Adolescence until 25?

[Boges]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24173194

New guidance for psychologists will acknowledge that adolescence now effectively runs up until the age of 25 for the purposes of treating young people. So is this the new cut-off point for adulthood?

"The idea that suddenly at 18 you're an adult just doesn't quite ring true," says child psychologist Laverne Antrobus, who works at London's Tavistock Clinic.

"My experience of young people is that they still need quite a considerable amount of support and help beyond that age."

Child psychologists are being given a new directive which is that the age range they work with is increasing from 0-18 to 0-25.

Is this is because kids these days can't find jobs that even remotely allow them to be financially independent until well into their 20's, sometimes 30's?

I do think this is just a way for child psychologist's to make work for themselves. At no point in human history would anyone consider people that have been alive for 25 years to not be a fully functioning adult.

People were forced to be adults in their early teenage years. This is just another way to coddle the upcoming generation if you ask me.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Boges

[eyeball]

On the other hand forcing kids to stop being kids at an earlier age just gets their parents off the hook sooner.

Edited September 25, 2013 by eyeball

[Boges]

Well the law says 18.

Should the parents be legally bound to provide for their child until 25 now? What about 30?

[eyeball]

In a day and age of racing to the bottom, child soldiers and child factory workers I highly doubt that will happen.

But in any case why does 18 ring so true, just because the law has said so for a few generations? I suppose if the Fraser Institute came out tomorrow and declared that adulthood actually starts at 13 all sort of people would be cheering and declaring "I knew it".

[Boges]

In a day and age of racing to the bottom, child soldiers and child factory workers I highly doubt that will happen.

But in any case why does 18 ring so true, just because the law has said so for a few generations? [/size]I suppose if the Fraser Institute came out tomorrow and declared that adulthood actually starts at 13 all sort of people would be cheering and declaring "I knew it".

I don't know why they choose 18. I guess because most people have completed mandatory education by 18. By 25 most would have completed secondary education and should be starting their career of choice.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Boges

[BubberMiley]

By 25 most would have completed secondary education and should be starting their career of choice.

Thereby becoming fully independent adults.

[Boges]

Thereby becoming fully independent adults.

Well you could argue that starts at 22 once someone leaves university.

I think an argument could be made for 22 or 21. But not 25.

[carepov]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24173194

Is this is because kids these days can't find jobs that even remotely allow them to be financially independent until well into their 20's, sometimes 30's?

I do think this is just a way for child psychologist's to make work for themselves. At no point in human history would anyone consider people that have been alive for 25 years to not be a fully functioning adult.

People were forced to be adults in their early teenage years. This is just another way to coddle the upcoming generation if you ask me.

No, the new guidance is based on physiological differences between adolescents and adults. It is a good thing that health care workers, university guidance councillors, parents and of course young adults/late adolescents themselves are aware of these differences and to apply this knowledge appropriately.

I am against coddling and "helicopter parenting" but I am also against the idea that parents and children should be completely independent of one another. There is nothing wrong with depending on family members. In many cases it just makes more sense to share a home with parents or even grandparents, weather you are 18, 25, 35, or 60. In other cases it makes more sense to move out when you're 16.

[Guest]

So no Voting, Driving, Drinking, Sex, etc, until 25, eh?

Suits me.

Edited September 25, 2013 by bcsapper

[Argus]

There was a time you were considered more or less adult at fifteen or so. By then you were likely married and had a kid or two. There was no time for coddling. You learned responbility very young.

I read an article a month or two back about an eight year old African girl who walked miles to school every day, alone, along busy highways and through dangerously abandoned forest paths. In Canada, we don't even let kids that age out of the yard without adult supervision, not even to the park up the street. A while back a colleague of mine expressed anxiety because her fifteen year old son was going to be taking a city bus somewhere that day all alone for the first time. I was riding city buses and subways alone at eleven, and wandering the neighbourhood at eight. We have regressed in what responsibilties we give to kids, and what we expect from them in the way of self-sufficiency. We have also protected them from the kind of routine life errors which we all learned from when we were kids. It's hardly surprising that people in their twenties have not fully developed as adults.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23239800

Edited September 25, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

Well the law says 18.

Should the parents be legally bound to provide for their child until 25 now? What about 30?

