"My parents dont let me watch the news": reflections on 11+ interviews I have carried out

[hannaretch]

Over the past few weeks I have been carrying out 11+ interviews with new applicants to our school -independent day school, outside of London, thought of as the most academic school in our town.

I generally talk to the children for 20 minutes about their studies, hobbies etc and ask them to talk about themselves. The aim is to get an idea of who they are and whether they will fit in with the school ethos. We tend to interview almost all applicants as we feel that a good interview will allow us to get a better view of the individual even those with marginal entrance exam results. They get information on the type of questions they are likely to get before the day to allow them to prepare. We also ask them to bring in an item which they then talk about.

One of the standard questions I and others ask is along the lines of do you follow the news? Talk about a current news story/ what do think about Ukraine/ climate change? type thing. Nothing too major but it allows us to get an idea of their awareness of the world. Most are able to answer with basic knowledge and some understanding of the issues and it often leads to good discussions.

I was shocked that two or three of the ones I have interviewed this year stated that they werent allowed to watch the news and had no opinions/ ideas about the issues. Surely watching the news at 6 etc or online or even Newsround is basic preparation for life? (or school interview at least?)

Yeah, Dawkins is an arrogant prat though.

@DaddyPhD

You are seriously underestimating the impact of visual images on impressionable minds if you think an endless parade of disasters, warfare, and mayhem, accompanied by the solemn intoning of the British TV reporter wringing the utmost pathos out of each situation won't suggest that there are parts of the world that are unlike home in quite unmistakeable ways.

There are far better ways of teaching the colonial history of the west than exposure to the nightly news. A fit for purpose national history curriculum would have a much wider audience and a deeper effect on the future body politic. If that's the major concern here, then that should be a priority, not the reinforcing of a divide between state and private education, academic and plodder, that you get when you encourage the belief that dabbling in current affairs at age 10 is appropriate for bright children with aspirational families.

Interest in current affairs is not the most useful way to identify a curious child either - it's problematic as part of an evaluation process because it can often be the result of a canny parent's gaming of the interview system. It surely isn't a huge challenge to a bright parent to figure out what a bastion of the Establishment is going to be looking for in an admission interview.

The development of critical thinking skills is a separate matter. It's not necessary to watch the news at age ten to develop critical thinking skills. No specific body of human knowledge is going to enhance critical thinking skills, apart perhaps from the appropriate study of literature, philosophy, or history at ever more complex levels as students advance through the teenage years and their intellectual capacity develops. Telling children the west was bad or good or any point in between isn't teaching history, nor is it teaching critical thinking skills.

Assessment of critical thinking levels can be done using any number of available tests featuring topic-neutral information both relevant and irrelevant, which the student can sift through to provide answers to various questions. Yes, a student could practice. If word got out that students were expected to do this sort of exercise in an interview, that would definitely happen. This would presumably be a productive exercise regardless of the interview outcome, given the importance of critical thinking skills.

Hi @mathanxiety

I asked MN to withdraw my last response. I think as long as you insist I've posted anything to the effect children of 10 should watch 'war, mayhem and natural disasters' , I can't continue to engage. Sorry.

What else would they see on the news then?

What news have you been watching lately if you haven't seen any of that?

Your argument that interest in current affairs is a sign par excellence of curiosity in very bright children is actually very specifically related to the sort of schools these children are applying to.
...as a filter for a popular selective public school that no doubt feeds Oxbridge and top Universities, asking a 10 year old to discuss a recent subject in the news is an excellent way to determine intellectual curiosity in current events.

You've put the cart before the horse here.

It's the school's mission and identity that prompts the assumption that a very able child will naturally show an interest in current affairs, not the other way round.

You've offered no evidence that children who are very able, very promising gravitate naturally toward an interest in current affairs, and no evidence that exposure to the news is going to result in an increase in critical thinking ability.

Op some dc have much saddness and despair in thier lives everyday and the news is usually a sensationalist media product designed to sell.

I wouldn't presume to know why some dc are shielded from the news.

They have thier entire lives to listen / be exposed to vicious humans setting their own children like dogs on other children.
Or mad dictators causing fear and misery around the whole world.
Etc etc.

Where has the OP gone? I assume the OP does not have children herself!

IMO opinion the news is not suitable viewing for children at all.

Interesting how the discussions have evolved on here!

My point was that gifted children tend to seek news/info out regardless so, unless you put a padlock on the iPad/PC/laptop, they're going to see it whether you like it or not.

I also think it is worth noting that protecting children from upsetting things is sometimes the source of anxiety in children. Just like those parents who hover around their children in playgrounds often end up makign their children afraid of taking risks and making them anxious.

I remember reading somewhere (can't find the source right now) that as a society we have always always told stories/sung songs, aspects of which would frightening (e.g. the original Brother Grimm fairytales; songs etc) to children and they serve a purpose in ensuring children are ready for the world. Maybe a sense of 'at least our immediate lives aren't too bad, nothing to fearetc;?

Generally speaking, and this is anecdotal, the children I know who are not exposed to news and generally protected (e.g. not letting them watch TV programmes other kids watch if they're slightly too young; being out and about when teenagers) are the kids who are the most anxious.

Maybe the protection comes from parents who are naturally anxious themselves (personality trait - they see harm everywhere) and that their children are therefore more sensitive to the news hence self regulating it for their children because of that. OR these children are genetically more disposed to being sensitive/anxiuos.

But by exposing children (or responding to it, if they seek it out themselves) to reality, and discussing it, you are ensuring they feel ready for the world. It doesn't mean you force feed them news about rape/murder etc.

Having to step out of a 'bubble' is much more frightening than feeling that you're part of the world - that which is bad but mostly that which is good - and in the knowledge that you can process it by talking about it in a safe environment.