Into Thin Air is a harrowing first-person narrative of the tragic 1996 climbing season (12 died attempting to summit the world's highest mountain that May). Author Jon Krakauer details how a deadly mix of ambition, ego, poor planning, questionable decisions and bad weather killed nine climbers in less than 48 hours.

As devastating as the narrative itself is Krakauer's exploration of the moral issues raised by the actions of expedition leaders and participants on and near the peak. While acts of heroism abound in this tale of high-altitude catastrophe, there are nearly no untarnished heroes. Almost everyone involved made questionable judgments that contributed to the death of one or more fellow climbers.

One exception to this-and instructive to leaders everywhere-was a 29-year-old soloist who attempted the peak a few days before the Everest disaster. Goran Kropp had left Stockholm the previous October on a custom bicycle, planning to haul 240 lb of gear some 8,000 miles to the foot of Everest and then climb the world's highest peak, unaided by oxygen or Sherpas. Hampered by thigh-deep snow, Kropp fought his way to 28,700 feet, just 328 feet and less than 60 minutes shy of the top, before making an inspired decision. Despite having spent seven months getting there, Kropp-concerned that because he had reached his preplanned turnaround time he could not summit Everest and then safely descend-turned back.

"To turn around that close to the summit ...," said Rob Hall, the leader of Krakauer' s ill-fated expedition. "That showed incredibly good judgment on young Goran's part. I'm impressed-considerably more impressed, actually, than if he'd continued climbing and made the top. ... With enough determination, any bloody idiot can get up this hill. The trick is to get back down alive." Hall tragically ignored his own advice, lingering on the summit well past his own preplanned turnaround time in an attempt to help several of his paying clients reach the peak. That decision- combined with those of others and plain bad luck- led not only to Hall's death but to the death of several others as well.

Fortunately, most adolescents don't have the life-and-death responsibility of Himalayan guides for their family, classmates and colleagues. But teens are confronted with complex decisions that involve ambition, ego, and planning, with far-reaching consequences. Before making one of

SAWYER: (reporter) They set out to make a movie, but were thrown headlong into an international tragedy.

BREASHEARS: (film director) We wanted to know who is dead? Who is alive? Where are they?

CLIMBER: It is this fever, good sense be damned. Everest. Everest, you know? Whoa, maybe I can do it, you know?

SAWYER: Everest had already claimed 133 climbers' lives, most on the way down. Rob Hall of New Zealand was a legendary guide who has already taken 39 paying clients to the top of the world until his death on the mountain in 1996. It was rival Scott Fischer’s first time guiding Everest.

CLIMBER: Rob made it clear right from the start that his primary goal really was not to get you on top of the mountain, but to get you back alive.

KRAKAUER: (author) There were a lot of people at base camp who were deluded, who were legends in their own mind. Who thought that if only I didn't have to be an accountant or lawyer or doctor and had time to climb full-time I can do this stuff. And I was guilty of that, too.

SAWYER: Krakauer is not the only one who filed reports on the climb. In Scott Fischer's team, well-known New York socialite Sandy Hill Pittman, who had set a goal of climbing the highest peaks on all seven continents (Everest was the last) was working for NBC. Pittman brought sophisticated satellite equipment; her reports were filed over the Internet as the teams went up the mountain. For the first time, climbing Everest had become a worldwide spectator sport. And Rob Hall and Scott Fischer had the most to gain.

KRAKAUER: There would have been a marketing bonanza there if things had turned out right. There was more pressure than ever for Rob to get me to the summit and for Scott to get Sandy to the summit.

DAVID BREASHEARS: Everyone' s climbed it now. Every Tom, Dick and Harry from every walk of life who has enough money.

SAWYER: For professional climber David Breashears, the challenges and risks of high-altitude filming presented enough problems. He was worried. All the amateurs on the mountain made it dangerous for everyone.

BREASHEARS: You get a guide, you get some money, you climb McKinley, next step is Everest. They don't know any better.

SAWYER: Expedition leaders met to coordinate their summit attempts. There is only a brief two-week window in May when the ferocious weather is calm enough to give climbers a chance to make it to the top. And there were a lot of climbers in 1996. on May 9th, the first omen from high on the mountain. A climber from a Taiwanese expedition takes a bad fall and his team leader, eager to reach the summit, leaves him behind at camp three.