Nobody said that.

In reality, many kids are still in school until 25, with maybe a year or so off to work and get some direction.

[Boges]

Nobody said that.

In reality, many kids are still in school until 25, with maybe a year or so off to work and get some direction.

If you're in post-secondary school for 7 years you better be looking at a Law or Medical career afterwards.

[Bonam]

If you're in post-secondary school for 7 years you better be looking at a Law or Medical career afterwards.

Or a PhD in any field.

That being said, treating people in their 20s as children is insulting and demeaning. Being condescended to and not being considered a "fully functional adult" is not being coddled (as the OP claims) but being relegated to a 2nd class position in society.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Bonam

[Bonam]

In reality, many kids are still in school until 25, with maybe a year or so off to work and get some direction.

People that are 25 are not kids, and you should not refer to them as such, it is insulting. That's blatant age discrimination.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Bonam

[Boges]

Or a PhD in any field.

Sure, but that's not a common experience for most twenty-somethings.

[Bonam]

Sure, but that's not a common experience for most twenty-somethings.

It's an experience that is more common among twenty-somethings than any other age group, as that is when most people who get PhDs get them...

[Boges]

It's an experience that is more common among twenty-somethings than any other age group, as that is when most people who get PhDs get them...

My point is education up to 25 isn't that common.

And if it is, it's the fault institutions of higher learning. There's no reason some undergrad degrees should take 4 years to complete.

[Bonam]

My point is education up to 25 isn't that common.

And if it is, it's the fault institutions of higher learning. There's no reason some undergrad degrees should take 4 years to complete.

No, but for other undergrad degrees, 4 years is pretty reasonable, and for some even 5 is. Mine was a 5 year program and trust me it was fully justified in being so. The point is whether they are still in university studying, or done with their education and off working, people that are in their 20s, and certainly by 25, are indeed "fully functioning adults" and should be treated as such.

[jacee]

If you're in post-secondary school for 7 years you better be looking at a Law or Medical career afterwards.

Many take a year or so off, work, travel, 'find their way in life'.

Some go to college then university, some university then college, some to grad school.

[Boges]

Many take a year or so off, work, travel, 'find their way in life'.

Some go to college then university, some university then college, some to grad school.

Fine but they're still adults or at least should be treated that way.

[GostHacked]

My point is education up to 25 isn't that common.

I will say it will become less common, just because of the rise in tuition costs.

And if it is, it's the fault institutions of higher learning. There's no reason some undergrad degrees should take 4 years to complete.

Link this in to the socialist notion of discovery learning, and how schools are set up, I am surprised anyone can do it in 4 years.

And I don't care how old you are, you should be treated as you act. If you act like a kid, then you should get treated like one !

[jacee]

Fine but they're still adults or at least should be treated that way.

The issue in the OP is that they should be "treated" by child psychologists as they are not physiologically adults until about 25:

New guidance for psychologists will acknowledge that adolescence now effectively runs up until the age of 25 for the purposes of treating young people.

[Bonam]

And I don't care how old you are, you should be treated as you act. If you act like a kid, then you should get treated like one !

Conversely a 15 year old that acts as an adult should be treated as one?

[Moonlight Graham]

But in any case why does 18 ring so true, just because the law has said so for a few generations?

There's no magical numbered day where all of a sudden you graduate from being a child to being an adult. It makes things much easier for the law though. Different people physically, mentally, and emotionally mature at different rates.

I think young people emotionally mature slower these days in some ways because they become independent from their parents at a later age than in past decades. Some 25 year-olds are completely independent of their parents financially and have a lot of emotional independence from them too, meanwhile some 25 y/o people still live at home and their parents and these parents still control aspects of their lives as if they were still teenagers, like where they are allowed to go and who they go with.

[jacee]

And I don't care how old you are, you should be treated as you act. If you act like a kid, then you should get treated like one !

Conversely a 15 year old that acts as an adult should be treated as one?

I hope we're not confusing two meanings of "treat" ?

The OP article is about psychological/psychiatric "treatment" of young people with emotional problems.

You're talking about how parents "treat" their kids.

Different contexts, different meanings, different issues.

Personally, I think the wisdom for parents is ... 'If you want your kids to act like adults, then treat them like adults.'