Over the weekend, the New York Times published an excellent opinion from Pamela Paul arguing why teenagers should get a job. She argues that the most valuable thing a high-school-age individual can do is work because some worthwhile lessons will benefit them beyond the material advantage of income.
Paul lists the insights, which are as follows:
“Being good at school doesn’t mean being good at work.”
“Being fired isn’t the end of your career — and neither is quitting.“
“You learn what it’s like to make minimum wage.”
“You’re being paid for your time.”
“Promotions aren’t automatic.”
“Bosses can behave badly.“
“Being in a workplace means working with people who aren’t like you.”
“Not everyone is as lucky as you are.”
“Boredom comes with the job.”
“School skills can be acquired outside of school.“
All of this is true, and it’s heartening to see a columnist at the Times speak in favor of honest labor. Teenagers should work, especially if they have naught else to do. Anything that takes them away from the desultory existences that so many have lived post-Covid, wasting away before screens, would be a blessing.
But I don’t think she’s right to dismiss extracurriculars (she suggests focusing too much on things such as student government are more for burnishing college applications). Rather, like in adulthood, kids should do one or the other, or both. Extracurricular activities are those organic bonds that make a schooling institution more than a dismal box where academics are attempted for a third of the day.
Sports, clubs, and productions foster community and buy-in from all ages and interests. I’d hate to see these things dropped so that Wendy’s has a few more kids working the till. Instead, the ones I want working are the kids who go straight from school to their empty homes at 3:15 p.m. and spend the next eight to twelve hours consuming unfiltered media.
If I ran the zoo, here’s what I’d do: All students age 14 or older are required to take part in an afterschool activity, watch siblings, or have proof of employment. The greatest danger to a teen is himself, so we keep him so busy with activities and work that he arrives home exhausted.
While such an edict is unlikely to be allowed in a public school, for any private institution, why not go for it? With the expansion of school vouchers and choice, why not tie an activities requirement into enrollment? For parents, such a thing would mean that their kids are no longer latchkey but instead at school or work until an adult is home. For kids whose parents are largely absent, the activities requirement has a bonus of further socialization with responsible adults like coaches, directors, and managers.
Pamela Paul’s piece is a good one. But I think her point lauding pubescent labor is dwarfed by the greater need for our most energetic and temperamental citizens to be engaged in society in any way possible, finding healthy outlets for their very natural anxieties, aggression, and inexperience.