BREASHEARS: That event told me that there was a lot of raw ambition up there and not enough compassion. Four hours later, they called. He was dead. And that was the beginning for us of this whole tragedy.

SAWYER: Higher on the mountain, dozens of climbers now join together, including the teams led by Scott Fischer and Rob Hall. For the film team it is now too crowded, too dangerous to proceed.

BREASHEARS: We looked down from camp three. We counted more than 35 people hot on the trail, and I felt squeezed. And that's when I felt a sense of foreboding and we went down. SAWYER: As the film team descended, the other climbers headed up to camp four. A desolate wind- blown patch of rock littered with hundreds of oxygen bottles from past expeditions. Most climbers must now wear oxygen masks to maintain warmth and strength, and the summit was still a day's climb away. Midnight, May 10th, the two teams led by Scott Fischer and Rob Hall strap on oxygen masks and headlamps and set out for the summit.

CLIMBER: It's cold. It's crisp. The sky is just a blanket of stars. And it really seems like an ideal night.

SAWYER: The climbers knew they all have to move quickly. Rob Hall had told all his clients, if you stay up here too long, you will die. Reporter Jon Krakauer remembers the warnings.

KRAKAUER: He said, "I'm going to call the shots on summit day. If I say we turn around, we're going to turn around." Believe me, I know what's right.

SAWYER: Hall and Fischer wanted their clients at the summit no later than 2:00 that afternoon, so they planned to send a Sherpa from each team out early to attach ropes into the rock and ice to help the clients move more quickly past the most difficult points.

KRAKAUER: Rob Hall emphasized this is the most important thing we do. This has to be done. The year before, the ropes weren't fixed ahead of time. It slowed us down. We didn't get to the summit because of it. I'm not going to have that happen, again this year.

SAWYER: The day's mistakes began there. Scott Fischer's Sherpa, a powerful climber named Lobsang, never showed up to attach the ropes. And the second Sherpa refused to work alone. Confused and desperate to keep moving, Fischer's assistant guide, Neil Beidleman, took over the job himself. How much time do you estimate was lost altogether?

BEIDLEMAN: (Assistant guide to Fischer) At the outside, maybe a couple of hours was lost because of this.

KRAKAUER: I mean, the difference between life and death came down to minutes. The ropes weren't fixed.

SAWYER: As each rope is fixed, there are delays. Climbers are waiting. And as these pictures show, now there is a traffic jam at the top of the world.

CLIMBER: About halfway up this thing, I realize my vision is going south in a big way. I stopped and the others continued.

SAWYER: Rob Hall goes on up the mountain, leading three other clients including Doug Hansen, a postal worker from Seattle, who was a member of Hall's expedition the previous year, he expedition that failed to reach the summit.

KRAKAUER: That really broke Rob's heart as well as Doug's. And he said, "Doug, come back next year, and I guarantee I'll get you to the top. I'll guarantee it. You can do it. I know you can do it."

SAWYER: By 1:25 that afternoon, Neil Beidleman had reached the summit. Uncertain what he should do, it was Beidleman's boss, Scott Fischer, who was supposed to tell his clients when to head back down. And Fischer was somewhere down the mountain with precious minutes going by. Beidleman decided to wait. How long were you there?

BEIDLEMAN: I was at the summit for an hour and 45 minutes.

SAWYER: That' s a long time.

BEIDLEMAN: I thought so.

SAWYER: It is the day's second mistake. And the clients keep coming well into the afternoon and stay to savor their success, forgetting the warnings to turn back by 2:00 p.m. Finally at 3:10, long after the scheduled turnaround time, Beidleman decides on his own to start the clients down, soon passing Scott Fischer, who is weak but still pressing for the summit.

BEIDLEMAN: He wasn't his chipper, strong self at that point. But you know, who is up there?

SAWYER: Rob Hall, the other team leader, waits on top, well past his deadline, for his last client to arrive, postal worker Doug Hansen. These final delays by the team leaders are the last critical mistakes. As Scott Fischer descends from the summit, his last roll of film shows ominous clouds gathering just below the climbers.

KRAKAUER: I was very scared and taking it seriously and want to get in a hurry. And pretty soon, I descend into the storm.

CLIMBER: In the space of several minutes, the wind just comes in like a freight train. I mean, it's really blowing. It's very, very cold. And it turns into a whiteout.

KRAKAUER: You can't really tell where the ridge ends and the cloud begins. It'd be very easy to just walk off this ridge, fall thousands of feet.

