that’s not meant in a derogatory way?
Why do non-homeschoolers care so much? Is it because we’re getting away with something and they resent it? Would that something be freedom to learn, as opposed to the force feeding?
So many questions and I just dunno….but the resentment does seem to stem from a bitterness.
Jealous, just plain jealous…how dare our kids have fun, not worry about taking AP courses, and still have the skills and aptitude to do college work? My goodness, that would mean that an institutionalized high school education is a (gasp!) waste of time!
Nothing like quietly subverting a paradigm, is what I say…
It’s not the bible, it’s the bible substituted for public school science requirements:
“. . . the admission committee also expressed concern over the lack of science education I received. Hello? I got an A minus in Bible study, what more do you want? Just because I was smart enough not to be sucked into the pseudo-sciences like chemistry and physics . . .”
What’s that my mom used to say when I was getting picked on (in public school,) “it’s because they’re jealous, just ignore them they’ll go away.”
You always do a great job with these prattling commentaries against homeschooling.
JJ Ross, that is one little thing in his whole piece. And one that isn’t generally true, despite the perceptions of those who disagree with Christian teaching on certain topics.
It isn’t substituted for physics, chemistry or biology. In some circles, it is looked to for answers to the question “where did we come from?” That doesn’t mesh with what is taught in the public schools or what is recognized by mainstream science, but it also does not mean that all of the sciences have been thrown out in favor of whatever the bible does or doesn’t say.
This is one of the reasons that I don’t think homeschooling is going away any time soon. With our kids learning to read earlier, getting involved in our communities more, and actually being intellectually inquisitive those that are public skewl taught are at too great a disadvantage.
Dana, yes, it was small but very important to this line of attack. It was the part of his piece that was about religious alternatives, not education alternatives. And it’s not just him, this is the political perception problem we (all homeschool advocates) now face.
As you just said, it’s a matter of the public’s perception, not actual reality, and increasingly the public is being led to believe that Christian homeschooling is anti-science (and not just by the scientists but by homeschool pugilists like the ones in CA who defend the Long’s family’s child abuse as religious freedom and sue to force public universities to accept creationist science as meeting biology prerequisites, or what’s really been happening in Tennessee, which is more about Christian activism in the public sphere than home education activism for the private one.)
The concern about charter homeschool confusion was nothing compared to this, from a public policy framing pov.
This tug-of-war to define homeschooling is being brought to a head everywhere by both ideological sides — the Ben Steins and World Net Dailys as well as the Greg Ladens and Richard Dawkins(s?)
What is important is keeping home education from being forced into one camp’s box or the other, making it about religion rather than education.
I think that is too simple, JJ Ross. I don’t think the media can hold more than one or two viewpoints separate and they certainly can’t pay attention to more than one “expert” at a time. And they do not seem particularly interested in trying to present their stories in an accurate way.
And I don’t exactly expect a Christian homeschooler who has used Abeka or whatever to just shrug their shoulders when they are rejected from college on the basis of their science curriculum. There is a lot more to Abeka than just the creation standpoint, yet everyone acts like that is all there is to being Christian and teaching science. And it isn’t even about homeschools. It was private schools who sued, not homeschoolers. And it wasn’t just about science, but about English and Social Studies as well.
At least half of all Americans do not believe in Evolution. This is not specifically a homeschooling or even private school issue.
That isn’t about homeschooling or who gets to define it. It is being defined for us by people who have little understanding of what they are talking about.
It would be about the same as me criticizing unschoolers for being unschoolers when certain people begin claiming that homeschoolers “don’t do anything.” It isn’t your fault that those on the outside don’t really understand.
Forgot to add: these Christian schools were also accredited by the state of California.
It seems like I think we’re agreeing, while you think we’re not.
Could be. But I do get tired of everyone blaming the Christians for the stereotypes against homeschoolers. They don’t fit very well and we all know how a journalist can take a fifteen minute interview and pull one single quote from it that makes it sound like the person was saying something completely different.
All of their stories are formatted. Quote HSLDA. Quote some random critic. End it with a question about accountability or who is going to be around to see abuse and there is story number 527 about homeschooling.
I have my own issues with “Christian activists.” And not just Phelps et, al. They’ve lost a bit of perspective, I think, in focusing too narrowly on certain issues as if they really mattered all that much. But then, sometimes I wonder if they really do. Or if that one line is all that gets reported.
Sorry, but having seen some of the stories before the media wheedles them down to what gets into the paper, I’m beginning to wonder if half of the things that frustrate me about different groups are really representative of what they actually believe.
