Do you believe a C (around 70%-79%) average in core courses (english, history, science, math) should be required for high school students to have a driver's license?

What do math or history have to do with having your driver's license???

NO absolutely not. It's up to parents to take priviledges away when the grades slip. It's not up to the government to ensure teens keep good grades by punishing them (taking the license) for low grades. Ugh. What more conditions will they consider adding to a teenager's driver's license?

Good survey. I could hardly wait to answer it. Government playing mommy and daddy is one of those things that I feel strongly about.

No. I am in high school. I do not drive. Yet.

No. Just cos someone isn't all that good at spelling or long division doesn't mean they cant drive.

No, I am not in high school and I do not drive. When I was in high school, I didn't even take history, science or math. I did take western civilisation, that was an elective, so was history. There were no courses called "science" or "math". There was chemistry, biology, physics, algebra...those were all electives too. The only required courses were english 11 and 12, social studies 11, and PE 11 in which you could choose boys/girls or co-ed. (I chose co-ed.)

It seems to me that this is something a parent should decide. It seems a bit silly for the law-makers to be getting involved in what is obviously a child-care issue. In the jurisdiction that I live in (British Columbia, Canada) you cannot get a drivers license until you are 18. If your parents sign a document accepting responsibility for your actions, you may get one at 16. This system allows the parent to decide whether or not to let their child drive.

No, don't be daft. A lot of driving jobs (eg hauliers) are going to be taken by people who don't do so well in school. And why shouldn't everyone get equal practice? Not that I can believe American teenagers can drive at 16 - I'd raise the age! At 17, people are just about mature enough. You're taking control of something that could potentially kill, you should be old enough to accept that. It's like having sex - you shouldn't be doing it unless you're old enough to accept the consequences and deal with them (bleh - that made me sound like a pro-lifer! Screw it, I'm too collapsey t go back and change it )

Oh, and I don't drive (I could have started over a year ago, but I don't want/need to. I can't have a car until after university anyway - so what's the point?) and I'm not in High School. I wouldn't even say I was in the British equivalent. I'm 18 and in school, but I finished compulsory education when I was 16.

No- that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

Part of me thinks that's a really cool idea, because it would motivate kids to study. But there are a lot of really intelligent teenagers that simply aren't competent with school--future Einsteins and Eschers and the like. They deserve to be able to drive, too.

Clarification: It isn't about being good at something. A 70% is hard to get when you're averaging ALL 4 courses - if you had three Bs and an F, you could still get a (low) B, which is well above the requirement. And, a waiver could be available is one could prove that the bad grade was only due to a bad understanding. This is more about responsibility.

Clarification: It isn't about being good at something. A 70% is hard to get when you're averaging ALL 4 courses - if you had three Bs and an F, you could still get a (low) B, which is well above the requirement. And, a waiver could be available is one could prove that the bad grade was only due to a bad understanding. This is more about responsibility.

No. I am out of high school, and do not drive. I do know that car insurance rates are different for people with higher grade point averages here in the U.S.

Of course not. I wouldn't see the point of why they would need this.

Since it is not required by law that students complete high school, making it mandatory to be passing in order to drive would mean that drop-outs couldn't hold jobs very easily. Not that I condone dropping out of high school, but some kids have to be able to keep their job regardless of whether they finish school, and those are usually the ones who have circumstances that make it more likely they will fail a course or two. Adding an inability to support themselves to the mix means that they can't stay in school and repeat the course they failed while holding a job that they need to survive, and their only recourse would be to drop out of school entirely, so as to keep their license and their job. There is no reason to do this to the ones who are already having a hard enough time of it.

I'm taking a deep breath here...

that seems like a PARTICULARLY bad idea. The reasons are obvious.

There is a hardship waiver.

I've noticed your vendetta against driving at 16 in America. The situation in your country is entirely different than the situation in my country, and from a psychological and sociological perspective, raising the age to 18 would have some devastating consequences. If you could see how the American family and the American cities are structured, you might be more willing to understand the reasons why we decide to allow minor's to hold driver's licenses.