SAWYER: Hall was still at the summit with client Doug Hansen, who had now collapsed from exhaustion.

KRAKAUER: Very soon after that, we have a first radio call from just below the summit, Rob asking for help, saying "Doug and I have run out of oxygen. Doug's in trouble. We need help."

SAWYER: To make it worse, Scott Fischer, who has been fatigued and climbing slowly all day, is also near collapse.

SAWYER: Film team leader David Breashears knows there is little that can be done.

BREASHEARS: We're 5, 000 feet away, 5,000 feet away on Everest, at those elevations you might as well be trying to rescue the people on Apollo 13.

SAWYER: Near the summit, Doug Hansen is too tired to move and Rob Hall refuses to abandon him.

KRAKAUER: Rob was the consummate guide. I couldn't imagine him leaving a client, even if it was obvious that it was going to be suicidal to stay. It's just something you just don' t see that much these days. But that was Rob.

SAWYER: Not far away, Scott Fischer's old friend and climbing partner Lobsang tries to rescue him. He tries to drag Fischer back down.

SAWYER: Beidleman found camp four and Anatoli Boukreev, Scott Fischer's Russian guide, one of the strongest climbers in the world.

KRAKAUER: Anatoli went out alone into this storm three times and brought back people who would almost certainly have died without his effort.

SAWYER: Three times he basically risked his life.

KRAKAUER: Not basically, most definitely.

BEIDLEMAN: And I remember just, you know, literally weeping for I don't know how long, half an hour maybe. It was very, very intense.

SAWYER: You felt guilty?

BEIDLEMAN: Oh, sure, for being alive, you know?

SAWYER: Daylight, May 11th, Rob Hall and his client Doug Hansen were somewhere near the south summit. Scott Fischer lies some 1,800 vertical feet below.

KRAKAUER: Camp four is chaos. The wind is blowing so hard, you can't talk from one tent to the other. No one really has a plan. From then on, the nightmare just intensified.

SAWYER: Down below, film team leader David Breashears waits, expecting the worst.

BREASHEARS: We knew it was a disaster. We knew how many people were out through the night. We expected more people to die.

SAWYER: Hours later, rescuers from down the mountain finally reached the survivors at camp four. The storm was raging now. Five people are still trapped near the summit, among them, two of the most experienced climbers in the world. The film team makes a critical decision to put down the IMAX camera and organize a rescue. On the second day of the storm, the winds are still howling, the temperatures far below zero. Yet, somewhere near the south summit, team leader Rob Hall is alive and talking on his radio to his old friend, Ed Veisturs, the film team's lead climber.

SAWYER: Doug Hansen, the client Rob stayed behind to save, is now dead. And on the radio, Veisturs is desperate to get Rob to save himself. As the storm continues to rage, 40-year-old team leader Scott Fischer is still missing. A rescue team climbed out in the life-threatening conditions to find him. Hours later they reported back. Scott was dead. Exhaustion, high altitude and intense cold have overcome the powerful Scott Fischer. Now the last hopes are focused on team leader Rob Hall, who is even further away. Hall is barely alive and too frozen to move. A second rescue party fails to reach him in the storm. And the terrible news is radioed down the mountain. The Sherpas have turned around, and then, they can't get to Rob. SAWYER: It was 6:40 in the evening. Rob Hall' s radio was patched through again to his home in New Zealand and his wife, Jan Arnold. It is a call heard on radios across all the camps on Mount Everest.

KRAKAUER: He's trying to put a good face on it. I mean, this guy is freezing to death. And he's trying not to worry his wife. And she ends by saying, you know, "I'm really sending all my positive energy your way. Don't worry, my love, I'll take care of you when you get back." And Rob, you know, he's still, "Oh, I'm sending all my positive energy your way, sleep well. I hope you are comfortable."

SAWYER: What was it like listening to that conversation?

KRAKAUER: It was heartbreaking.

SAWYER: Dawn, on the third day. Rob Hall's radio has been silent throughout the night. Both expedition leaders dead on the mountain.

1. Who is Rob Hall? Who is Goran Kropp? Who is Jon Krakauer? Of the three men, who was responsible for whom?

2. Expedition leaders are responsible for their participants (or clients) because they are paid large sums of money – up to $65,000 US – to take care of them while they attempt to summit Mt. Everest.