Heck, I’m always up for a good media stomp!
So I’ve noticed.
You know what is always implied in these kinds of criticisms? That mom and dad are cheating. It doesn’t matter what the child achieves, mom and dad are obviously greasing the skids and fudging the results. That parents are faking the grades, and the transcripts are just fairy tales. Of course the kid will pass, because Mommy is teaching and she won’t let him fail. Isn’t that what they are really saying?
Time and time again it appears to me that most who are against homeschooling have a VERY dim view of parents in general.
Presumably that would be the public’s homeschool stereotype for overindulgent secular parents though, not conservative Christian, original-sin believers? If any of this made any more sense than other ignorant bigotries . . .
Helicopter parents, right? I’ve been called that before.
I agree with Sunniemom’s summation that these kinds of analysis make it seem like homeschooling parents are somehow “cheating the system” or worse “cheating their kids”.
Which of course is ridiculous on both counts.
In the end, the only real defense is to just continue doing what we’re doing and keep proving the nay sayers wrong.
Pretty lame attempt at satire if you ask me. Methinks the author should spend more time perusing “The Onion” for inspiration next time!
What was the purpose of that website anyway? Isn’t their tagline something like “Target.Observe.Ridicule.”?
Oh, what a lofty and noble goal.
You know what- it doesn’t matter what you do. If the kids do chores, you are exploiting them. If you don’t have them do chores, you are spoiling them. If you come to their defense, you are over-protective, and if you don’t, you are neglectful. If you let them ride their bike outside, you are risking their lives, and if you don’t, you are a helicopter parent.
I don’t give a hoot about people’s opinions of my life until they try to pass off their opinions as fact and base legislation on it so that it comes in my front door, sits on my couch and eats my Cheetos. What’s more is these guys haven’t grasped the fact that if legislation were ever passed to regulate folks’ private lives, that THEY also would lose THEIR freedom to be weird and obnoxious?
As pious as this is going to sound, I am going to say it anyway- the problem with many young folks is that they haven’t yet had enough life experience to follow a train of thought all the way to the caboose. They are so enamored of the sound of their voice that they don’t consider what they are saying.
Obviously their own education has been inadequate then, not just to good parenting but good citizenship period! What glaring evidence of the need for school reform.
And it’s so true, sunniemom, that the mouthiest critics of thinking parents aren’t Thinking Parents themselves (rarely are they parents at all.)
I remember when Rob Reich first showed up at NHEN reciting his lofty theoretical philosophy of “ethical servility” as if it had any practical meaning to real home education as we were living it.
This point finally occurred to some of us, that he just didn’t get what we were saying at all and so maybe he wasn’t an experienced parent himself. Sure enough, he had just become a dad for the first time, probably still a bit shell-shocked and maybe he was trying too hard to maintain his academic superiority against all that messy, crazy real life! I’ve wondered more than once since then, if his academic insulation eventually was pierced by parenthood, if his mind and heart were gradually changed as profoundly as my life experiences have led me to predict –
I thought it was really, really funny along the same lines of “all black people eat fried chicken and watermelon.” (In other words, not so funny.) Kind of a stupid parody that never quite got where it wanted to be.
If you look at the other posts they’re all just as raunchy and etc. So, I wouldn’t waste time being offended. *shrug*
That’s a valid point, JJ- the most unrealistic parenting advice I have ever heard has come from those who are childless or have very young children. That is not to say that these folks can’t have valuable insight- those who have a real affinity for kids, whether they are parents or not, often make great sounding boards for parents. My kids have ‘aunts’ and ‘uncles’ who are very understanding and helpful.
But them with high-falutin’ ideas that bear no resemblance to reality have never experienced projectile pooping or counseled their own teenager about sex or watched their son get picked up by their Army recruiter and say good-bye as they went to boot camp during a time of war.
So I wonder about those who would assume that a parent who chooses home education does so because they wish to have unlimited opportunities to abuse and brainwash their kids so that they can’t function in society- what kind of parents did they have? And what kind of parents will they be?
Mrs C., you are right. And I wouldn’t waste my time being offended, either. But it is a common view of homeschooling. It isn’t put quite so plainly most of the time, but you can see it in a lot of the discourse about homeschooling.
People react to their own stereotypes of homeschooling and then propose to change things so that what they fear doesn’t happen.
Wish we could fit this on t-shirts!
“People react to their own stereotypes of homeschooling and then propose to change things so that what they fear doesn’t happen.”