And statistically... we aren't really terrible drivers. We do get into a lot of accidents but they are more likely to be at low speeds and they are more likely to not involve injuries. And even then, a VERY significant portion of the increased accident rate is a direct result of lack of experience... which, would be a problem regardless of whether the age was raised to 18 or 21 or 50. In fact, some would argue that by learning to drive at a younger age (particularly prior to some of the major 'Culling' or 'streamlining' of neural pathways that occurs in late adolescence), it becomes a more basic part of thought processes and overall we are better drivers throughout life as a result of that.

I'd say that from a practical perspective... there are four trips involved in dropping someone off somewhere and then later on picking them up (there, back, there, back.) If they go there and back themselves there are half the trips, the rate of accidents is immediately halved (ignoring outside factors)... so it is possibly more dangerous for a teenager to be dropped off and then later picked up than it would be for them to just go and come back. There are cultural difference, major infrastructure differences. I'd say that your country has selected the appropriate age given it's conditions, and our country has selected the appropriate age given our own conditions.

The buses here just aren't like they are there. They never will be and it would be impractical based on the ways our cities are structured and contrary to our ideals to set them up similarly. I see a lot of British tourists on the buses in this city. If you come to America and you live with an average American family for a few weeks I think your opinion on the situation would change.

In America, the government was not set up to be involved in this kind of stuff. It's part of the reason why the country has had such a succesful history.

Main complaint: The government just plain shouldn't be involved at that level in the kids lives.

Beyond that, I also see that the time-gap between the two events... grades improving and getting the license back... would be too long to effect much change on the individual's decision to improve their grades. In fact, the outside interference could backfire by preventing parents from using a more psychologically effective short-term suspension of license. And then there is the fact that the system would cost money... and personally I think taxes are high enough.

I mean, basically, why give the government even more power than it already has? The system MIGHT effect the change you want it to change (Which I'd presume is to encourage the kids to raise their GPA's or failing that to prevent what you'd call 'Irresponsible' (and I'd call unscholarly) kids with low GPA's from getting licenses...), but that's not the governments job. That's the problem with Democrats, Socialists, and Totalitarians... they all believe that the government is the entity which should fix all of societies problems.

The American government was not set up to function in that way. The American government was set up mostly to PROTECT the freedom of it's people. This makes it different than any other government which existed before it! The other government's of the world have been set up with the concept of INFRINGING on the freedom of individuals for one effect or another (Socialism-Equality, Feudalism-Class Power, religious totalitarianism-Enforce the beliefs of the religion, Monarchy, ogliarchy- Allow the leader(s) to achieve whatever goals they wish to achieve.). The American government was set up with the idea that if YOU have a problem, FIX IT YOURSELF! If an entire class of people is having a problem... as per great depression, sure, the government will help out... but if it's just you... FIX IT YOURSELF. No one else is having a problem.

No. Higher performance in basic core subjects does not mean higher spatial skills.

No. My grandparents never finished school and they were great drivers.

You can't be saying your public transport is *worse* than ours?! Goodness me!

yes, a car can be a dangerous weapon.

In my area the grades are as follows:
A= 90-100, B=83-89, C=76-82, D=70-75, F=0-69

I don't know if it is 'better' or 'worse'. It's certainly less effectively, but that may not be because of poorer management.

We have different expectations to work towards and different problems to work around, and it isn't **feaseable** for public transportation to meet the needs of the average American. It isn't even **feaseable** for public transport to meet the needs of the average American highschool student.

The main difference is that on average, I'd say we have more, and shorter (making time more significant), appointments, at more far-reaching locations, than I'd say most English do.

We go more places that are farther away for shorter amounts of time... which makes extra transit time a particular problem.

It's a shame really. Our public transport can get you where you want to go most of the time. Often late, but it's better than nothing. It still takes me three hours travelling to and from school each day

I think this restriction would be perfectly within the bounds of reason and would not complain if it were implemented by the state. But I tend to think this sort of thing is better left to parents.

I think pi3141 means that someone who got low marks in school or dropped out would have to wait until 18 to drive, not that they'd be prohibited from driving ever.

I like the idea.

I'm not in high school and no longer drive (due to my vision) but enforcing a certain grade average won't make a student a better driver. Some people without learning disabilties haven't got aptitudes in certain areas of study. To punish someone who has difficulty with algebra for example would be wrong. I graduated high school and I STILL don't understand algebra. I'm fine with geometry, but not algebra.

What do grades in math, history, English & science have to do with getting a driver's license? That's just crazy.