3. Do you think clients should be "guaranteed" to reach the summit? Why or why not? If you agree, then does the expedition leader’s responsibility towards the client change?

4. There is competition between expedition leaders to see who has the most clients reach the top of Mount Everest. What are your feelings about this competition? Is it healthy or unhealthy competition? Explain.

5. Explain why Goran Kropp is an anomaly.

6. Why did Rob Hall respect Kropp’s decision?

7. What is ironic about Rob Hall’s admiration for the Scandinavian?

8. What sort of "questionable judgments" could have been made "that contributed to the death of one or more fellow climbers?"

9. Everyone attempting to summit Mt. Everest is faced with similar decisions: Is the weather good? Are conditions safe? Do we have enough oxygen? Is there time before nightfall to go up and back? There is always a turning back point. Indeed, it is often said we reach "turning points" in our lives. Share with the rest of your group such a turning point in your life.

10. Was this turning point having to go back? Sometimes, do you have to go backwards in order to go ahead again? Discuss.

11. "Before making one of those judgments, ask yourself just what summit you are trying to reach, and at what cost." How does this apply to your life? Are you responsible for others? Do decisions you make affect people close to you? Give examples and explain.

Milgram’s assistants approached twenty- to fifty-year-old passers-by in the street completely at random and asked for their help with a series of scientific experiments supposedly designed to test the relationship between learning and punishment. When one of these volunteers arrived at the agreed time at the research department of Yale University he would always run into a young man who had supposedly come for the same purpose but who was in reality one of Milgram’s assistants. Dressed in a white coat as a symbol of authority, the research director then got the two to toss a coin for which role they were to play. One of them was supposed to be the “teacher,” the other the “pupil”. The toss was rigged so that Milgram’s assistant always won the part of the “pupil.” In the presence of the “teacher” the assistant was then tied to a kind of electric chair and left with one hand free for working a push-button, his means of responding to questions. The pupil would give a creditable performance of anxious unease and consternation when the director explained that each wrong answer would be followed by an electric shock. The teacher had previously been given a sufficiently unpleasant trial shock of 45 volts for his own information.

Then director and teacher went into the room next door. The doors were shut; the only contact with the pupil was through a microphone and a loudspeaker. The teacher was then presented with a list of words that he was to read out for the pupil to memorize and repeat by means of certain sequences of push-button signals. Then the teacher took up his position at a switchboard with thirty levers for different current strengths, ranging from 15 to 450 volts, and descriptions ranging from ‘slight shock’ to ‘danger, severe shock.’ His instructions were that the current was to be increased with every wrong answer.

Of course the carefully tutored pupil did not really get an electric shocks but made his mistakes according to plan and worked a pre-recorded tape of his own voice. From 75 volts upwards he could be heard drawing in his breath with a hiss and stifling his groans; at 180 volts he screamed loudly, “Stop”. After this he started to weep and beg for mercy and eventually he howled wordlessly like an animal. From 300 volts upwards he no longer reacted at all, and the remaining questions were unanswered. But as no answer counted as a wrong answer, the teacher had to go on asking more questions and administering further shocks.

The way the experiment was set up allowed none of the volunteers to doubt its genuineness. All of them agreed on this afterwards. The real question the experiment asked was, of course: "How far will a human being go if an anonymous authority orders him to torture or even kill a fellow human?"

The quite appalling result was: in the United States 65 % of the volunteers continued to play their part of teacher right to the 450-volt limit in spite of the victim’s earlier cries and his eventual silence. When this experiment was repeated at the Maxwell Planck Institute in Munich the result was 85%. Since then the experiment has been repeated with a number of variations by critics and skeptics, and the statistics proved to be correct.

In other words, on average three out of four men will be ready to torture and kill to order without questioning the reason. Not one of us should necessarily believe ourselves to be one of the rare exceptions.

Nearly all the people in the various experiments experienced an unwillingness to continue after their victim evinced his first expression of pain. But the director, leaning against the wall with his arms crossed, would not enter into any discussion and instead wearily countered every attempt at stopping with stereotyped remarks, "Go on – it’s necessary for the experiment – I can’t explain it to you now – go on – you have no choice." Most of the volunteers wiggled, sweated, groaned or laughed nervously and said more than once they did not once want to proceed. But those who were particularly vocal about the inhumanity of the experiment were those who continued to the very end.

