DiscussMormonism.com

I think there may another practical consequence for the LDS church that the reduced age may affect. Having boys leave at 18 years of age may result in a reduction in boys going to college. Not just going to college later, but not going at all. Here's why.

If you are an LDS boy in high school, except for church owned schools, there is now no way to apply for college while still in high school. You simply can't apply to schools with no intention of going after you are accepted. Applying is simply a pointless exercise. Under the current system, there is a point in applying because you will immediately attend. Deferring after a year of college attendance still means that you were accepted and did some work; you made good on your intention to attend, even if you take that two year break.

But now there is simply no point of applying. Because of this there is less motivation to take SAT's, ACT's, write application essays, gather teacher recommendations etc., because there is nothing to do with them. The end result is I think a lot of LDS boys will simply put off thinking about college or acting on it until they are 20 and back from missions.

At that point they are going to have to restart academic life, not pick back up from where they deferred. They will have to look up high school teachers to write recommendation letters. They will have to retake or take standardized tests for the first time. They are going to have to find official transcripts, etc. I think for a sizable number of these guys, they will simply enter the work force because restarting all of that will be too big of a pain.

It will be even harder for the guys who marry immediately upon returning home. This will mainly be a Utah/Idaho phenomenon, since many college bound folks in the mission field won't find a mate until being at a church owned college. But for those Utah/Idaho guys, you are now looking at marriage with zero college years completed. A lot of them will feel pressure to support their wife and not attend at all. For those who do make it to college, it's now at least one year longer between marriage and graduation, which I think may lead to increased numbers of LDS boys not completing their college education.

Finally, this may end up being the nail in the coffin on this whole leave-at-18 phenomenon. If this does lead to less college attendance and graduation, this will lead to less money being given to the LDS church. College graduates make more $ and give more $. You may have fewer big $ donors because you have less MD's, JD's, and MBA's graduating. If this is the case, this may not be an acceptable tradeoff for the LDS church. This smells a lot like the short lived plan in the 1980's to have shorter missions because then more boys would serve. If I recall correctly, that resulted in less convert baptisms, which was also an unacceptable tradeoff to the church (even if more boys did serve, I don't recall if that ever happened).

Maybe this will lead to an increase of RMs going to church owned schools where they can continue to mold their mindes

Speaking from a purely selfish perspective, I would have rather left for a mission at 18yoa. So many of us in science and engineering professions had to relearn everything we forgot after two years away. Undergraduate degrees have become more and more worthless. For most undegraduate degrees, if you don't go on to get your masters and often times PhD, financially you're better off joining the carpenters union. What difference does a year make when it's going to take 8 or 9? The only thing I'd like to see in addition to this policy change is to reduce the length of service to 18 months or less. I see this as a positive change for Mormon young men in their efforts to compete in the market place, not just to make sure they remain Mormon after 1 year of college.

I think Aristotle makes an excellent point. It is worrisome that young men will have their education interrupted at a time when it could do much more harm. The young man who started his higher education will likely return to it, but the young man who didn't even start thinking about it before he left may never go.

I think this is, without a doubt, the best argument against the wisdom of this new policy that I have seen yet.

It was that way before essentially. Most didn't go to college during that one year anyways.

How many RM's did you see in non-church school university wards purusing their undergrads (before they became open YSA wards)? All the ones I'd seen were mostly guys that hadn't left their missions, RM's there for a few months selling pest control or security or whatever, RM's on rotation off a church school, or women. Maybe a couple guys who graduated a church schools. Don't that this was atypical. Church schools will credit you for your time away, are cheap, and are a great place to be in a 'spiritual' environment and find your spouse. RM's get accepted, if you're a guy and you didn't serve a mission you usually don't.

I'm not worried about them opting out of college as much as the low academic quality of church schools, and the lack of emphasis on maths and sciences there.

There will always be room for church school educations. They'll find a way. New pathway program has set apart "professors" that teach college classes that are only transferrable for credit to church schools (eventually I'm betting the goal is to offer entire distance degrees). These educations are worthless since they're institute classes, but then again if your major is something like business, family planning, or some non math or science degree like most church school students are pursuing, it doesn't really matter who's teaching or what they're saying anymore. But RM's will always have an easy ride to finish their education given the chuch school option.

Kishkumen wrote:I think Aristotle makes an excellent point. It is worrisome that young men will have their education interrupted at a time when it could do much more harm. The young man who started his higher education will likely return to it, but the young man who didn't even start thinking about it before he left may never go.

I think this is, without a doubt, the best argument against the wisdom of this new policy that I have seen yet.

I still think it'd be better for most young men to have their education interrupted directly after high school rather than 1 year into college. The Church seems to lose a bit because they now have a slightly younger and less mature missionary. I applaud the Church for what seems to me like adopting a policy that improves the life of the missionary even if it costs them a few more expensive plane tickets home from homesick elders.

I understand the argument but I am skeptical less college will result. The Church places heavy emphasis on education. I have seen a number of boys go from our ward without starting school. They have opted to work for a year then go. When they come home they are all off to college. Could be wrong but I just do not expect a large drop off in college attendance for these kids.

Kishkumen wrote:I think Aristotle makes an excellent point. It is worrisome that young men will have their education interrupted at a time when it could do much more harm. The young man who started his higher education will likely return to it, but the young man who didn't even start thinking about it before he left may never go.

I think this is, without a doubt, the best argument against the wisdom of this new policy that I have seen yet.

I think this point has merit.

One argument against voluntary military service used to be that returning soldiers were much less likely to go to college than those who entered a university right after high school. Because they'd lost the momentum of schooling.

Jason Bourne wrote:I understand the argument but I am skeptical less college will result. The Church places heavy emphasis on education. I have seen a number of boys go from our ward without starting school. They have opted to work for a year then go. When they come home they are all off to college. Could be wrong but I just do not expect a large drop off in college attendance for these kids.

I knew people from my home ward who had to go to work in the 90s during that intermission year to fund their missions or they were simply denied the oppurtunity to go. Are missions always paid for by someone else now if the parents can't/won't pay. Have they reduced the maximum age? Could it be that some missionaries will be able to leave at 18 and some will have to work until they can show their bishop they have saved sufficient funds to be eligible to serve?

I think the Church was very sensitive to the issue of many missionaries who were by themselves or with family help not able to pay their way. More than a few of my fellow missionaries were denied leaving their mission early for the sole reason that they could not afford to buy a plane ticket themselves and the Church would not pay for a plane ticket for them to leave early. I saw both Latino and North American missionaries in this situation.

ajax18 wrote:
I think the Church was very sensitive to the issue of many missionaries who were by themselves or with family help not able to pay their way. More than a few of my fellow missionaries were denied leaving their mission early for the sole reason that they could not afford to buy a plane ticket themselves and the Church would not pay for a plane ticket for them to leave early. I saw both Latino and North American missionaries in this situation.

Ajax, how is denying a missionary the ability to leave early being "very sensitive" to missionaries who can't "pay their way"?




edit: Are you just trying to say that the Church knows some missionaries are poor? Looking for clarification.