Discussion afterwards revealed that nearly all the volunteers had thought that the victim was unconscious or perhaps even dead. Most of them were profoundly disturbed by their own behavior and could not understand it. Trying to find reasons for it they would say things like: "I did not want to get anything wrong, to disturb the experiment." They told themselves that the scientists must know what they were doing.

This compulsion to "get it right" and the inability to criticize a nameless authority is not aggression but its biologically necessary counterpart, group loyalty and subordination. These traits, too, have become pathologically overdeveloped in human society – as this experiment shows – to the point where established anonymous authorities like ‘the state’, ‘science’ or even ‘the revolution’ can make everything legitimate by way of a rubber stamp, white coat or armband.

The picture we generally have of human being and human society is wrong. Before Stanley Milgram started his experiment he asked forty well-known academic psychologists and psychiatrists to predict the results. These experts predicted that the great majority of the subjects would stop the experiment at the first signs of pain in the victim, 4% would continue up to 200 volts (loud cries) and only 0.1% would continue to the bitter end.

Something inside us refuses to replace this idealized view of mankind with a more realistic one. Anything that upsets our idealized picture we describe as "inhuman." Auschwitz, the Congo, Bangladesh, Vietnam – it is always "the others" who would do such things, never the majority. But 65 % of Milgram’s experiment cannot represent exceptions; on the contrary, it represents normality.

1. If the “pupils” had actually been injured or killed, whom do you think would have been held responsible?

2. Do you think that some of the “teachers” actually wanted to hurt the “pupils?”

3. The “teachers” defended themselves based on “obedience” – they were just following orders of the superior. Can you think of any other times in history when the accused have argued a similar defense?

4. At the time, the study raised many questions about how the subjects could bring themselves to administer such heavy shocks. Why don’t you think more of the “teachers” didn’t refuse to continue? It was a volunteer experiment!

5. All of the teachers were “adults” in the study. Do you think teenagers would have reacted differently? Why or why not?

6. “To oppose authority is always romantic and principled, to uphold it prosaic and cowardly.” Discuss this quotation in relation to Milgram’s experiment.

7. Define ethical. What ethical right did Milgram have to expose his subjects to such stress?

8. What activities should be and not be allowed during research? Where should the line be drawn?

9. Does the search for knowledge always justify such “costs” to subjects? Who should decide is issue? What do you think happened to the “teachers” when they got home from participating in the study? Answer A, B or C.
   Pretend you are the teacher. Explore:

   
   
   • Moral & ethical issues
   • Your feelings about responsibility
   • How your life changes
   
   A) You open your journal and pour your heart out.
   B) You write a letter to a close friend explaining the events of the day.
   C) Your spouse asks, “Hi, how was your day?” Write the ensuing dialogue.

Why do people make the choices they make? Think of the 1996 Everest tragedy. What motivates high altitude climbers to tackle Everest despite the real risks of illness, injury or death? Do they not take into account the concerns of family members and other loved ones?

“Life always gets harder toward the summit – the cold increases, responsibility increases.” – Nietzsche.

How much responsibility should teenagers have? Adolescents are still learning to take responsibility for their actions and not blame others. At what age do you realize that you have responsibilities not just to yourself, but to your family, your friend, your team and others.

Just like on Everest, what motivates teenagers to experiment with mind-altering substances, despite the real health risks as well as risks of legal prosecution and the disapproval of family and friends?

• Teens and Alcohol
• Teens driving
• Chores at home
• Teens setting examples
• Teenage pregnancy
• Responsibilities that come with age; losing innocence

• Posters and flowcharts are visually stimulating for your audience
• What about using music or a video? (Remember to ask your teacher to book equipment for the day of your presentation)
• Try to involve the class in your presentation. Could you ask out members of the class to act out scenarios?

(A) It is important to analyze what has become the norm in American society -- that kids today grow into adulthood gradually. For instance, a New Jersey resident born before 1985 is allowed to drive independently at 17, vote and buy cigarettes at 18, and purchase alcohol at 21. Perhaps the problem faced by the United States in dealing with juvenile delinquency lies in the fact that since a growing person reaches adulthood in a set of milestones, teens do not understand when they must take responsibility for themselves as adults.

Granted, it is necessary for a person to live a psychologically healthy life by proceeding through transitions rather than abrupt changes. Yet America has prolonged the transition of children into adults, which has given teens and young adults an excuse for extended rebellious years and irresponsibility.

Maybe the solution is to condense the period of time in which adult privileges and responsibilities are given to growing people.

(B) They smoke, they drink and they are sexually active. Yet they are still children - and they are paying the price for growing up too quickly?

Losing their childhood innocence is bad enough. Even worse is that the prematurely grown-up generation of 12-year-olds and under are suffering mental health problems, emotional breakdowns and depression.

Scotland's chief medical officer Sir David Carter says this "health time-bomb" is being caused by the pressure of growing up too fast. Childhood, which used to be a gradual transition from the years of innocence to the experimental years of the teens, has disappeared.

Primary school children are trying out adult vices - and sticking with them. The number of 11-year-olds regularly smoking and drinking has increased alarmingly and within a few years. Before they are 15, an alarming 1 in 3 have had sex.

Although they may be more "adult", they are still vulnerable children. Sir David blames peer pressure to experiment with grown-up habits and the media, especially TV, for showing unsuitable programs while children are still up and viewing.

That is too easy a cop-out. The responsibility rests squarely with parents. They should know what their children are doing and guard them against society's worst influences. If today's children are losing their innocence, it is not their fault. It is because they are being let down by those who should be protecting them.

With talk of stricter teen driving laws filling the pre-legislative air this year, Pete Toggerson says he doesn't need the General Assembly to tell him how to keep his teenagers alive. If he finds out his son is driving foolishly, there will be no due process.
"His license is out 90 days," Toggerson said. "He takes the big yellow cheese to school." Toggerson spoke out Thursday night at one of four metro Atlanta town hall meetings about teen driving. About 300 people attended the forums, organized by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in Gwinnett, Cobb, Fayette and DeKalb counties. Parents, teens, state legislators and professionals talked about ways to reduce the number of teen accidents.

Among the more than 60 parents and dozen teenagers in attendance at Meadowcreek HighSchool near Norcross, most agreed --- in fact, insisted --- that parents have to set limits on their teens. Laws go only so far, they say.

Toggerson says the state's teen driving restrictions are worthwhile, but parents don't have to wait for the state to pull their children' s licenses for bad driving. "Am I going to let my kid have a BMW he's going to wrap around a tree? No," added Toggerson. "Why do we do those things?" Pat Van House, a Peachtree Corners mother of a 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old boy, agrees that parents have to have resolve. But she says it's difficult."We get sucked into this idea that somehow we have to do what everyone else is doing, that youhave to be your kid's best friend, " said Van House, who has required her children to log 140 hours of learner's permit driving before getting their full licenses.

Bill Patterson of Snellville knows the pain inexperienced drivers can cause. Patterson lost his teenage son last year after he was hit in his car by a young driver who took a turn too fast on Ross Road near U.S. 78. Patterson sat quietly through Thursday's town hall meeting as a panel made up of a traffic accident investigator, a parent, a teenage student and an insurance professional answered questions from participants.

Karen Beach, a mother of two teenagers, emphasized that parents aren't required to let their teenagers drive at 16. In fact, learner' s permits are good for two years, it was pointed out. "Parents need to take back the right to say no," Beach said. "Driving is not a right. It is a privilege, and we should keep it that way."

Several parents suggested that the state make student drivers log a certain number of hours with an adult driver before being allowed to have a license. "I think a mandatory 50 hours would be an excellent idea," said teen panelist Carrie Hanley, who also likes curfews for teenagers. Parents suggested that driver's education be mandatory as well.

Others complained that the classes were expensive --- as much as $250 for a school-based class. Panelists countered that parents can make up the fee through insurance discounts.

Sgt. Randy Lane, who heads up the accident investigation unit for the Gwinnett County Police Department, said he believes driver' s education should be mandatory. Still, he said, driver's education has to be coupled with additional experience in all kinds of conditions. "To issue a 15-year-old child a learner's license, allow him to drive a few months with Mom or Dad and put him out on the road is ridiculous," Lane said.

Most seemed to agree that simply raising the driving age, as parents and lawmakers have also suggested, is not the best solution. Older teenagers can be just as inexperienced without the right training.

Brian Luders, the parent panelist, maintains a Web site devoted to teen driving issues, and he, too, believes parents have to take responsibility for their teens' driving education. Luders has taken his son on a two-hour drive to the Carolinas, and he recently spent a half-hour driving with him backward in a church parking lot to build the boy's driving experience. "This is a quantity type issue," Luders said.

Glen Rock's Kristin Jerome, Scott Stephen, and Kristen Novack, as standout athletes, realize they are role models for pre-teens, and are willing to accept that responsibility.

The seniors are North Jersey pioneers in a program that's in its third year called Heroes & Cool Kids, in which high school athletes enlighten grammar schoolers on subjects ranging from alcohol to substance abuse to sportsmanship.

"It's nice to be a role model and it makes you more aware that people look up to you," said Jerome, who is an All-State soccer player.

Jerome, Stephen, and Novack are among 30 Panthers currently attending seminars at Montclair State and later will meet several times with groups of about a dozen fifth- and sixth-graders and teach how to handle social situations.

"We have the kids come up with scenarios on drinking, smoking cigarettes, sportsmanship," said Novack, an all-league track runner whose twin sister, Caroline, also is a member.

"It's nice to meet kids down in sixth grade who look up to you and go to your sporting events and be able to give them stories related to social events," said Stephen, an All-State football player.

Heroes & Cool Kids started with Glen Rock, Monmouth, and Perth Amboy and has grown to 20 schools. Former Jet Bruce Harper is the program's director and former Giant Billy Taylor is a student trainer.

"It's the best thing I've done since playing football," said Harper, who lives in Norwood. "It's very rewarding to give myself for the well-being of our kids. All of the people we have working are of good character."

Westwood, Wallington, and Waldwick are in their second years. Passaic Valley is a newcomer and members include brothers Chris and Craig Wright, Kelly Palmer, Stephanie Leporini, and Jesse Mizzone.

"We thought it would be good for kids who had success in high school to influence the young people coming into our school," PassaicValley athletic director John Wallace said. "The message our kids try to get across is anti-violence, anti-drugs, and positive social skills."

Cortney Walker was almost 2 when her mom, Kathy, started giving her dish towels to fold while Mom was handling the rest of the laundry. The towels didn't exactly come out cookie-cutter perfect, but that wasn't the point.

"It's interesting to look at what children do, how that contributes to the well-being of the family and, more important, to the socialization of the children toward their future roles," says Scott Coltrane, a sociology professor at the University of California-Riverside who compiled a decade of research on household labor for an article in the November issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family.

"Division of labor is not just a couple phenomenon," Coltrane said. "It's a household phenomenon, and you have to pay attention to the children." Coltrane's research found that of the typical 48 hours spent weekly on household chores, children average six hours; husbands, 10, and wives, 32. Children in two-parent, dual-earner families and children of highly educated parents do less than children in other types of families, perhaps because many of these parents hire help.

The study also revealed that girls still concentrate on inside chores such as cooking and cleaning, and boys still concentrate on outside chores such as yardwork.

The Smith household in Wallington operates under the traditional model. Linda Smith, a stay-at-home mom, handles most chores herself and does not expect her husband, Joseph, to pitch in after long hours of work. Ed, 17, and Ashley, 16, were not given specific responsibilities until they were teens, and those chores generally are determined by gender.

"I give Ashley more `women's work' inside the house," said her mother, who works along with Ashley as they cook, wash dishes, set the table, and fold the laundry.

Ed, on the other hand, is responsible for taking out the garbage, and outdoor chores such as snowblowing. He also helps his younger siblings with homework. For now, 12-year-old Joey has no set chores beyond cleaning his room, "but he helps me if he's asked," said Smith. Joey's older brother doesn't resent this. "He may as well have fun now," Ed said philosophically.

Gender-based jobs are not practical for Clara Santiago's family, however. The Elmwood Park woman lives with her two boys, 22 and 17, and both sons began doing chores when they were 11 or 12.

"At first I protested," admitted Paul, 17. "But it doesn't matter anymore. I do dishes, I clean my room, I take out the garbage, I walk the dog. It taught me responsibility." Perhaps surprisingly, Paul says he would have his own children do more, earlier. "I don't think I did enough when I was younger," he said.

Kathy and Paul Walker believe that by starting their girls on household chores as toddlers, they are instilling a sense of fulfillment.

Cassidy is responsible for pairing and straightening the footwear the family deposits by the front door when they enter their Ogdensburg home. Her mother notes with a laugh that the 4-year-old has been "caught" on several occasions mixing up the shoes and boots on purpose so she can neaten them again.

"They love to do what they see adults doing, so a lot of the classroom activities are geared to a household setting but scaled down to an age-appropriate level," said Walker.

Teens, on the other hand, might not be as enthusiastic about sock-sorting and bed-making. Yet it is essential for them to become adept at household skills before they strike out on their own.

"Taking advantage of the period of time when your 3-year-old wants to dust, and your grade-school kids want to clean the garage is wise," said Jo Ann Wentzel, a Minnesota parenting consultant and author who wrote about teen attitudes to chores for the online magazine Main Street Mom. "A few years later, work becomes a dirty four-letter word for most teens. Start the habit of having your children help you very early on."

Wentzel advises parents to make chores a prerequisite for free time, and to pay children only for extra jobs. "Regular chores must be expected of kids as they are citizens of that household also," she said.

A creative way to involve teens in household duties is to marshal their high-tech skills. Teenagers can maintain family Web sites or computerize the financial records or household budget.

Another strategy is to let teens gradually assume "adult" jobs such as using the power mower or snowblower, or cooking dinner one night a week.

But parents also need to take into account their teenagers' school and extracurricular responsibilities. Paul Santiago, for example, works part time and plays basketball at Paramus Catholic High School, so his mom doesn't expect him to do as many regular tasks as she once did.

Wentzel also cautions parents to keep their expectations reasonable. "Please, no white-glove test," she implored. "These are your kids -- not a hired maid."

Teen Walks Away from Others Drinking.

ADOLESCENT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE 1990s Almost all American adolescents engage in some type of sexual behavior. Although policy debates have tended to focus on sexual intercourse and its negative consequences, young people explore dating, relationships, and intimacy from a much wider framework. The information below is presented to give policy makers an accurate picture of adolescent sexual behavior in the 1990s.

Throughout time, adults have viewed adolescent sexuality and the developmental tasks of youth as problematic. Over 2,000 years ago, Socrates described youth as disrespectful of their elders: "They are also mannerless and fail to rise when their elders enter the room. They chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers."

Historically, young women and young men did not reach physical maturity until their middle teens. Marriage and otheradult responsibilities followed puberty closely. Today's teenagers are different from young people of generations ago. They reach puberty earlier, have intercourse earlier, and marry later Women and men who marry today do so three to four years later than young people did in the 1950s.

Sexual behavior is almost universal among American adolescents.

MOST TEENAGERS WHO HAVE INTERCOURSE DO SO RESPONSIBLY More than 80 % of Americans first have sex as teenagers. More than half of women and almost three-quarters of men aged 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. However, despite the large numbers of young people who experiment with a variety of sexual behaviors, intercourse is generally less widespread and certainly less frequent than many teenagers and adults believe. The majority of teen use contraceptives as consistently and effectively as most adults.

Be prepared. As you gather material for your presentation, ensure that you have enough to address the topic, but not so much that you will overwhelm your audience. Keep focused; don’t go off on too many tangents.

Be confident. Practice delivering your presentation in front of a mirror, on tape or in front of family and friends until you feel comfortable. Practice won’t necessarily make perfect, but it will help prepare you for all of your classmates watching and listening to you.

Prepare a strong, creative opening. Begin your presentation in a way that interests your classmates. Hook your audience immediately and it will be easier to keep their attention.

Project your voice. Speak loudly enough for those at the back of the room to hear you. Ask at the beginning of your presentation if everyone can hear you.

Maintain eye contact. Look at your audience as much as possible and glance down at your notes only long enough to remind you of what you plan to say next. Avoid looking at friends and giggling fits.

Don’t rush. Speak clearly and slowly so that your audience has the time to consider what you are saying. Don’t think about “getting it over with” – think about “getting it done well.”

Be enthusiastic! Sound interested in your topic, and your audience will be interested too.

Involve your audience. Ask questions, request their help where necessary (don’t just choose friends), present a mini-survey on your topic.

Don’t get distracted. Take questions, but don’t get distracted from your topic.

Use audio or visual materials where appropriate. A poster, chart, taped interview, music can enliven your presentation. Try something new! How about presenting your information as:

• An interview with a famous person or character
• A show-and-tell event
• A local TV personality’s report

As you undertake group work, you will discover that some behavior is helpful in making the process go smoothly and other behavior can have the opposite effect. You will find you enjoy group work more and accomplish what you set out to do if you exhibit helpful behavior and encourage other group members to do so. You’ll be working with people the rest of your lives – now is the time to learn how to do so properly!